It's Controversial but My Thinking is Sound…

The recent news of Arizona's legislature approval of Senate Bill 1062 has sparked controversy. Particularly with the gay and lesbian group. It's being reported that this "new" law would allow businesses to refuse service to gays and lesbians. That sounds really bad! It's got people protesting and talking about boycotting if the governor signs it.

George Takei (I loved his performances in Star Trek and Heros) wrote an Open Letter to the state of Arizona, telling us how much he loves coming here with his partner. He says that if this bill is signed into law they will have to find somewhere else to go. The Arizona Republic has spent at least two issues with the bill on the front page. FOX News both local and national has covered the story.

So with all this coverage of course my interest is peeked. So, naturally I did what any thinking person would do, I read the bill.  Immediately, I noticed this is a revision of a law already on the books (Free Exercise of Religion 41-1403). The only changes were primarily definitions of words and phrases. Instead of focussing solely on religious institutions the law would now have broader reach. It would be applicable to every Tom, Dick and Harry. Every business or organization would be able to lay claim to the same religious rights. So what's all the commotion?

Simple. While it's already "legal" to refuse service to anyone for whatever reason, nothing is preventing the offended people from suing you and forcing you to pay or do something that you don't want to do. Think about it this way. Do you really think you will get the best possible service from someone who doesn't want to be there? The revisions seem to give you a protection if your reason for not accepting a client or other service is for a deep religious belief.

Its funny that this is the cause of political chaos. The current law says nothing specific about gays and lesbians and neither do the revisions. I think someone is looking for freedom from religion. Perhaps a little worried someone won't have to pay for being a bigot. Wouldn't you rather know who is a bigot and who isn't?

I can illustrate it this way. A catering company has a religious belief that serving alcohol is a sin. So they choose not to offer it. They are a highly sought after company because they have the best food. One day a couple comes in and throws a fit that they won't serve their party hard drinks so they sue. The revisions, if I understand them correctly, would protect the caterers from being force to serve the beverages because of a deep religious belief.

Here are the principles I am using. Do to others what you want done to you. Don't force someone to do something they don't want to do. (I think we fought a war over something similar)

Personally, I think it's a folly to cloak this in religion. This should be the law regardless of personal religious belief. Anyone should be able to refuse service to anyone without worry of being sued. If some arrogant bigot wants to refuse service to blacks, Jews, gays or anyone else, that's what a picket line is for. That's why we have freedom of speech. The spiritually mislead and foolish bigots will get their reward when the strikes and bad reputation spreads.

Contact Jan Brewer and tell her what you think.