Arizona Governor Jan Brewer vetoed an amendment to the Religious Freedom Restoration Act that would allow businesses to deny service to anyone on the basis of a “sincerely held” religious belief. Critics hold that the bill was authored with intent to discriminate against Arizona’s gay community. The Center for Arizona Policy, a proponent of the measure, insists that the legislation enables business owners to “live out their faith.” While Gov. Brewer made the correct decision to veto Senate Bill 1062, that the bill even ended up on her desk is problematic.
S.B. 1062 aimed to amend Arizona’s Religious Freedom Restoration Act, a state law modeled off a federal bill of the same name; the RFTA prevents “substantial burdens” to one’s religious practice, including ”burdens” imposed by general laws. Congress originally crafted the bill in 1993 to respond to the 1990 Supreme Court decision in Employment Division v. Smith that ruled religious groups were not exempt from laws that applied to all U.S. citizens. With S.B. 1062, Arizona’s legislature hoped to manipulate a law into a justification for thinly-veiled discrimination against gays. Several of the bill’s authors said publicly they hoped the bill to be a spring-board for a future negative vote on same-sex marriage.
Brewer’s decision to veto the bill both prevents discrimination and preserves religious freedom. A business owner interacts with the public, that undoubtedly does not share all of his or her beliefs. If religious practice interferes with another’s religious beliefs, it contradicts religious freedom. S.B. 1062 therefore was in contradiction with the law that it was trying to amend. Allowing businesses to deny service on the basis of religious belief is not a valid manifestation of religious freedom.
Legally, the grounds on which a business can refuse service are highly regulated by federal and state law, as well as precedent. A business’s refusal of service has typically won in the courtroom when the refusal was based on the safety of customers and staff. Moreover, the Federal Civil Rights Act ensures for all citizens the “full and equal enjoyment of the … services … of any place of public accommodation, without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin.”
While sexual orientation is not yet federally protected, legal precedent exists. In California, the Civil Rights Act protects sexual orientation from discrimination. Furthermore, New Mexico’s Supreme Court ruled in August that a photography business’s refusal to photograph a gay marriage was in violation of anti-discrimination laws. Therefore, this bill would have allowed unlawful and unethical discrimination against a group of people.
Arizona’s bill passed its legislature against all logic and legal precedent, therefore, Brewer’s decision to veto the measure, while expected, was justified. S.B. 1062 was not about religious freedom, but the fear of what some people do not understand, and consequently reject—and that must never be grounds for the creation of a law.
