Arizona’s Exercise of Religion Bill got a lot of press recently and it’s a shame. It was so badly distorted in the media, that Arizona’s conservative governor Jan Brewer vetoed it, saying it could cause more problems than it would solve. Certainly, the way it was portrayed, it would have been bad for her politically. Right now what’s being jammed into the culture is that opposition to same sex marriage amounts to malice toward homosexuals. In retrospect, introducing this law may have been a fool’s errand.
The legislation was meant and intended to preserve religious liberty. But it was cast by news outlets as a throwback to the South’s infamous Jim Crow laws. Sort of Jim Crow for gays. The New York Times called it “A License to Discriminate.” It isn’t
Neither the word “homosexual” nor the term “same sex marriage” even appeared in the Arizona law. It simply added wording to the state’s existing Religious Freedom Restoration Act, or RFRA, to protect business owners from being forced, in conducting their business, to violate their religious beliefs. The language is aimed at providing a little extra protection over what is already included in the state and the federal RFRA’s, helping business owners defend themselves against discrimination claims. Arizona’s RFRA has been on the books for 15 years. The federal RFRA was uncontroversial in the 90’s, overwhelmingly passed by bipartisan majorities in the House and Senate and signed by then-President Bill Clinton.
Committed Christians believe their work is a form of ministry. They have the right to decline to bring their talents to bear to glorify a same-sex wedding.
Cathi Herrod, president of the Center for Arizona Policy, was a key player in crafting the Free Exercise bill in response to the legal challenges against bakers, florists, and wedding photographers that are taking place. None of these businesses facing discrimination claims refused to serve gay customers. It’s their refusals to participate in same sex ceremonies and weddings that got them into legal trouble.
After the governor’s announcement, Cathi Herrod expressed the frustrating truth about the way the law was twisted in the media. She said, ”The veto was for a bill that really didn’t exist.”
The Left is not asking for tolerance anymore. Columnist Peggy Noonan wrote: “the truly tolerant give each other a little space.”
Let’s face it. The state could very well impose same sex marriage, nationwide. And really, most of the people aren’t going to like it. Peggy Noonan pointed out that the Left may “win the day but not the era. The result,” she writes, “is not progress, but more national division, more of a grinding sense of dislike.”
If a vendor won’t help a gay couple celebrate their same sex marriage, that couple should make another phone call. Plenty of businesses, even some owned by Christians will gladly take their money. But — hey — they should be free to choose not to.