I'm Relieved Governor Brewer Vetoed SB 1062
I'm curious as to what motivates the in Arizona to decide state policies in the way they do. SB 1062 should never have been passed in the first place.
If you want to be a private organization that only serves your members, accepts no tax breaks and exemptions, it is a free country but there are limits to even that kind of freedom and it generates blow back. The Klan may enjoy freedom of speech but an endorsement from them, is something to run away from
The law as passed seemed unconstitutional on its face and flies against just about every civil rights act passed. Once you pass the threshold of putting yourself out in the public I don't think you can take all back. I think the use of religion to justify discrimination that would otherwise be illegal is wrong.
In the public arena Arizona's ideas about immigration have caused folks to leave the state. Allowing folks to discriminate based on sexual preference for religious reason would have given another group of folks a reason to move somewhere else that is more tolerant and given others a reason to adjust their travel plans.
It's ironic that the NFL and MLB were such big movers on this issue. Threats to move the Super Bowl and Spring training no doubt figured in the Governor's veto.
If you want to be a private organization that only serves your members, accepts no tax breaks and exemptions, it is a free country but there are limits to even that kind of freedom and it generates blow back. The Klan may enjoy freedom of speech but an endorsement from them, is something to run away from
The law as passed seemed unconstitutional on its face and flies against just about every civil rights act passed. Once you pass the threshold of putting yourself out in the public I don't think you can take all back. I think the use of religion to justify discrimination that would otherwise be illegal is wrong.
In the public arena Arizona's ideas about immigration have caused folks to leave the state. Allowing folks to discriminate based on sexual preference for religious reason would have given another group of folks a reason to move somewhere else that is more tolerant and given others a reason to adjust their travel plans.
It's ironic that the NFL and MLB were such big movers on this issue. Threats to move the Super Bowl and Spring training no doubt figured in the Governor's veto.
But maybe things aren’t so simple. Consider the following actual situations.
ReplyDelete1.Should Christian Bakers Be Allowed to Refuse Wedding Cakes to Gays?
2.Muslim taxi driver dumps family out of his cab after spotting an unopened bottle of wine saying it was against his religion
3.Gay activists have met their match with Muslim barbers (In which a Muslim barber refuses to barber a lesbian because his religion forbids him to touch a woman other than his wife.)
4.ASA Members Vote To Endorse Boycott of Israeli Academic Institutions
5.Not safe to display American flag in American high school on Cinco de Mayo
Is there any difference between them and why?
Bonus question re number 3: suppose the Muslim taxi driver refusing the couple with the bottle of wine was white and the passengers were black, would that change your mind? Why should it? An unrelated but practical question: why would you like a wedding cake baked for you by someone patently disapproves of your life style? Wouldn’t you be afraid to eat it? Why on earth would you want a shave or haircut from an angry Muslim barber? Have they run out of other barbers ?
I'm not in favor of bigoted behavior. Current civil rights law calls lunch rooms, restaurants, stadiums, and theaters public accommodations and outlaws segregation or discrimination in these venues. The Arizona law seems to be using "freedom of religion" argument to make an end run around civil rights law. Jim Crow laws similarly pushed the idea of separate but equal but that "legality" was found wanting.
DeleteI'm against using religious beliefs in such a tortured manner, it does neither religion or law any favor.
Since when is a wedding cake a civil right and what civil right is the Muslim barber denying? Freedom of religion is a right that predates the formation of our civil government. This is stated by our founders(James Madison). To say it is the governments right to tell us how we must act in regards to our religious and moral beliefs is backwards. It is not a right of the government. The government has no "rights". On this basis the Jim Crow laws were wrong, the wedding cake ruling is wrong and the Muslim barber is right in following his beliefs. he Arizona law was not an end around. You haven't read it but you certainly picked the proper spin. 17 states and the Federal government have similar laws. They simply state that when a dispute occurs the defendant whose action is being controlled has a right to court hearing. Wow, what an end-around" to civil rights.
ReplyDeleteYou never answered the question. Is there any difference between them and why?
I'm sure the courts in Arizona have enough to do. The existing laws can be used if a baker, cab driver,... feels they has a right to invoke religious freedom to do or not do something and somebody who feels they are having their rights as a consumer violated through discrimination. As a matter of policy, I think the governor did the right thing. The law cites the exercise of religion in a very broad manner which could justify bad behavior and possibly violate existing civil rights. Yes, legislatures pass laws and appropriate money and political hobby horses are ridden. Sometimes words have a meaning and then they are ignored or misapplied or distorted by money and I am not sure what this law would have accomplished to further religious freedom and insure civil rights.
DeleteYour reasoning is so stretched I almost speechless.
ReplyDeleteThe law is bad because:
1. The courts are too busy to be bothered with little things like religious freedom.
2. Laws can be twisted and distorted so lets not have this one.
3. "As a matter of policy" (we can't tell you what the policy is).
4. Existing laws can be used (existing laws created the situation)
Never fear there is job for you at MSNBC. As a matter of policy I would take freedom of religion over bad behavior and "possible" civil rights violations when dealing with wedding cakes and cab rides and political boycotts and a lot of other so called civil rights.
Like I said you can justify about anything the way this law was written. I believe this fires up the base who are more than happy to deny a once invisible group rights because the courts seem comfortable allowing gay couples to get married now. If someone wants to buy a cake, does the baker need to be invited to the party? In Miami if a cab driver refuses a customer, he had better have reason than an unopened bottle of wine, or his license could be in danger of suspension, I know this is difficult to enforce, but as a form of public transport, leave your religion at home or get a different job. Generally I'm skeptical of boycotts but as the Governor of Arizona said the law had the potential to divide the people of the state and I believe her political judgment. Maybe a Muslim barber is also in need of career counseling or a different employer. A unisex salon or barbershop has problem written all over it if doesn't have a methodology to deal with this kind of issue.
ReplyDeleteFreedom of religion, also involves freedom from religion in many situations and to be able to invoke religious freedom to do or not do something has been an issue for the courts for a long time. The two page law the governor vetoed added very little clarity to the issue. You might be interested in reading The Economist Magazine's take on the issue in this weeks publication.
The Economist? A London publication? Here is a link to an article from Eugene Volokh's site. If you don't know him you should get out of you cocoon more often.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.volokh.com/2010/04/29/kobach-on-arizonas-immigration-law/
My God, The Economist thinks CNN is unbiased, LOL.
Wrong link
ReplyDeletehttp://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/02/27/guest-post-from-prof-doug-laycock-what-arizona-sb1062-actually-said/
I stand by my comment that you can read almost anything into that law. I'm not really sure businesses have a god given right to freedom of religion and maybe they(churches) should have their tax status reviewed as well.
ReplyDeleteWow, just where do rights come from in your country?
ReplyDeleteDid you move? Rights and responsibilities come from the democratic process and the imperfect process is embedded in law, the constitution, the bill of rights and the three branches of government. I'm not sure about concepts of natural law which folks cite when it serves their purpose.
ReplyDelete