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).
samantha,
Who did that?
annieofwi
That’s because most people don’t need links and multiple citations to grasp what is self evidently true.
Take for instance the small child who without citations quickly learns the repugnant nature of human waste after a few times having their diaper changed.
And take for instance both the baby and the caretaker who quickly realize without links that human waste is smelly and nasty, to put it mildly.
And take for instance small children who are so adept to learn without citations that playing in the potty isn’t appropriate as it is very smelly and nasty.
And take for instance how without any citations young children quickly recognize the necessity to wipe their bottoms so as to remove any smell or filth from leftover human waste.
And take for instance how without any links young children have the ability to recognize how repugnant other children are who fail to engage in good hygeine practices who have body odors..
And take for instance how without citations or links the majority of adults find all these aforementioned events or practices repugnant.
And take for instance how without either citations of links the majority of adults also find the sexual practices of homosexuals to be equally repugnant and filthy as the aforementioned examples.
Now Annieofwi, if you or any of the other persons on this thread need some citations or links to make the connections I have pointed out, I will try to find you some. It might be difficult however, seeing that these facts are so well recognized that it is doubtful anyone has wasted the time to gather together links or citatioins.
And finally Annieofwi take for example the fact that it is a universally recognized natural right that no other person has the right to force another to associate with those they choose to reject.
And since no other single individual has any rightful authority to force others to associate, it is therefore impossible that a mob of such persons could ever be lawfully vested with any rightful authority either. Might of majorities doesn’t make right.
But if you persist in desiring to force others to associate with those whom they choose to reject, would you personally initiate the force necessary to implement the law compelling those people to do so? If so, from whence do you recieve your authority to initiate violence against another human?
.
recognize the repugnant nature of
In one breath Romney is condemned for his religion and conservatism, then in another breath championed, used to further an agenda. I sure wouldn’t want to be on the same team with this type of person. Romney is just running for cover, like every other weak-knee person today.
Mitt Romney To Jan Brewer: Veto Arizona Anti-LGBT Bill
Igor Bobic
February 25, 2014
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/mitt-romney-to-jan-brewer-veto-arizona-anti-lgbt-bill
Elaine, I don’t understand people who only spout their opinions and never back them up with links, unlike you and others here who back up what they assert with multiple citations. I really appreciate all of you folks and your efforts.
Annie wrote: “I don’t understand people who only spout their opinions and never back them up with links, unlike you and others here who back up what they assert with multiple citations.”
Links do not back up opinions. They reference more information about what is being said, so those interested can study further.
In the case of Elaine, she often provides links to someone else’s opinion without expressing her own. I fail to see how that backs up her opinion. Do you think someone is right about something just because somebody else said the same thing somewhere else? Do you really think that we don’t know how to find these other articles on our own? The idea of a forum like this is to discuss our own opinion, not to prove an argument with links. Most of the time, I don’t know what Elaine thinks because she doesn’t say. I only know that she loves to spread left wing propaganda as much as possible. That only tells me where her sentiments lie, but not how she actually thinks. Is she a lefty because of logic or emotion? Is she a lefty because of tradition? Who knows.
Having said all that regarding general statements of providing links, some of Elaine’s recent posts in this particular thread have been helpful in showing the pressure being put on the governor from various sources to veto this bill. For that, I would add my thanks to her for her contribution.
nick spinelli
MikeA, Elaine never thinks a subject is exhausted.
*****
People who are inquisitive are open to learning more about subjects/issues of interest to them.
Arizona Super Bowl Committee Urges Veto Of State’s ‘License To Discriminate’ Law
By Travis Waldron
February 25, 2014
http://thinkprogress.org/sports/2014/02/25/3327381/arizona-super-bowl-committee-urges-veto-states-license-discriminate-law/
Excerpt:
As Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer (R) considers whether to sign a law that would give businesses a “license to discriminate” against LGBT people, the state’s Super Bowl host committee is urging her to stamp a veto on the bill.
University of Phoenix Stadium in Glendale, Arizona is scheduled to host Super Bowl XLIX next February.
“We share the NFL’s core values which embrace tolerance, diversity, inclusiveness and prohibit discrimination,” the host committee said in statement released Monday. “In addition, a key part of the mission for the Arizona Super Bowl Host Committee is to promote the economic vitality of Arizona. On that matter we have heard loud and clear from our various stakeholders that adoption of this legislation would not only run contrary to that goal but deal a significant blow to the state’s economic growth potential. We do not support this legislation. Instead, we look forward to continuing to promote the NFL’s values while focusing on the economic momentum apparent in Arizona and capturing the positive worldwide attention associated with hosting Super Bowl XLIX.”
The NFL’s Arizona Cardinals also expressed opposition to the bill.
“What so many love about football is its ability to bring people together,” the team said in a statement. “We do not support anything that has the potential to divide, exclude and discriminate. As a prominent and highly-visible member of this community, we strive to bring positive attention to the state. We are concerned with anything that creates a negative perception of Arizona and those of us who are fortunate to call it home.”
Arizona business leaders have warned that signing the bill into law could jeopardize the state’s Super Bowl, and Delaware Gov. Jack Markell (D) said Monday that the NFL should look into moving the game if the law goes into effect. As the Huffington Post noted, the NFL moved Super Bowl XXVII out of Arizona when the state refused to recognize Martin Luther King Jr. Day as a federal holiday. The state also faced threats from Major League Baseball when Brewer signed a broad anti-immigration law — SB 1070 — in 2011, just ahead of the league’s All-Star Game (the game was held as planned, though it was surrounded by protests and complaints from Latino ballplayers).
nick spinelli
MikeA, Elaine never thinks a subject is exhausted.
*****
People who don’t have closed minds are like that.
Well, it’s obvious the authors of this bill screwed up, going by all those trashing worship. Had they based the bill not on morality but on OCD, instead, who could object? You can’t force a physically challenged person to perform duties that are physically impossible.
davidm:
During the Vietnam war, there were many people who had grave concerns about the war’s morality under both traditional notions of just war doctrine and personal moral beliefs. Those “rights of conscience” were not recognized and people were sent to prison for asserting them. Prison was the price for bearing witness to those beliefs, and I admire those who willingly paid that price. However, no society can survive if an individual is permitted to defend any act, or refusal to act, on grounds of personal conscience. The exemption for conscientious objectors is not considered to be constitutionally mandated, and its application has accordingly been limited to those who object to all wars.
According to an editorial in the Washington Examiner:
NFL spokesman Greg Aiello told USA Today. “Our policies emphasize tolerance and inclusiveness and prohibit discrimination based on age, gender, race, religion, sexual orientation or any other improper standard. “We are following the issue in Arizona and will continue to do so should the bill be signed into law, but will decline further comment at this time.”
Yep, let the games begin. And, this would be just the beginning if the guv signed the bil into law.
Mike Appleton wrote:
“Religious views were advanced to oppose equality for women without success.”
Yes, and religious views also were advanced to support equality for women with success.
Mike Appleton wrote:
“Religious views were advanced to oppose racial equality without success.”
Yes, and religious views also were advanced to support racial equality with success.
Mike Appleton wrote:
“Religious opposition to equality for gays will likewise be unsuccessful.”
Maybe… but religious argument have been put forward on both sides for this as well. Why cherry pick “religious views” to be only those you view as being on the wrong side? Religion does not have a monopoly on being wrong all the time, does it?
davidm:
Because the “rights of conscience” are quicksands capable of quickly swallowing the foundations of a pluralistic social structure.
Mike Appleton wrote: “It just goes to show that religious bigotry rests upon a foundation that will readily collapse under the weight of sufficient piles of cash.”
We aren’t waiting on the pope to veto or not veto the bill. We are waiting on a governor. She’s probably Lutheran the same way you are Catholic. If so, you guys have nothing to worry about. That veto is on its way.
This is a capitalist society and money talks. Cash is what helped break the color barrier in baseball. I know many folks here hate that we are a capitalist society but that’s the fact, Jack!
Elaine:
It just goes to show that religious bigotry rests upon a foundation that will readily collapse under the weight of sufficient piles of cash.
MikeA, Elaine never thinks a subject is exhausted.
Apple Warns Arizona Governor Anti-Gay Bill Will Hurt Highly Anticipated Sapphire Glass Factory
By Lauren C. Williams
February 25, 2014
http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2014/02/25/3328891/apple-arizona-anti-gay/
Excerpt:
Apple called up Arizona’s governor, Jan Brewer (R) Tuesday to urge her to veto the state’s anti-gay bill.
The state’s controversial SB 1062 bill allows individuals to discriminate against LGBT people and potentially other groups based on a religious objection. But the bill is a particular threat to local businesses because it threatens to upend any non-discrimination policies they have in place.
Brewer has only a few days to decide whether to veto the bill. If passed, employees would be able to discriminate against customers and fellow employees, refusing to do business with them based on their personal beliefs. For example, a baker could turn away a same-sex couple who wants to buy a cake.
Apple has a vested interest in stopping the bill: it’s on the verge of opening a new manufacturing plant in the state. Apple’s new Sapphire glass plant is expected to break ground in 2015 and promises a potential 2,000 jobs, 700 permanent jobs and 1,300 more in construction.
Apple joins other major companies, including Marriott and American Airlines, in warning Brewer about the bill’s potential damage to the economy. It “would have profound negative impacts on the hospitality industry on the Arizona and on the state’s overall economic climate for years to come,” Marriott predicted in a public statement. The state Super Bowl Committee, Arizona businesses and even conservative lawmakers also who originally voted in favor of the bill all support a veto. One of Arizona’s largest employers, Intel also offered support Tuesday to veto in response to LGBT blogger and activist Scott Wooledge‘s email request.
And the perversion spreads to another state:
Georgia Lawmakers Want to Allow Businesses to Kick Gay People Out of Diners
—By Dana Liebelson
| Mon Feb. 24, 2014
http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2014/02/new-bill-georgia-would-allow-businesses-kick-gay-people-out-diners
Excerpt:
A bill moving swiftly through the Georgia House of Representatives would allow business owners who believe homosexuality is a sin to openly discriminate against gay Americans by denying them employment or banning them from restaurants and hotels.
The proposal, dubbed the Preservation of Religious Freedom Act, would allow any individual or for-profit company to ignore Georgia laws—including anti-discrimination and civil rights laws—that “indirectly constrain” exercise of religion. Atlanta, for example, prohibits discrimination against LGBT residents seeking housing, employment, and public accommodations. But the state bill could trump Atlanta’s protections.
The Georgia bill, which was introduced last week and was scheduled to be heard in subcommittee Monday afternoon, was sponsored by six state representatives (some of them Democrats). A similar bill has been introduced in the state Senate.
The Georgia House bill’s text is largely identical to controversial legislation that passed in Arizona last week. The Arizona measure—which is currently awaiting Republican Gov. Jan Brewer’s signature—has drawn widespread protests from LGBT groups and local businesses. One lawmaker who voted for the Arizona bill, Sen. Steve Pierce (R-Prescott), went so far as to publicly change his mind.
Gosh, Mr. Lee, and all this time I thought “inalienable” meant “incapable of being an alien.”
Look, the Founders were not libertarians. And libertarianism does not inform the development of constitutional law. I believe that we have just about exhausted this subject.