Oh, well, that’s all right then. It must merely be a coincidence that in states that have non-discrimination laws some businesses have recently been successfully sued for refusing to serve LGBT people, in spite of their claims that doing so would be a violation of their alleged religious beliefs, and the ensuing outcry that religious beliefs are “under attack”.
This bill isn’t that different from Colorado’s Amendment 2, passed in 1994, struck down in 1996. In fact it seems clearly intended to go after the same people, but this time around its proponents have tried to hide their attempt to deliberately target a group with the disingenuous claim that they’re protecting rights.
The law may be intentionally vague but the context makes it quite clear what its intent is.
How about suggesting to the City Council that any business which plans to exercise its bigotry right must post clear notice of the clientele that they plan to refuse?
No, it doesn’t work that way. In a republic, the constitution lays out what can and cannot be changed by majority vote. To change the constitution requires much more than a majority vote. So if something is guaranteed by (or prohibited by) the constitution, then no majority vote can alter that - those that want to change it need to modify the constitution (possible, but much harder).
I am continually amazed, even after 25 years as a resident in the US, how many Americans do not understand this basic feature of our government.
The whole thing is a good example of how ‘freedom of religion’ and ‘freedom from religion’ are fundamentally incompatible, given that so many religions have non-negotiable rules concerning the conduct of others (or rather, all humans). I mean, if you sincerely believe that interacting with a gay person could potentially send your soul to be tortured for eternity, well of course you’re going to act this way.
Of course, sincerely believing that is batshit fucking insane and makes you a terrible person, so yes, can we please move on?
Whilst that is true in the US, and will hopefully get rid of this sickening law, it is not universal. A republic just meanst that there is no monarchy. A consitution is not required, although it is highly recommended.
Well, as the law in question technically covers only professional licensure and zoning, and that claims against them due to questions of religious conscience, . . . I’d say that is within the limits of the constitution.
Incredibly stupid, and with guaranteed blowback. . . .but within the constitution. . . .
A jewish butcher can already refuse to butcher (most modern butchers never slaughter anything themselves) a pig, without any need for laws about religious freedom: The butcher says ‘Sorry, we don’t sell pork’, and that’s that. No one could say ‘by not selling me pork you’re discriminating against me because of XYZ’.
There’s an important difference between choosing the services you provide (pork butchery or not) and who you’ll provide it to (women or not, gay people or not).
It’s a bit fuzzy in the area of haircuts, admittedly: Is a haircut a service? or is a hairstyle a product? Regardless, I’m sure a sensitive religious barber could tell women that he’s never cut a woman’s hair before, and doesn’t know the first thing about it and wouldn’t feel comfortable doing it, without it getting to the point of ‘refusal of service’ and discrimination. It’s amazing how far good manners will get us.
One of the purposes of a representative republic as opposed to a direct democracy is to protect people from their own worst excesses. Not to mention something that doesn’t get a lot of play these days, but happens to be the law of the land: The First Amendment. A law like this one goes a little ways in promoting and protecting a particular religious viewpoint over all others. Let’s not pretend hating on gays is a mostly secular pursuit.
The problem with laws about religious belief or practices is that it is impossible to define “religion” in a way that is compatible with enforcement. In Maryland, for example, the law says that the only people who can officiate at a wedding are officers of the court (the people who could marry you at the courthouse) and clergy. After years of thrashing around, they had to throw up their hands and say that “clergy” means whatever the couple being married says it is.
The RFRA (Religious Freedom Restoration Act) AND RLUIPA (Religious Land Use of Institutionlized Persons) (contained in Title 42 of the US Code) define “religious practice” “any exercise of religion, whether or not compelled by, or central to, a system of religious belief.” The courts have also thrown up their hands. When considering religous practices and beliefs the “question is not to turn upon a judicial perception of the particular belief or practice in question; religious beliefs need not be acceptable, logical, consistent, or comprehensible to others in order to merit First Amendment protection.” You get some thrashing about on “clearly defined public policy” and “substantial burden”, but the courts have generally leaned toward the religious side of the balance.
tl;dr
My summary: “Religion” means whatever a person says it is, as long as their stated beliefs are relatively consistent over some period of time, no matter how wacky it looks to other people. “Religious practice” means whatever a person says they need to do to implement their religious beliefs. When people say that same-sex marriage is a slippery slope toward people marrying goats, we say that’s reductio ad absurdum, but when it comes to religious practices, nothing is legally absurd.
Well. . . this IS a Representative Republic. If enough people in Arizona support such a law, and inform their elected representatives to pass and enforce it. . . that’s their business.
and that is only true in cases that do not transgress on constitutionally protected rights. It isn’t clear whether this law would or would not do that - if it passes, you can guarantee that several judges will give us their opinion.
That “right” is pretty well limited by antidiscrimination laws for public accommodations. That might not explicitly include discrimination based on sexual orientation or (gay) marital status, but there is certainly caselaw and even language by the Supreme Court in its recent decisions that suggests the same rules would apply. You want to have a private “sandwich club” that refuses to serve lunch to homosexuals? That might work. But as soon as you apply for a license to serve food to the public, you no longer have the option to discriminate.
Which is a matter decided by law in the first place. We’ve already determined you cannot do that with black people or women. It’s decidedly against public policy. It’s certainly not a right defined in the Constitution, and not one I support as a “natural right” when you will readily form the same contract with another person similarly situated except for a substantively irrelevant issue of status.
This is especially the case with implied contracts and oral contracts, which are formed so casually that most people don’t realize they’re doing it. Are we going to allow people to unilaterally revoke contracts with gay people now, or people that they call gay for convenience? It’s stupid, stupid, bad law.
What about Lefkowitz v. Great Minneapolis Surplus Store, Inc? Will we let stores renege on contracts whenever they feel like just because “Hey, I thought the dude was gay.”
Well then, if your new religious beliefs are so strong that you cannot do dealings with money lenders, surely they are strong enough that the house you gained through said dealings would be tainted, and you could no longer live in it any way
Rocco’s was packed on Friday. Hour and a half waits at times. Good pizza and wings though.
I’d say “Come to Tucson and boycott Phoenix”, but the weather pretty much guarantees that sane people boycott Phoenix anyway. But bring the boycott. The tea party is digging and digging their hole, and if we let them dig it deep enough, they’ll take the rest of their party with them. When you’ve got the Jeff Flake(!) freaking out about a discrimination bill, you know your crazy train has jumped the tracks.
