From the right, by Gregory Conterio (counter point below)
“We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone.” I’m sure we’ve all seen this on a sign, or heard the phrase before. And if you own or operate a business, I’m sure you recognize the need and desirability to occasionally refuse to do business with someone. And this is in fact done every day, for a wide variety of reasons. Dentists or doctors can decline to accept you as a patient, because they are too busy, or not accepting new patients, or for other reasons, including personal and professional. Lawyers can decline to accept your case, because they think your argument is poor, or because they disagree with the law, or for a wide array of other reasons. Taxi-cab drivers can refuse you service. Banks can refuse you a loan, or to open an account in your name. Being a private establishment, the right to decline doing business with someone is widely recognized and accepted, although it has evolved certain limitations. For example, after the passage of the Civil Rights act of 1964, you cannot deny service to someone based on their color, race, religion or national origin. While the government does have a compelling interest in addressing racial inequality, it is ironic that their solution involved forcing some people to labor against their will, which was something I thought had been dealt with in 1863. We now have 40+ years of history to study since this act went into effect, and I think we can legitimately question whether this was the best and least restrictive means available to achieve this important, compelling interest. What’s less debatable is that giving the government power to regulate discrimination generally has been the very definition of a slippery-slope, but I digress.
The right to deny service has recently again come into question with regard to private businesses which under certain circumstances have refused to accept business from same-sex couples. Gay activists made a nationally recognized issue over Sweet Cakes by Melissa, a bakery in Gresham, Oregon, which refused to make a wedding cake for a lesbian couple planning to get married. The irony of crying “intolerance!” while trying to bully and force a private business owner into a transaction counter to his religious convictions is apparently lost on many people. The problem is an Oregon law which prohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation. While this law contains exceptions for religious institutions, there are none for individuals like the owners of Sweet Cakes, who say they frequently serve gay individuals and couples. What they object to is providing a wedding cake for a same-sex marriage, which violates their belief that marriage is a religious institution wherein a man and woman are joined in the eyes of God. While it is difficult to imagine how the application of this law in this instance does not violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, for the time being it has resulted in the decision by Sweet Cakes to close their store front.
Oregon is not the only place where the law seeks to punish those who do not wish to promote same-sex marriage on religious grounds. Opining for the Washington State Human Rights Commission, policy analyst Laura Lindstrand says that according to state law, if you bake cakes for opposite-sex couples, you must do it for same-sex couples, too. In other words, in Lindstrand’s view, if you operate a private business, you not only lose your First Amendment protection, you can be compelled to perform labor against your will. The mind boggles.
It is against this backdrop Arizona has proposed SB 1062, which was vetoed* today by Governor Brewer, and has been attracting all the opprobrium of the pro-same-sex marriage advocates. Senate Bill 1062 seeks to protect the right of individuals in the free exercise of their religion by amending an existing statute. This bill has been inaccurately, even dishonestly cast by some pundits as “enforcing intolerance.” You can read the current text of the bill here, but I will synopsize it for your convenience. Essentially what SB1062 says is the state may not substantially burden an individual’s exercise of their religious beliefs or practices unless such burden is in the furtherance of a compelling governmental interest, and the LEAST RESTRICTIVE means of furthering that interest. The bill stipulates that an individual’s act, or refusal to act must be rooted in a sincerely held religious belief, and that the loser in any legal action involving this statute as a defense will pay legal fees and costs. In other words, you cannot for example be forced to sell a wedding cake to a same-sex couple if your sincere religious conviction is that marriage remains defined by God, not by the state.
I find it unfortunate that a law such as this should be seen as necessary. While the emphasis and interpretation may differ in degree, it is undeniable that Christianity proscribes homosexual behavior, and many Christians believe and follow this proscription. While there certainly are many individuals who are aggressively intolerant of homosexuality, simply believing and following the Biblical proscription against it does not make you so, although I would argue using the law to try to force someone into activity against their religious convictions does. Forcing sincere Christians to participate in promoting a behavior which is so proscribed is immoral and tyrannical. We should not need to make a specific law in order to prevent it.
*Note: In an earlier version of this article, I had written that Gov. Brewer had signed SB1062, not vetoed it. This was based on an erroneous news story I had glanced-at, but not fully read, and which I can no longer find. I am sorry for the error.
Counter point, from the Left
Much as been said in opposition, from all over the internet. These collected links were compiled by Sam Munger with Alice (http://www.alicelaw.org/)
http://www.hrc.org/blog/entry/
https://www.aclu.org/blog/
And HuffPo has a whole cottage industry of critical posts from a variety of angles:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/
Additional links from Karen:
WSJ article: Religious-Liberty Measures Circulating Throughout Statehouses http://on.wsj.com/1lkdToT
and the bills referenced in the article are are here: https://www.billtrack50.com/PublicStakeholder/kz3k6O6sM06M7uIBFL9rKg click through to follow their progress.
About BillTrack50 – BillTrack50 offers free tools for citizens to easily research legislators and bills across all 50 states and Congress. BillTrack50 also offers professional tools to help organizations with ongoing legislative and regulatory tracking, as well as easy ways to share information both internally and with the public.