The bill was seen as a thinly veiled pretext to discriminate against LGBT individuals, but the legislation was even worse than that. It was so poorly crafted and overly broad that it could have caused enormous dischief in a wide array of situations.
 |
| Governor Brewer announcing the veto |
In announcing her veto of Senate Bill 1062, Governor Brewer made no mention whatsoever of LGBT objections to the law.
She did say the legislation "does not address a specific and present concern related to religious liberty in Arizona. I have not heard of one example in Arizona where a business owner's religious liberty has been violated." She also warned of "unintended and negative consequences" had the bill become law.
Indeed, that could have been the case. Free-floating religious-based discrimination could have pitted the beliefs of a Christian fundamentalist innkeeper against a Mormon seeking a motel room, or, for that matter, a gentile against a Jew. One of the qualms floating quietly among Christian fundamentalists was the fear that the bill could have allowed a faithful Muslim shopkeeper to deny service to women who failed to wear a hijab into the store.
In short, putting the shoe on the other foot hurt too much.
(By the way, this Muslim "threat" is fresh in the minds of Arizonans, because the Legislature only two years ago banned the application of Sharia law— as well as halacha and karma— in any jurisprudence. Just in case.)
In her speech, Governor Brewer mentioned that Arizona has a record as one of the best states to grow or start a business, an allusion perhaps to the dozens of major corporations objecting to the passage of Senate Bill 1062. The bill was too homophobic even for the National Football League.
It seems clear that Senate Bill 1062, had it become law, would have failed to pass muster under precedents of the United States Supreme Court. In United States versus Lee, the court ruled against an Amish employer's objections to paying Social Security taxes on religious grounds.
Writing for the court in 1982, Chief Justice Warren Burger explained, "When followers of a particular sect enter into commercial activity as a matter of choice, the limits they accept on their own conduct as a matter of conscience and faith are not to be superimposed on the statutory schemes which are binding to others in that activity."
In other words, once a person engages in commercial enterprises, he or she cannot decide that a law doesn't apply to them because of their religious tells them otherwise.
That precedent may not last long, however. The precise issue is being revisited shortly under the current Supreme Court, which is comprised of justices far more conservative than those from the Warren court. This time the issue is an employer's religious objections to providing contraceptive coverage for employees. That mandate is part of Obamacare.
One final note on Senate Bill 1062: The notion that Arizona should be allowed to discriminate against LGBT people based on an individual's religious beliefs now seems dead. But will Arizona do anything about eliminating state-sanctioned discrimination against LGBT individuals?
Arizona still allows employers in the private sector to fire or refuse to hire gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgender individuals. Arizona bans second-parent adoptions, such as those involving a gay or lesbian couple. Arizona has a law against bullying in schools, but it doesn't specifically address the problems faced by LGBT youths. And, of course, Arizona forbids gay and lesbian couples from marrying. And it refuses to recognize the legitimacy of marriages legally performed in other jurisdictions.
Governor Jan Brewer's veto of the obnoxious Senate Bill 1062 is a victory, at least insofar as free-floating individual discrimination against the LGBT community is concerned. But if the same religious concepts are set in law by the state itself, well, that's just fine for Arizona.
0 comments:
Post a Comment