The Veto Of Arizona Bill SB 1062 & The Constitution Of The United States

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." – Free Exercise Of Religion Claus of the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States

 

"No state shall...deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." – Equal Protection Claus of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States

 

"Religious liberty is a core American and Arizona value. So is non-discrimination." – part of a statement from Arizona Republican Governor Jan Brewer in late February after vetoing SB 1062, a two page bill passed by a Republican controlled state legislature that opponents of the bill claimed would have allowed owners of businesses the right to deny service to homosexual customers on religious grounds.

 

***

Just when Democrats thought they were safe "making a political living" out of the Constitution's Commerce Claus & Equal Protection Claus cited above as the only parts of the Constitution that mattered or they needed or intended to follow along comes another case in Arizona to challenge this simplistic view.

 

Despite the Founders obvious intentions to the contrary Democrats have for decades interpreted the Commerce Claus to mean that politicians could, would, & should regulate commerce – not promote it - to the point of no sense.  The Equal Protection Claus has been used to cover political & social issues that benefit the poorest, most unskilled, & least educated people that could be stirred up to vote Democrat.  This is so detestable I can't even say it is a nice try.

 

The Commerce Claus is mentioned only for illustrative purposes – this post pertains to the religious freedoms of the First Amendment & how the Equal Protection Claus can be used to mix things up so badly that homosexual marriage is considered covered in every & any context by the Equal Protection Claus.

 

In the referenced case SB 1062 was an Arizona bill to amend an existing law – the 15 year old Religious Freedom Restoration Act that was modeled after federal legislation passed in the 1990s under Clinton - pertaining to the free exercise of religion.  Opponents of the bill found much to dislike in this politically correct country including discrimination of homosexuals.  Although the bill itself does not contain any reference whatsoever to homosexuals opponents interpreted it to allow owners of small businesses to refuse service to homosexuals on religious grounds.  Read the entire two page bill to see for yourself.

 

Governor Brewer's statement above pits the two sides in contention – religious liberty versus non-discrimination.

 

Opponents carried their examples as far as bringing up the specter of the restoration of Jim Crow law principles applied to homosexuals such as separate but equal status pertaining to public schools, public places, and public transportation, and the segregation of restrooms, restaurants, and drinking fountains.  All this from a two page bill that did not mention homosexuals.

 

Other opponents of the bill were concerned about the bill harming the Arizona economy and that it could lead to discrimination lawsuits & boycotts.  Apple, American and Delta airlines, Marriot Hotels, Intel, PetSmart, Yelp, The Coca-Cola Company, IHG, Major League Baseball, & the Super Bowl host committee were all opposed to the bill.

 

Politicians ran from the bill including three Arizona legislators who voted for its passage & were later pressured to encourage & endorse Brewer's veto.  So too Senators McCain & Flake called for the bill's veto.

 

So we see that all of the concerns of the bill's opposition focused on political correctness & not hurting the Arizona economy.  But there was no concern regarding the protection of religious rights of owners of businesses who have been forced against their religious beliefs to take photos, arrange flowers, or provide wedding cakes for homosexual weddings.  (In NJ, under similar legislation, the Mayor of Somerville had to give up conducting marriage ceremonies because his religious beliefs opposed homosexual marriage – did he have no choice but to give up his marriage authority?  His ceremony was as beautiful as any I have personally ever seen.)

 

After being subjected to ObamaCare we don't have to wonder if the government can compel a Jewish baker to deliver a wedding cake on a Saturday.

 

Many readers are familiar with the Star Transport incident of the Morton Illinois trucking company being sued by BO's Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) after Star fired two Muslim employees who refused to deliver alcohol in their trucks even after signing a contract. The EEOC came down on the company and said they had failed to accommodate the religious beliefs of the two Muslim employees.  Neither BO nor the EEOC has expressed similar concern regarding the photographer, florist, or baker mentioned above.

 

Now a reasonable person would ask why would Muslims sign a contract to deliver alcohol if they considered it against their religion or why would homosexuals getting married not obtain the services of a photographer, florist, or baker who had no religious objections to provide their services?  In the examples cited in the news media why did the homosexual couples report the photographer, florist, & baker to the authorities for disciplining?  When you ask these questions the answers become obvious.

 

But what is missing in all of the concerns about the Arizona economy & securing the Super Bowl for the state is the question I have not heard asked by opponents or supporters of the bill.  What does the Constitution say about this matter?

 

Take as a given that the Equal Protection Claus ensures everyone with equal protection of the laws - so if you stop with just this general point with no further detail you can conclude that the photographer, florist, & baker who would not provide their services @ homosexual weddings were not in accordance with non-discrimination laws.  But this position shows how badly our marvelous Constitution is ignored when you look a little deeper.

 

The non-discrimination laws are statutes written by the Peoples' agents – acts proceeding from the legislative body - while the Free Exercise Of Religion Claus of the First Amendment proceeds directly from We the People of the United States who ordained & established the Constitution & as such is superior to the statutes.  Both the non-discrimination statutes & the Free Exercise Of Religion Claus of the First Amendment are laws that come under the Equal Protection Claus & accordingly clearly shows that the religious freedom that has been denied in any of the above examples is in violation of the Constitution that so many of the opponents of SB 1062 swore to support. 

 

Just one more thing to add to the list as our entire way of life is being taken from us little by little without a whimper.

 

In spite of all the above, the potential for fireworks comes when Muslim photographers, florists, or bakers refuse to provide their services @ homosexual weddings.