Arizona’s “Anti Gay Religious Freedom” Legislation
On February 20th2014, the Arizona state legislature passed SB 1062, otherwise known as the Religious Freedom Restoration Act SB 1062, and has since transmitted the bill to Arizona Governor Jan Brewer, a figure who is no stranger to controversy, to be signed into law on February 24th2014. As yet, Governor Brewer has not officially announced whether to sign the bill into law or not.
The controversy behind this bill is that it allows business owners to refuse to serve anyone whom they perceive to be members of the gay community so long as the business owners were acting solely on their religious beliefs.
 |
| Source |
For those of you who are familiar with this blog and my pro-Free Market stance, you might think that I am jumping for joy because this bill seemingly allows businesses to be regulated less by the government. You�d be wrong.
From my pro-Free Market point of view, I am not thrilled with this bill because it does not go far enough. No, I do not mean that I think the government should legalize the lynching of homosexuals. What I mean is that, just like no one should be forced to patron any business that he/she doesn�t like, no business person should be forced to deal with any client he/she doesn�t want to serve.
One shouldn�t have to cite a religious reason for denying service to a potential customer. So long as businesses are not harming anyone (no, hurt feelings don�t count), a business should be free to act for whatever reason it chooses. At best, this bill is a half-step towards economic liberty. At worst, it is a law, which is supported by diseased degenerates who think that a person�s sexuality can make him/her subhuman, that permits people to remain ridiculously irrational while hiding behind the Bible!
The other problem that I have with this whole mess is the complaints that progressives have thrown at it. Firstly, I have heard many people comparing this bill with Jim Crow laws. That is not very accurate.
Jim Crow laws, as the name suggests, were laws that were passed by state governments that compelled businesses, as well as the government itself, to segregate, whether they wanted to or not.
This law that progressives are critiquing (for all the wrong reasons) allows businesses that want to enter into contract with everyone to do so, and allows businesses that want to cater to only members of the KKK to do so as well. So it is not a blanket law like the Jim Crow laws were like.
I also read what George Takei said about this when he said, �It gives bigotry against us gays and lesbians a powerful and unprecedented weapon.�
Now George Takei is a great actor whom I�ve seen on television since childhood who has gotten only better with age. That being said, allowing businesses to discriminate against people is hardly unprecedented. For example, I have seen numerous bars while I was in the United States that have posted signs that said �We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason.�
Now George Takei is a great actor whom I�ve seen on television since childhood who has gotten only better with age. That being said, allowing businesses to discriminate against people is hardly unprecedented. For example, I have seen numerous bars while I was in the United States that have posted signs that said �We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason.�
 |
| Source |
Even the bar that I spent many of my weekend evenings while I was in college carried such a sign. And it was a bar that was owned by an old hippie, who insisted that everyone call him �Loopy,� whose favorite song is John Lennon�s Imagine. Should Loopy be taken to court for that sign?
And for another, George Takei seems to imply that overturning this bill and continuing to force all businesses to serve LGBT people would somehow end the bigotry against LGBT people. There is no evidence that laws end hatred. It certainly forces people to hide their prejudices but it doesn�t get rid of them.
Why not let businesses declare to the whole world what their prejudices are? That way, people can know where not to spend their money.
That�s the fundamental thing that I don�t understand. Instead of wanting to know which businesses are being run by assholes so that people can know where not to spend their money, people who are advocating for laws that force businesses to serve everyone is saying �Excuse me, Mr. Government, there are these sexist/racist pigs that I want to give my money to so that I can be provided with services � services which will most likely be shoddy seeing how I am someone whom they have declared publicly to hate. Could you, please, force them to take my money so that they can make money, while providing me with what will most likely be shoddy services that I�m not sure that I really even want?�
 |
| Source |
I�ve heard people say that the change in laws would lead to a change in culture. But I have never seen any evidence of that happening before. I�ve seen cultural changes eventually leading to changes in the law but never the other way around. Ending slavery did not end racism. It simply ended slavery. Ending Jim Crow laws also ended only the laws. It did not end racism. Both of which, by the way, were government laws that were put in place due to the prevalent culture of the time. Similarly, passing laws to force all businesses to serve LGBT people whether they want to or not won�t end homophobia. That will only happen after a change in the culture, which has already been happening for a while.
As a counter-example, assuming that the Westboro Baptist Church hires an actual PR team and changes tact and sends several of its members to a gay bar to order drinks, would the bartender have to serve them? The proper end result ought to be a huge bear of a man wearing leather straps telling them to get the fuck out unless they want their necks snapped. But a law that forces all businesses to serve everyone would then give the Westboro Baptist Church the legal precedent to sue the bar�s owners in court.
People might counter that being gay and/or black and/or female is not the same as being a religious bigot because people cannot choose their gender or sexuality or ethnicity when they are born but religion is something that people can choose. Although that is a valid moral point, legally, it�s irrelevant because what progressives are advocating is about identity, not the choice (or the lack thereof) of one�s identity.
So forcing all businesses to serve others is both illogical and potentially counterproductive.
I get the anger that progressives are feeling. And those bigots that people are angry at deserve moral censure, as well as healthy doses of boycotts, the one thing that George Takei got right in his letter, which is a right that every consumer has. But this law won�t change anything. The change that we want to see has to come through cultural changes. No, cultural changes are never fast enough but that�s the only sure way of moving on from anything old and decrepit.
Let them remain in their cesspool and let the rest of us associate and spend our money the way we want. They will die out sooner or later. The future is on our side.