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).
No, not in that case. Nor in the case of a promiscuous straight person. The cause would be promiscuity, not homosexuality. David, really? That should be obvious.
Annie wrote: “The cause would be promiscuity, not homosexuality.”
But the problem is that if the law protects this special class, there will be lawsuits based upon that, whether or not they have merit. Perhaps you do not realize that promiscuity goes along with being a gay man about like wearing makeup goes along with being a woman.
Night of the Living Bigots
‘Religious discrimination’ laws are just Zombie Jim Crow, legalizing anti-gay prejudice.
By Jimmy Williams
Feb. 21, 2014
http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/jimmy-williams/2014/02/21/arizonas-anti-gay-bill-is-jim-crow-back-from-the-dead
Excerpt;
Back in November, I wrote this piece on so-called “religious discrimination.” In short, a florist in Washington state refused to sell flowers to a gay couple for their wedding because it violates her religion. That’s right, she claims she won’t engage in the for-profit business of commerce because her religion tells her not to for certain groups of people. To quote “South Park’s” Mr Mackey “mkay.”
Now I thought maybe this was just a one-off. I mean sure, there are going to be a few folks, a few businesses around the country who won’t serve black people or maybe someone won’t photograph a gay wedding. But these types of things are few and far between, not the norm in society right?
Actually, while they happen more than you may think, as a part of the whole of American society, this isn’t some widespread thing popping up all across the country. What is rearing its ugly head up is the conservative movement’s insistence on using state legislatures to fighti what they claim is gay marriage’s “attack” on family values across the country. Lawmakers in Arizona, Kansas, Idaho, Tennessee, South Dakota and Maine have all debated and/or passed “religious discrimination” bills to protect for-profit businesses from having to serve gays and lesbians. The Arizona legislature just yesterday passed legislation and it’s now on its way to Gov. Jan Brewer.
I know, I know, the states are the incubators of democracy, where great ideas come from but this, my friends, is pure unadulterated crap. Jim Crow was supposed to have died a long time ago but like some horrid episode of “The Walking Dead,” Zombie Jim Crow has arrived with a vengeance.
Do conservatives actually think it’s OK to deny someone a meal, a photograph or a flower arrangement by using God as their reason? Will national Republican leaders try to pass similar legislation in Washington, D.C. or is it better for this type of Jim Crow foolishness to remain under the radar screen (in other words in the state legislatures)? I wonder how Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus feels about these types of bills being promulgated across the country. He is, after all, the national leader of the Republican Party right?
I really don’t have a problem if a business owner thinks I’m gay. I actually don’t have a problem if a business owner doesn’t like that I’m gay. But here’s the deal business owners of America: I have money and you have a for-profit business that opens its doors to the public. That means you that you don’t get to put up a sign in your window that says “We cater to heterosexual trade only” like this one from a Lancaster, Ohio business during Jim Crow. If I walk into your place of business and am willing to pay what you’re asking for your service or product, who I marry is none of your damned business. I’m a huge fan of equality. I don’t get to ask you if you’re a bigot and you don’t get to ask me if I’m, well, gay.
And David, the links people post are most likely backing up their OWN opinions. You are being condescending to Elaine, but I’m sure she can and will speak for herself.
Yes, I’m such a terrible person. I provide excerpts from and links to articles on the subject of this post. At least, I’m not a proponent of discriminating against a group of people. I think all people should be treated with respect…and equally.
*****
davidm said: “The idea of a forum like this is to discuss our own opinion, not to prove an argument with links.”
Is that one of Jonathan’s rules? Or is that your perception of what this particular forum is about? Would you prefer that people didn’t “prove their argument” when it differs from yours?
Elaine M wrote: “Is that one of Jonathan’s rules? Or is that your perception of what this particular forum is about? Would you prefer that people didn’t “prove their argument” when it differs from yours?”
It is my perception. Just because something is published does not make it true. I think most people in this forum are intelligent enough to understand the difference between arguing based upon authority (links to authority) and actual arguments based in logic. My interest is in what you think and why you think it. Surely you have figured out by now that I am here to consider the views of those who think differently than me. If I wanted someone to confirm my beliefs through agreement, I would leave here for an entirely different website that was more Republican, Tea Party, Libertarian, and Theistic. The commonality I have here with Professor Turley is his love for the Constitution and matters of law and administrative legal practice that unfairly hurts the common citizen.
Being gay is an orientation, most likely from when the fetal brain is being developed, or perhaps even genetic, or a combination. Obesity also has more of a genetic cause than we’ve ever known before. Smoking is a choice and an addiction. It would be unconstitutional to discriminate on people based on who they are. A doc could drop a non compliant patient.
Most gay people can no more change their orientation than a person can change their eye color, or skin color. What gay people do in their bedrooms is not going to affect the shop keeper when a gay person hands over a filthy dollar bill that’s been handled by who knows how many people with who knows what on their hands. I certainly hope straight couples clean up after sex and before shopping too.
Annie wrote: “A doc could drop a non compliant patient.”
What if his patient is a gay man, and the doctor says, “Look, you have had 500 sexual partners in the two years you have been coming here. I have treated you for Syphilis and a lot of other diseases. You are going to catch AIDS if you don’t stop this. No matter what I say, you keep doing this. I can no longer treat you. Please find another doctor.”
Don’t you think that doctor would face a lawsuit for discrimination against gays?
David:
Our state law makes no difference between what might be described as artistic work done in consideration for money or other services or goods sold in consideration for money according to the laws regulating business or civil rights.
The scenario I gave was to show that even in the most extreme example of a situation for which a merchant might deny a customer based upon a religious objection that is irrelevant in terms of enforceability of the civil rights law. And that it is no different from any other form of commerce. There is no free speech or religious right retainable to abscond on the responsibility to adhere to the state civil rights laws.
Darren, I do not see how passing this Arizona bill into law would protect that owner in the scenario that you gave. Do you? There are other laws that bring balance and enable the courts to make a right judgment.
In contrast, I do see how the Arizona bill would protect photographers and cake bakers from being forced to engage in adding their artistic expression to celebrate what their conscience tells them is immoral. It bothers me that neither you nor Mike seem to understand the expressive nature involved with these real life examples compared to the non-existent hypothetical examples brought up to criticize this Arizona bill.
I would like to hear your opinion about my question regarding the minister being able to abstain from officiating the marriage of a gay couple, but a member of his congregation not being able to abstain from officiating at their wedding. Does this sound right to you?
I think when laws carve out exceptions for clergy and churches, there is something wrong with that law. There is a recognition that the law violates the conscience of some but not all. Laws should apply to everyone equally or be rewritten in a way so that they can.
Randy lee,
I find your analogy of human beings to excrement repugnant.
Not to worry Samantha, I’m sure gay people shower. Plus being gay isn’t catchy.
Juden verboten.
“I hate caring for fat people…”
No need for an hypothetical. We already know your hatred for anything that smells of the cloth.
No one commenting here is saying that they hate gays. They are merely saying that they object to gay behavior, and do not want to be in a position where they are forced to comingle with them. This is not complicated! Remove the religion filter on your lens!
If you refuse to shake hands with a minority surgeon, because he just came from the ER with medical waste all over him, does not make you guilty of discrimination. And if he decides to sue you, he comes off as an aggressive bully. If you need more examples in order to make the distinction, I will happily accommodate.
In my opinion, gays are due every constitutional right that anyone else has. I would be there to defend thier right, no matter the ethnicity, religion, or gender — including yours, in spite of your hatred. I’m so inclined because I simply dislike bullies, more so if they are in a position of power. Every other comment I make, no matter the blog, has foundation on this common denominator. It’s why I’m so critical of the police, prosecutors, judges, politicians, etc. In this way, most of us have common ground here, and we’d have more if more of us respected, for example, that everyone has a right to freedom of religion, too.
And if the gay person is a bully, I don’t give him a free pass. Everything about this legislation is about bullying and economic threats, all because some people do not want to be forced to associate with gay behavior.
As for Romney, I spoke in the collective, figuratively. Sorry for any confusion.
samantha wrote: “No one commenting here is saying that they hate gays. They are merely saying that they object to gay behavior, and do not want to be in a position where they are forced to comingle with them. This is not complicated! Remove the religion filter on your lens! … In my opinion, gays are due every constitutional right that anyone else has. I would be there to defend thier right, no matter the ethnicity, religion, or gender — including yours, in spite of your hatred.”
Very well said, Samantha. I agree.
Poopoo Burger, being served now in Bugs Life Cafe. Steaming hot.
( Sorry, I couldn’t resist. ;))
Mike Appleton,
Thanks for increasing my vocabulary….I haven’t run across that word before, or at least I can’t remember it. Very apropo given the circumstances and I do agree, this is probably not a site dealing with that subject manner.
Now Elaine M., why would you consider the comments describing an activity to be repugnant, if the activity isn’t considered by you to be repugnant?
Since scenarios are in vogue here how about this one.
A person has opened a christian bookstore. The bookstore is incorporated with the state Secretary of State office as a domestic profit corporation and files tax returns as such. The bookstore is licensed under a business license with the city which is required to as a retailer. The owner a lay minister with a local protestant church.
Items the bookstore sells include bibles, christian music, communion supplies used by his and other churches, prayer beads, candles, and other sundrys.
The bookstore as a condition of employment requires a employees to have a demonstrated understanding of christian practices and theology in order to interact with customers who might have questions about the products and to encorage further purchase of merchandise by sales methods and recommendations of additional products. As an indirect result of these requirements those who have this talent have usually been those who are christians in that they are familiar with the business’ merchandise.
A customer entering the store happens to be a gay jewish person as an employee and the proprieter evidence by the customer having a small circular cap on his head and is wearing a gay pride shirt and pin.
The customer asks where he might find new testament bible and another book concerning the theological study of the life of the Virgin Mary. The customer wishes to educate himself on these topics.
Both the prioprieter and the employee refuse to sell these books to the customer on account that it would be an insult to their beliefs concerning the bible beause their interpretation of the bible declares homosexuality to be a cardinal sin and that the possession of the bible, especially by a gay person is also contrary to their belief that jews killed jesus and therefore his touching of the bible is immoral. The employee demands the customer leave the property and denies him the purchase of the books.
The customer files a civil rights complaint with the Office of the WA Attorney General concerning the events alleged in this incident. Washington State Law prohibits this type of discrimination and levlies an action against the business proceeds that results in a fine and an injunction against the business against futher acts of discrimination.
In this example is identical to the photography, wedding cake and other issues but is directly more applicative of the defenses others have stated. Here a person is a lay minister, has strong religious beliefs about a particular set of issues, owns a christian bookstore, and is in business as a domestic profit corporation selling items to the public. In this situation the shopkeeper and his employees are breaking civil rights laws of the state by discriminating against this customer in a manner that is prohibited by state and federal law because the sale was denied on account of religious beliefs of the proprieter. The common law supporting the law cited is as strong as the state’s position on the matter.
Futhermore the denial of accomodation would be exactly just as much a violation if the store sold groceries, ammunition, plumbing supplies, or surveying services, or if the business was a Limited Liability Company, S Corpration, or sole proprietership.
If the business engages in sales to the public, it must under state law provide that service or product to each person. That is the law.
Darren, your example is not the same as the photographer and cake baker because these latter cases represent artistic expressions from the individual, not the selling of merchandise. Secondly, the refusal to serve is based upon hatred and bigotry. This is actually where they law should focus upon in these cases rather than special classes of people who need special protection. Third, this is not a real life scenario. People of other religions and gays have shopped in Christian bookstores like this They are not turned away like in your scenario. If anything, they are glad to help the person learn about their faith and religion.
Randy Lee:
I haven’t checked, but I’m certain that you can find websites that cater to coprophilic discussions. I’m also certain that this is not one of them.
Another dead horse, beaten until bloodied.
Arizona uses religion as a shield for bigotry
By Harold Meyerson
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/harold-meyerson-arizona-uses-religion-as-a-shield-for-gay-bigotry/2014/02/25/c431a2a6-9e56-11e3-9ba6-800d1192d08b_story.html
Excerpt:
As patriotism can be the last refuge of scoundrels, so religion can be the last refuge of bigots.
The most recent attempts to besmirch religion have come from Arizona’s Republican state legislators, who last week, on a near- party-line vote, passed a bill allowing businesses to discriminate against same-sex couples on religious grounds. The bill is on the desk of Republican Gov. Jan Brewer; she has until week’s end to sign or veto it.
Arizona’s Republican U.S. senators, John McCain and Jeff Flake, recognize that a bill permitting restaurants, hotels and other business to deny service to gays and lesbians on religious grounds might (and should) strike many Americans as an affront to our foundational creed “that all men are created equal.” They have called on Brewer to reject the bill. So has the state’s Chamber of Commerce, which fears that some businesses would decide not to set up shop in Arizona if they knew their homosexual employees could be subjected to that kind of discrimination. A host of other officials have called for a veto, including three Republican legislators who voted for the bill but have had second thoughts.
Recently in Kansas, Republican legislators in the lower house passed a kindred bill only to have it die in the state Senate when GOP legislative leaders realized that it went too far. But the fact that two absurd proposals swept through two states’ legislative bodies with nearly unanimous Republican support signals a kind of panic within the GOP base at the recent advances in gay and lesbian equality, in particular the right to marry. It signals that Republicans, and some religious leaders, are willing to invoke religion as a cloak for their bigotry.
That wouldn’t be the first time, of course, that religion has served as a shield for those who would deny their fellow Americans the most rudimentary equal rights. During the civil rights movement in the 1950s and ’60s, a number of Southern fundamentalist ministers preached that racial segregation was God’s design. In a 1960 Easter Sunday radio sermon, the Rev. Bob Jones, founder of South Carolina’s eponymous Christian university, told his listeners, “If you are against segregation and against racial separation, then you are against God Almighty.” Labeling as “Satanic” those who were working to abolish Jim Crow laws, Jones preached that it was God who “drew the boundary lines between races.”
Mainstream Southern denominations, by contrast, did support desegregation, and the Rev. Billy Graham, crucially, declined to oppose the 1964 Civil Rights Act while it was pending in Congress. But the religious case for discrimination was alive and well in Southern fundamentalist circles — as it is alive and well, apparently, in some parts of the Republican Party today.
And not just in the Republican Party. The Arizona Catholic Conference is among those urging Brewer to sign the bill. Just to be clear: No one is advocating that priests, the Catholic Church or other religious institutions be compelled to preside over same-sex marriages. The issue is whether businesses can refuse service to gays and lesbians based on the businesses’ religious beliefs, though you probably have to believe that corporations are people to grant that businesses can have religious beliefs.
Voices: Arizona’s anti-gay bill is shameful
Governor should veto measure allowing businesses not to serve same-sex couples on religious grounds.
Owen Ullmann, USATODAY
February 24, 2014
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/02/24/voices-column-on-arizona-anti-gay-bill/5775081/
Excerpt:
The United States has long been a unique melting pot for the world because we have enshrined in our laws the principle of equality for all, regardless of race, religion, gender or culture.
True, we have been slow to stamp out discrimination against women, blacks, Jews, native Americans and, now, same-sex couples. But we have always wound up in the right place.
So anyone who cherishes our pluralistic society should be outraged that Arizona’s Legislature has passed a bill that would grant businesses the right to cite religious beliefs as a justification for refusing to serve same-sex couples. These intolerant lawmakers must be nostalgic for Jim Crow laws.
I’m curious how a business would even know which customers are gay. Would you have to sign a statement that you are heterosexual as a condition to being served? If two women are holding hands, does that make them a same-sex couple, or are they just sisters? If two men kiss in a store, are they gay or…maybe, just French?
And if religious beliefs are a justification for refusing gay couples, shouldn’t Arizona extend the principle to all religious beliefs? Devout Muslims should have the right to refuse service to women who are not covered in burqas. Christian Scientists should have the right to deny service to doctors and nurses or anyone who has health insurance. Hindus could refuse to serve anyone who likes to chow down on a hamburger. Atheists? You’d be out of luck just about everywhere.
The reaction to the law’s passage by the Arizona business community has been disheartening. Rather than oppose it on moral grounds for being egregiously discriminatory, it cites worries about an economic backlash.
The Greater Phoenix Economic Council has urged Gov. Jan Brewer to veto the measure because a boycott by defenders of gay rights could harm the economy. To me, the argument falls far short. It is reminiscent of German businesses that fretted about the loss of Jews’ purchasing power during the Nazi’s reign.
There is a legitimate debate about finding the line between protection for one’s religious beliefs and bigotry. The U.S. Supreme Court is taking up a case about the right of an employer to deny employees health coverage for contraceptives because of religious beliefs. And we recognize that places of worship and religious organizations are entitled to special protections and exemptions from laws that apply to the rest of us.
But a broad license by business to discriminate against members of the public runs counter to everything we stand for as a nation. Perhaps, as some opponents of the bill have suggested in jest, businesses should be allowed to refuse service to Arizona legislators. After all, aren’t they violating the religious tenet that we are all equal in the eyes of God?
Arizona governor takes time on anti-gay bill
Mary Jo Pitzl, The Arizona Republic
February 25, 2014
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/02/25/arizona-governor-takes-time-on-anti-gay-bill/5822577/
Excerpt:
Close advisers, business officials, faith leaders and others have urged Brewer to veto the bill.
On Tuesday, former GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney encouraged Brewer to get out her veto stamp, tweeting “veto of SB1062 is right.”
Arizona’s two U.S. senators, John McCain and Jeff Flake, both Republicans, have also called on Brewer to strike down the law.
The Arizona Super Bowl Host Committee, which is overseeing preparations for the 2015 game in Glendale, issued a statement saying the bill would “deal a significant blow to the state’s economic-growth potential.”
The NFL said it is closely watching the bill. “Our policies emphasize tolerance and inclusiveness and prohibit discrimination based on age, gender, race, religion, sexual orientation or any other improper standard,” spokesman Greg Aiello said.
Several businesses, including tech giant Apple and American Airlines Group, on Monday encouraged Brewer to veto the bill.
The Phoenix City Council voted 8-1 to call for a Brewer veto. The bill would overrule the protections Phoenix provided the LGBT community last year through a city ordinance, and would also override similar measures in Tucson and Flagstaff.
Brewer has until 11:59 p.m. MT Saturday to take action. At the state Capitol, critics and bystanders wondered why Brewer hadn’t already acted, especially given mounting worries that the prospect of the bill becoming law is harming the state’s reputation and its economic recovery.
“I hope the governor vetoes the bill for the good of the economy,” said Republican state Rep. Jeff Dial, who last week joined the GOP majority in the Legislature in passing the bill. On Monday, three Republican senators said they regretted their votes in favor of the bill. “We made a mistake,” Sen. Steve Pierce said.
I hate caring for fat people, they are so heavy and hard to maneuver and kind of yucky and gluttony is a sin. Therefore I don’t like fat people, so I don’t think should be forced to give them my nursing services. I don’t want to be forced to associate myself with them on my shift on the med surg unit.
I reject them! No one can force me, it’s my right to discriminate against them.
( I don’t really have anything against fat people)
Annie, you kind of bring up an interesting example. Suppose a doctor has a medical practice and one of his patients is grossly overweight. He smokes too, and no matter how much the doctor tells him to quit smoking and to lose weight, the guy just keeps on with this self destructive lifestyle. (Note to Mike: I am not using the word lifestyle in a derogatory way.) By the principle of right of association, should not the doctor have the right to tell this patient that he needs to find another doctor to attend to his medical needs?
Randy Lee,
Oh my. That’s a lot of potty talk. That was quite a repugnant comment.
Elaine M wrote: “Oh my. That’s a lot of potty talk. That was quite a repugnant comment.”
If he told you what gay men do to one another sexually, you would find it equally repugnant. The problem is that the behavior we are talking about his hidden behind the veneer of “privacy” and “civil rights.”