By Mike Appleton, Weekend Contributor
“This bill is not about allowing discrimination. This bill is about preventing discrimination against people who are clearly living out their faith.”
-Arizona State Sen. Steve Yarbrough (R), on SB 1062.
Assaults on the civil rights of homosexuals and the acceptance of gay marriage have been the focus of a number of state legislatures. The most recent lunacy is a bill in Arizona that now awaits action by Gov. Brewer. The bill amends sections of the Arizona Revised Statutes by incorporating provisions that effectively insulate many forms of grossly discriminatory conduct from legal consequence if done under the cloak of religion. This is accomplished in three steps. First, the bill defines “exercise of religion” to include “the ability to act or refusal to act in a manner substantially motivated by a religious belief, whether or not the exercise is compulsory or central to a larger system of religious belief.” Second, the bill expands the definition of “person” to include “any individual, association, partnership, corporation, church, religious assembly or institution, estate, trust, foundation or other legal entity.” I refer to this as the “Hobby Lobby” amendment. Finally, the bill prohibits, with a strict scrutiny exception, any “state action” that substantially burdens the free exercise of religion even if that state action is a law of general application.
I anticipate that the governor will veto this atrocity, not as a matter of constitutional principle, but out of concern that enactment of the law would further harm Arizona’s reputation and economic interests. But it is nonetheless disturbing that legislators would willingly employ a fundamental freedom as a weapon against a disfavored group of citizens.The legislation has been pushed by the usual suspects. Peter Sprigg, Senior Fellow for Policy Studies at the Family Research Council, has written a piece entitled “The Top Ten Harms of Same-Sex Marriage,” in which he claims, inter alia, that recognition of marital rights for gays threatens the religious liberty of “individual believers trying to live their lives in accordance with their faith not only at church, but at home, in their neighborhoods, and in the workplace.” That, of course, is merely another way of saying that Mr. Sprigg’s religious beliefs must prevail over yours in the event of a conflict, even to the point of requiring that you live somewhere other than where you may wish to live and work somewhere other than where you may wish to work. Mr. Sprigg, who was formerly the pastor of the Clifton Park Center Baptist Church in Clifton Park, New York, believes that tolerance is a synonym for endorsement.
Or consider the words of the Rev. H.M. Goodwin, who lamented the damage to “the unity of the family as a social organism,” striking “at the root of that which should be the first and foremost end of government to protect, the sacred unity of the Family.” Or perhaps don’t consider the words of Rev. Goodwin, because he wrote them in 1884 and the object of his outrage was actually the growing movement in support of women’s suffrage. In that same article, Rev. Goodwin complained of increasing secularism, an example of which was the removal of the Bible from public school classrooms at the instance of “Catholics and infidels.”
The history of this country is littered with appeals to God in defense of oppression. In 1822, Richard Furman, a church pastor in Charleston, South Carolina, wrote a letter to Gov. John Lyde Wilson claiming that slavery “is justifiable by the doctrine and example contained in Holy writ; and is, therefore, consistent with Christian uprightness, both in sentiment and conduct.” That argument became discredited through time and the Civil War, of course, but its legacy was a system of laws that persisted for decades until intervention by the courts, an intervention that the late religious leader W.A. Criswell decried as “a denial of all that we believe in” fomented by proponents of racial integration which he labeled “a bunch of infidels, dying from the neck up.”
The point is that every advance in the rights of man has had to overcome preachers of hatred and theologians of exclusion. Every attempt to admit to the fullness of civic, political and social life a group previously rejected out of ignorance and fear has been resisted by those asserting sole possession of divine truth. And years later, after the battles have been won and the opponents are long since dead, their words are finally recognized for what they are, the intolerant rants of false prophets.
In April of 1965, Lester Maddox stood at the entrance to his Pickrick Restaurant in Atlanta, axe handle in hand, to block three black Georgia Tech students from entering. Mr. Maddox closed his restaurant later that summer rather than comply with court-ordered desegregation, but carried his views all the way to the Georgia governor’s mansion several years later.
In retrospect, Mr. Maddox made a tactical error. Instead of the same old tired arguments about property rights and federalism, he should have cited the Free Exercise Clause. He should have argued that his sincerely held religious beliefs prohibited his serving a ham sandwich to the children of Ham. Or perhaps he should have moved his restaurant to Arizona, where politicians have determined that religious balkanization is a healthy trend and that religious extremism in the defense of bigotry is no vice.
Sources: Goodwin, H.M., “Women’s Suffrage,” The New Englander,” No. CLXXIX (March, 1884); Freeman, Curtis, ” ‘ Never Had I Been So Blind’: W.A. Criswell’s ‘Change’ on Racial Segregation,” Journal of Southern Religion, Vol. X (2007); Sprigg, Peter, “The Top Ten Harms of Same-Sex Marriage,” Family Research Council (2011).
david2575,
with all due respect, a photographer is not part of the religious ceremony. You can be particular who you choose, but he or she is not involved in the religious ceremony. Secondly, no one is suggesting that ministers are forced to marry gay people and that he/she can be imprisoned for declining. That is a purely religious decision on the minister’s part.
rafflaw wrote: “You can be particular who you choose, but he or she is not involved in the religious ceremony. Secondly, no one is suggesting that ministers are forced to marry gay people and that he/she can be imprisoned for declining. That is a purely religious decision on the minister’s part.”
The minister offers a service for hire, right? The photographer offers a service for hire. Why do you give the right to decline service to the minister but not to the photographer? Please explain from a legal perspective, not a religious perspective.
From my perspective, you are not treating them equal under the law. So please explain.
Elaine, I wonder where this bigotry in the name of religion will take America. How many different religions will claim their own unique particular exemptions under freedom of religious expression? I don’t think Muslims should be allowed to refuse service to people who carry alcohol, as I don’t think banning people from businesses or social establishments should be allowed either. Anybody can use whatever nutty religion they want to make a claim, how would Christians feel about being denied service because Muslims consider them to be an infidel and morally repugnant.
Annie wrote: “I wonder where this bigotry in the name of religion will take America. How many different religions will claim their own unique particular exemptions under freedom of religious expression?”
Why frame this about “exemptions.” It is not about exceptions. It is about basic liberty. You focus on hypothetical bigotry in the name of religion, but what about bigotry against religion? The Constitution protects us from bigotry against religion. The Constitution does not protect anyone from those who choose to disapprove of sexual immorality.
But consider this. If it is immoral for a person to choose not to associate with homosexuals, then it would be immoral for a person to preach against homosexuality. You should first put all those preachers in jail who read the Bible. Also, let’s burn all their Bibles, or at least those parts that tell us to discriminate against homosexuals, drunkards, fornicators, cowards, and liars, etc. Is this really the direction in which you choose to lead America?
Here’s how I see it. The religious do not have the power of government. All they have is their voice. So government should protect their right to study. Government also should protect their right to expound upon where their studies lead them. In fact, I think government should facilitate them in those things, the same way Thomas Jefferson did at the University of Virginia. As people respond to their message, people should be free to expound upon their beliefs and also be free to associate with whomever they choose. Government should only step in when people harm one another through action. Government should not put their imprimatur on all forms of sexuality, nor should government force people to approve of all forms of sexuality.
What Mike A. said multiple times!
The Forty Niners have a large gay fan base.
Elaine, This smells like a hoax. HuffPost is a clicks whore website. The more clicks, the more ad dollars. The NFL is going to do the right thing vis a vis Sam’s. Not because it is the right thing to do, but because it is in their own self interest. Branch Rickey was part humanitarian signing Jackie Robinson, but he was more a businessman. It’s a good business and political route to take for the NFL. As I said, they’re threatening to pull the Super Bowl from Phoenix. If a lobbyist wants to ban folks, how about woman beating, drug using, gun carrying, thugs!
Elaine M.:
Just as some representatives see potential political benefit in legislating against the “gay lifestyle,” Mr. Burkman sees potential economic benefit in his proposal. Or perhaps he covets the opening for a new elder in his church, which likely also has potential economic benefit.
Arizona State Senator Al Melvin cannot honestly answer Anderson Cooper’s simple question
Check this out:
A Republican Lobbyist Is Trying To Get Gay Football Players Banned From The NFL
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/02/24/ban-gays-nfl_n_4849250.html
Excerpt:
WASHINGTON — A Republican lobbyist is preparing legislation that would ban gay athletes from playing in the National Football League, a move he says is necessary to prevent American society from sliding into indecency.
Jack Burkman, the CEO of Burkman LLC, said Monday that he would push Republican lawmakers to support the measure, which he put together after college football star Michael Sam announced that he is gay. In an interview with The Huffington Post, Burkman insisted that five members of the House of Representatives and one senator are interested in co-sponsoring the bill, and that those numbers would rise to 36 and five, respectively, within three weeks. Notably, he declined to name any of the lawmakers in question.
The absence of any actual details — from the language of the bill to the names of potential supporters — gave the announcement the unmistakable whiff of a publicity stunt. Burkman’s own public relations firm broke the news of the legislation. Beyond his motive, however, is a larger question: Why would Burkman even bother? Sam’s announcement was met with widespread support. Why should Congress create a conflict where, for the most part, one doesn’t exist?
rcampbell:
Thank you for some excellent points. I attempted to point out, unsuccessfully as it appears, the absurd scope of the Arizona statute. But people become so fixated on homosexuality that as soon as any mention is made of it, the thead quickly veers off into rants.
Appleton, I do see your logic, but I already gave you that when I admited mine was a stretch. Buy extension, you should be able to see my logic, too.
davidm:
A photographer or baker is no more “participating in the celebration of a gay marriage” than is the guy who rents the tuxedos or sets up the folding tables and chairs for the reception.
Mike Appleton wrote: “A photographer or baker is no more “participating in the celebration of a gay marriage” than is the guy who rents the tuxedos or sets up the folding tables and chairs for the reception.”
I completely disagree. When I chose a photographer for my daughter’s wedding, I was very selective and discriminatory about who I chose. They were part of the wedding celebration. There is no way around that. I also have been asked to photograph weddings before, and I felt very much a part of their celebration. Why you see it like setting up a folding table is bizarre.
What about the minister who officiates at a wedding? Do you support the homosexuals right to force him to marry them under threat of imprisonment if he doesn’t do it?
davidm:
We have indeed determined that homosexuality is a constitutionally protected right. The only argument remaining is whether homosexuals may be denied, under cover of freedom of religion, access to goods and services offered to the public generally. Those who support your position contend that operating a barber shop can constitute an “expression of religion,” thereby permitting the owner to refuse to bestow the divine benefit of his tonsorial services on those he deems sinners. That is the theory du jour of theocrats, justified on the transparently flimsy grounds that forcing me to cut a gay man’s hair is equivalent to forcing me to sign an agreement publicly endorsing the “gay lifestyle.”
I happen to be of the view that my beliefs, my opinions and my “lifestyle,’ whatever it may be, are none of the business of my barber and that his only legitimate concern is whether I have the ability to pay the consideration for his services. We are well past the point of signs saying, “No dogs or Mexicans served in this establishment,” “No Irish Need Apply” or “N*gg*r, don’t let the sun set on you in this town.”
You are free to personally despise dogs, Mexicans, blacks, homosexuals, the Irish or Scottish Rite Masons, and freedom of association means that you need not hang out with anyone falling into those categories. Just don’t contend that it is compelled by your religion. The Constitution was intended to guide reasonable people.
Mike Appleton wrote: “Those who support your position contend that operating a barber shop can constitute an “expression of religion,” thereby permitting the owner to refuse to bestow the divine benefit of his tonsorial services on those he deems sinners.”
Barber shop refusing service? What are you talking about? Where did this happen?
I think you are reading a lot into this bill that is not there.
Bron, This country will never be a theocracy. Hell, we are becoming more secular every day.
annieofwi writes:
“Guess what, as a nurse, I had to take care of all manner of people I found morally repugnant or repunant based on other criteria and do it as a professional and with empathy toward their condition.”
Annie, Annie, Annie, don’t you know? While you are taking government money in the course of your employment you have implicitly agreed to be subject to federal legislation respecting how you conduct yourself at the job.
You admitted, “I had to take care of all manner of people I found morally repugnant.” You understood this as a condition of your employment. But no one forced you to work there.
Now the fact that you chose to exhibit empathy was your choice to associate with them in that spirit. Kudos for you.
I am not saying people should discriminate, but Annie, whether you like it or not we do have the right. And when the government forces persons to violate their conscience by doing what they percieve as immoral the government is in the business of discriminating also.
Spinelli is flagrantly violating the civility rule here. Professor Turley please note this. He has made false assertions regarding my bonafides on other blogs and he thinks he’s being slick by doing it here once again in his underhanded way.
The NFL is about to get their first openly gay player. They have so much negative publicity they are getting out front on this and are threatening to pull the 2015 Super Bowl if this law is signed. So, I’m betting Brewer vetoes, Money talks!
The US is never going to be a theocracy unless the left finishes the destruction of the Constitution. But then it really wouldnt matter.
I was wrong, I just Googled it and there is a modified Nightingale pledge for LPN’s.
David
Having sectarian citizens does not change the FACT that this is a secular, non-religious nation.
sec·u·lar [sek-yuh-ler] adjective
1. of or pertaining to worldly things or to things that are not regarded as religious, spiritual, or sacred; temporal: secular interests.
2. not pertaining to or connected with religion (opposed to sacred )
Iran for example is a sectarian nation wherein ancient scripture defines the laws rather than non-religious, secular self-determination. Self-determined by the people, not dictated from a fairy tale. The US is not Iran. The US is not sectarian. The US is secular. Whatever religious freedoms exist for Americans exist because of our secular Constitution, not divinity.
This law would have made it perfectly legal for a bank loan officer to refuse to lend money to a divorced woman or for a landlord to refuse rental to an unmarried couple because of religious objections to divorce or cohabitation. That specific example was used to on CNN yesterday to illustrate the far reaching insanity of such laws. That’s what’s un-Constitutional about the AZ bill which will never become law. One citizen does not have, nor has ever had, the right or legal protection to individually nullify the Constitutional rights of other Americans for any reason let alone for religious ones.
rcampbell wrote: “Having sectarian citizens does not change the FACT that this is a secular, non-religious nation.”
We are not a secular, non-religious nation. Are you claiming that there are no citizens in this nation who are religious? What planet are you on?
I’m not religious, but I know plenty of people who are. Their concepts and ideas permeate society. I’m helping a man in his eighties with publishing his memoirs right now. He is a relative of the famous author Stephen Crane. He is not religious, yet his memoirs are riddled with numerous experiences involving religion, religious people, why he chose not to believe, etc. Try to find anyone in society who has not heard the words Jesus Christ or heard of the Bible or Christianity or Judaism or Islam. It would be pretty hard to find anyone like that.
Anyone who believes our government is a government of the people, by the people, and for the people, must reject the notion of a secular government as well as reject the notion of a sectarian government. The notion of a theocracy must also be rejected because our people belong to various religions. Many belong to no religion. Therefore, the government is not secular. Nor is it a theocracy embracing only one religion. Our government is meant to serve all people of all religions and those of no religion.
Speaking as a nurse with a Master’s degree, I think once again someone doesn’t know what he’s talking about. People who are decent human beings do what they have to to live in a civilized society.
Annie wrote: “People who are decent human beings do what they have to to live in a civilized society.”
I agree with you Annie. If somebody was hurt, I would do what I could to help, regardless of gender, race, religion, or sexual orientation.