Arizona became a hotspot for news earlier this month due to
its highly contested “Religious Freedom Bill” or as the opposition calls it “The
Anti-Gay bill” or “The Freedom to Discriminate Bill”. What is Arizona Senate
Bill 1062[1]?
How does it affect the populace? Is it Constitutional? Is it a way for more
people to find an excuse to discriminate? Let’s take a look at it from a view
angles and you can make up your own mind.
Is Arizona Senate Bill 1062 Constitutional?
The United States Constitution DOES NOT lay out specific
stipulations or protections for the lifestyle choices of individuals. Why Not?
The US Constitution is a blanket document, meant to encompass every single person
regardless of race, creed, nationality, or preference. The only mention of the separation
of creeds is the Commerce clauses in regards to Native American Tribes. The Constitution
does however lay out some other protections and stipulations. The 10th
amendment spells out that the powers not delegated to the federal government by
the Constitution shall be retained by each individual state, States Rights, but
is this issue of state’s rights. Yes and No in my opinion. The Arizona
Government should not in any way interfere in the religious or business
practices of any individuals or groups. Do they have the power to? Absolutely,
that power has been vested to them by the citizens of the state.
Constitutionally speaking the entirety of this bill is admissible by the First Amendment
, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or
of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition
the Government for a redress of grievances.”
Is it a discrimination bill?
Kate Kendall [2]
of the National Center for Lesbian Rights notes, “It’s a flat out violation of well-established
protections against discrimination based on race and gender”. First let’s define discrimination. Merriam-Webster
[3]
defines it as: the practice of unfairly treating a person or group of people
differently from other people or groups of people
: the ability to recognize the difference between things
that are of good quality and those that are not
: the ability to understand that one thing is different from
another thing
The latter 2 definitions sound like decision making or
comparative value to me. The first definition is a little more complex. Discrimination
due to variances of color, creed, nationality, gender whatever is not new,
actually it is very old, and it is part of the human condition. To analyze and
value each separate thing or person differently is a matter of unconscious
thought and conscious action. The ability to differentiate subjective values is
what drives everyday human existence. Red car or blue car? Bagel for breakfast
or eggs and toast? This job or that one? All of these and more are small discriminations
or choices based on previous knowledge, experiences or beliefs. Is this to say
that actions that lead someone to treat others differently for preferences or
uncontrollable circumstances are wrong? Moral
thought is to the individual’s subjective value or relative value; you cannot
collect nor legislate morality or popular opinion without discriminating or
leaving someone out.
Where does religion come into this?
The bill is being touted by some as “The Religious Freedom
Bill” and as it is written it would seem this is the driving force behind its
existence. The bill allows business
owners, pastors or any individual to assert religious beliefs when refusing
service to gay, lesbian, and transgender people; among others. As written can this bill can be construed to allow discrimination
between faiths, as to say that those of Jewish faith could refuse service to
any other practitioners of any opposing religion and vice versa. Religious Freedom is a cornerstone to this
country and to millions of people across it. It has been the foundation for
numerous civil cases and appeals since its inauguration into the Constitution.
It is an inherent right to be able to practice whichever faith one chooses
without hindrance. This bill does not in any way stop that right but furthers
the right of refusal based on religious beliefs. As written it would only
protect those business owners in court who based on their religious beliefs
refused service to someone.
Is this a case of Private Property Rights?
When this story first broke this was my assessment. The
right of any property owner to refuse or allow whatever actions to take place
on such property is the foundation for private property rights. This bill would
allow these business owners to thereby escape from any suit in regards to this
refusal of service on the basis of religious right. Is this discrimination? Yes
and No. It is the sole decision of the property owners on how to handle their
business. If a property owner dislikes tall people and makes a policy to not serve
tall people he has reduced his marketable share in the economic sector, this is
true of any restriction or regulation placed by business owners, on the other hand
government does this without regard to marketable shares to very business with
their ever increasing amounts of regulations and red tape politics. Private
Property is a key element to a free society and as such should be protected by
those who strive for free markets and economic prosperity.
What this bill is not.
In reading this bill and its amendments I have found no
reference to gays, lesbians, same sex couples, or any other group of people. I
have not seen in its pages any regards to any specific lifestyle choice or even
religious choice. It is completely ambiguous in its terminology and meanings
and would be highly contested if allowed to pass.
Think about this for a moment.
This bill, which was vetoed by Governor Jan Brewer, was a
perfect storm of emotion over logic and fear over reason. Any discrimination
that could go on with its passing can still go on after its veto, though the
property owners run risk of civil suit if they attempt it. In my mind it is
simply a case of property rights and owner’s discretion over religious beliefs
or any form of discrimination. But I leave it for you to decide.
Other links:
Posts
1 comment:
Excellent, Travis!
Post a Comment