It's 7 in the morning, I still have to make my lunch, do my makeup, and finish getting ready for work. Yet here I find myself, writing a blog about a very touchy subject to most of the people I know here in Arizona.
I stayed up rather late last night reading a blog about the "Anti-Gay Law" or SB 1062 from Matt Walsh. You can find the blog post here.
I won't go into much detail about it as Matt does an excellent job debunking most "haters'" problems with the bill, and does it so eloquently. I will merely highlight a few things that I found to be very eye opening and wonderful points.
First off, this isn't a law against gay people. This is a law to protect businesses from participating in acts that they find morally wrong. If a gay couple can sue a baker, photographer, and florist for not wanting to participate in their gay nuptials because the find that morally wrong, why can't I sue a Kosher deli for not catering a non-kosher meal? That is something that they follow with their religion. I just don't see the connection in allowing a Christian baker to go down for something they choose to follow with their religion.
Some people are saying that this is combining church and state. While I agree to some extent, not having this is in place is not allowing people to practice their religion freely, which is supposed to be protected in the First Amendment.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, OR prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."
This law is not about Christianity only. This is about protecting every religion to allow them to practice freely. And one thing I don't understand, is why these couples in New Mexico, Washington, and Colorado were able to sue someone for practicing their first amendment rights. The government just came in and prohibited them from their "free exercise thereof."
Secondly, many people are saying that this law is the "Jim Crow law of the 21st century." Like Matt states on his blog,
"We should remember that blacks were in chains in this country. They
were literally treated as less than human. They could be legally
murdered and beaten and starved. They were set apart, cast aside, and
violently and systematically oppressed.
Not only are gays in a better position than this, but the two
scenarios are diametrically opposite. Unlike historical blacks, gays are
afforded special legal protections. They are celebrated by the
president, Hollywood, pop culture, the media, mainstream culture, and
most major corporations.
They are hoisted on a pedestal by only the most
powerful and influential people in the country.
Black people ought to deliver a sound verbal smackdown to any
historically illiterate gasbag who even attempts to paint the slightest
equivalency between the suffering of blacks and gays."
Again, I don't see the connection between this bill and "Jim Crow."
Lastly, and this is my favorite part, some comments are definitely worth mentioning. One guy got his panties in a wad because if you are a business, you are to "serve to the public, meaning everybody." Another commenter stated "I build websites for a living. Should I be required to build a porn site for someone just because I 'provide a public service?'" What a great way to put it, and I applaud you kind sir.
Another commenter wrote "What you are missing is that the constitution is guaranteeing freedom
from discrimination from the government. Citizens are left with their
freedom to discriminate in tact. The government is slowly attempting
to push their obligation onto citizens, which erodes our rights."
Yes, I agree that there are a lot of changes that need to be made before this ever becomes actual law. I believe it is written poorly, but the premise and grounds for needing this are very real.
And on that note, I end this post so I can get ready and go to work. Have a wonderful week/end folks :)
Alright. First off, your Kosher deli argument is invalid. The situation you proposed is to ask a deli to provide a product that they don't stock or produce. It would be like going to a McDonalds and asking for a Whopper. It is a service or product that they are not equipped to provide. I am sure that a Kosher deli would be happy as a clam to provide your party with a full assortment of Kosher foods. I have never had a Kosher deli tell me that because I am not a practicing Jew, I cannot eat Kosher food. That would be absurd. The issue we run into with the cake and the photographer situation is that their product or service does not differ in any way in regards to how they are performed or delivered. Which leads me to...
ReplyDelete...why this IS a modern day Jim Crow Law disguised as "religious freedom." You cite very reasonable examples of how this law could be used, however - this law would enable Muslim cab drivers to refuse to drive women around unless they had a man with them, it would allow a TON of things to occur with little to no enforceability because of a person's right to say it was done for religious reasons. The scope of the law is far too broad, and it can, and will be, abused by folks that wish to discriminate. The interesting thing I notice about the blog you referenced is the extensive use of fallacious argument throughout. He makes a statement that suggests that gays are celebrated and are not discriminated against, and even if they were, its not to the extent that African Americans were, because they were slaves back in the day. One does not have to do with the other. Yes, historic African Americans had it about as bad as it can get. But, does that make discriminating against someone else okay? I sure would hope not. Anyway - the issue at hand is that, yes, the primary target of this issue is its ability to grant discrimination against homosexuals. But, it really doesn't end there. It allows discrimination of ANYONE on the basis of religion. As a business, you absolutely have the right to refuse service to anyone you don't want to. However, you must have a good reason, or no reason at all. Not a bad one. Telling folks, "We don't do same-sex wedding cakes" is a bad reason. It is on the same level as this statement, "We don't do mixed race wedding cakes" or "We don't do Jewish wedding cakes." That happened.
So the real question is this: How do we construct a law that honors the rights of the retailer AND the customer. I have a right to not feel like I am less that human. I have the right to be treated with respect. I have to the right to have my beliefs respected and not diminished. As do you, and everyone else in this country. The tough part is when those two rights meet. Who is MORE right? How far can you exert those rights upon others? Should I be allowed to say to someone who is homosexual, "I don't perform music for gay weddings..." ? Or would it be more appropriate to say, "I'm sorry, but I don't think I can provide my services for you." Luckily, we can refuse service for no reason or good reason, but not a bad reason. Fortunately, outwardly refusing service because of someone's race, creed, religion, gender, or sexual preference is a BAD reason to do so.
Hmmmm...what about "No shoes. No shirt. No service."? What racist, sexist, bigoted, dehumanizing business owners we've had FOR DECADES!! This frenzy is so pathetic as to be comical. A LAWSUIT filed by a gay couple--or by ANY couple for that matter--against a business that refused them service for ANY reason is patently absurd. And the pathetic moral equivalency arguments (i.e.-Jim Crow) whirling around this bill are equally ridiculous. A business owner could refuse service based on not liking the length of someone's nose hair! Now, if a business owner refuses service to someone expressly BECAUSE they are gay, or Latino, or a BYU fan, or a Mormon, or a Catholic, or black...I would think they ARE bigoted! And as such, I would not frequent such a business. Further, I would pass the word, encouraging others to take into consideration the behavior of said business so that they could MAKE THEIR OWN CHOICE about doing business with them. But filing a LAWSUIT over their refusal of service would STILL be out-of-line. A business should not be COMPELLED to serve anyone they don't want to serve. They CAN refuse service--to anyone, for any reason--and then be subject to the freely expressed, Capitalist backlash, boycott, or boon...whatever the consequence might be. The media is spouting classic, juvenile, and flawed moral equivalency arguments that should be DOA. This is not about gay bashing. It is not about discrimination. It is not about Jim Crow. It is about freedom versus compulsion. And the grandest of all ironies is this: as gay couples win their myopic lawsuits, they lose far more freedoms by creating legal precedent that will yet be used AGAINST all.
ReplyDelete