Gay 'Jim Crow' in Waiting?

by Andrew Roman
____________________

In Arizona, there already exists a law that's been on the books since 1999 called the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. The fact of the matter is that just about any place of business in that state already has the legal right to discriminate against gays, if they choose to. 

The fear now sweeping the country in this all-gay all-the-time era we live in is that if Governor Jan Brewer signs Bill 1062 into law – which is a modification to the existing law, a clarification – a new age of intolerance and grotesque homophobia will be ushered in. Presumably “No gays allowed” signs will start popping up across the landscape, homosexuals will be denied access to goods and services everywhere and gay-bashing will become institutionalized - all because of this law.

It's just what the bible thumpers have been waiting for!

Let’s be clear.  These latest modifications to the already existing law are not needed if business owners felt like saying "no" to gay customers. A Gay Jim Crow era would already exist without this bill, if this country were so inclined.

Indeed, there are some communities in Arizona that have local statutes in place against the existing state law, but the fact remains that denying services to gays could (and would) already be a reality most everywhere else if service providers really wanted to do so. The law is already on their side.

What is so hard to understand about this?

In much of the United States - from deep in the heart of Alabama to the northern reaches of New England - service providers already have that right to deny gays services.

The reality is: It just ain't happening. Anywhere.

There is no 21st-Century Gay Jim Crow era waiting to explode across the map as the world waits for Governor Brewer to launch it with a stroke of her pen.

I know the agenda pimps hate to hear this, but no one is turning away gays for being gay.

Why would they? How could they?

In fact, it would be contrary to the religious beliefs of Christians and Jews to deny services to homosexuals. How many of the great ignorant masses realize that? Plus, it would be heartily unwise from a business standpoint.

Seriously, why aren't these homophobes denying hamburgers, clothes, radial tires and Slushies to gays now? 

What the bill does is confirm the right of a religious person to not have to participate in a given event that specifically contradicts their religious beliefs - a same-sex wedding, for instance. 

These modifications would not be necessary if not for judges with agendas who have access to countless penumbras.*

Let’s be even more clear. The people in question - photographers and bakers who have refused to work same-sex weddings - have said time and time again they are more than happy to serve gays as individuals. What they are specifically refusing to do is serve a same-sex wedding, which directly contradicts religious conviction.

It should be noted that no business anywhere has ever - and I mean, ever - used the Religious Freedom Restoration Act to defend not serving gays.

The modifications to the law are completely misunderstood by the left, the media (redundant) and politicians of all stripes afraid of bad press.

On one hand, the bill is meant to clarify in no uncertain terms that that any association, including for-profit corporations, are covered in the already existing law. Indeed, that was the intent of the law when originally constructed (by both Democrats and Republicans). However (sadly), the Hobby-Lobby and Conestoga Woods Specialties lawsuits against ObamaCare's birth control mandate made it clear that judges could twist and distort the original intent to meet their own agendas. Arizona decided to wipe away any ambiguity and state once and for all that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act most definitely applies to corporations as well.

That's the gist of it. I guess it's obvious to see how such a contemptible modification could spark a 21st Century Jim Crow backlash against gays across the map.

The bill also clarifies that the government does not have to be a party to a given case. In other words, an entity can assert a religious freedom violation whether or not the government is involved.

That's all. 

Quick, break out the fire hose. Armageddon is coming. Let's beat back the gays!!

On the other hand – and this is critical - the bill could actually make it more difficult for one to claim a religious freedom violation - not easier. According to the bill, one asserting a violation must show three specific things:

"1. That the person's action or refusal to act is motivated by a religious belief.

2. That the person's religious belief is sincerely held.

3. That the state action substantially burdens the exercise of the person's religious beliefs."

These points could arguably make it more burdensome for, say, a devout Christian to prove that he or she is within his or her rights to deny gays services based on religious convictions. Denying a gay person a new dishwasher, for instance, because of what he or she does in the privacy of the bedroom is simply not defensible based on normative Judeo-Christian beliefs.

Refusing to service a same-sex wedding, however, is absolutely defensible on religious grounds and well within the rights of those doing so. 

The sad thing is…if the bill passes, I have little doubt that Arizona may suffer somewhat economically, especially if the newly-annointed socially-conscious arbiters of justice – the National Football League – pull the Super Bowl from Phoenix.

More's the pity.

I wonder how many Arizona gays will be affected economically because of it.

____________

*Editor's note: "penumbra" refers to SCOTUS Justice William O. Douglas' opinion in Griswold v. Connecticut, that there are Constitutional rights not enumerated in the Constitution, like a specific "right to privacy", which then generates indistinct shadows or "penumbras" under which Constitutional rights (like abortion) may be construed.