In total, nine changes are proposed by SB1062 - most amendments, but also the addition of a new section, F, to the end of 41-1493.01. Of those changes, only three of them are substantial - the second, which redefines 'Person' for the purpose of the statutes that follow to include more than only religious assemblies and institutions, the seventh, which restructures part of the statute to take effect even if the government was not part of the proceedings of any particular action, and the ninth, which adds an additional subsection that redefines 'State Action' to include many actions not by the state.
And, of course, people are being fussy.
What's the Fuss?
After reading arguments against SB1062 - a lot of them, really - I've come to the conclusion that people believe that this legislation was created solely so that individuals could deny service to people based on their own personal prejudices.
And I'll be very clear here: this is exactly what it does.
If you at any point argue that SB1062 does not give this power to people, you are wrong.
This is where the fuss comes from.
Why Are Some People For It, Then?
Perhaps more surprisingly, after coming to an understanding of what the bill intends to do, is that some people are all for the bill even though they have no intention to discriminate against any individual for any reason, nor wish for others to do so.
Why's that?
Well, it is a fairly widely held belief that individuals engaged in business transactions should have the right to determine with whom they do business. If I'm a racist, I shouldn't have to serve people of color. A homophobe? Shouldn't have to serve homosexual people. A misogynist? Shouldn't have to serve women.
This legislation openly defends a business owner's right to do so, and that is why these people believe it should be passed into law.
Why's that?
Well, it is a fairly widely held belief that individuals engaged in business transactions should have the right to determine with whom they do business. If I'm a racist, I shouldn't have to serve people of color. A homophobe? Shouldn't have to serve homosexual people. A misogynist? Shouldn't have to serve women.
This legislation openly defends a business owner's right to do so, and that is why these people believe it should be passed into law.
Does History Apply?
A lot of people are bringing up historical laws - things like laws that prevented discrimination against blacks in the South all those years ago.
Those laws were a good and necessary thing. However, they simply don't apply here.
Why?
Well, in those times, the market was so homogenous on a single issue that it simulated monopoly power. That is, all the business owners disliked blacks so much that they refused to serve them in certain ways, or at all, thus emulating monopoly power in that respect.
We all know monopolies are bad things, and in this case it was even worse than usual. Hence why the government had to step in and fix the issue.
Arizona is different, though. As a state, Arizona is not homogenous to the point where any one group will be discriminated against enough to entirely deny them essential services and, as such, it is not the same situation that necessitated earlier government intervention.
In my opinion, discrimination is an individuals right. If I don't want to talk to someone for any reason, I should not be forced to. If I own a business and do not want to serve someone, I should not be forced to. Force is not an acceptable way to overcome discrimination, and does little but cause tensions to increase.
It is, then, my belief that they should shelve the bill, perform a study to ensure that no one will be entirely denied essential services as a result of the bill, remove the portion that allows government employees to deny services to individuals, and only then should they pass it.
Unfortunately, none of that is going to happen, so I'm instead going to hope that it get vetoed or overturned in court. Either one is fine by me.
Those laws were a good and necessary thing. However, they simply don't apply here.
Why?
Well, in those times, the market was so homogenous on a single issue that it simulated monopoly power. That is, all the business owners disliked blacks so much that they refused to serve them in certain ways, or at all, thus emulating monopoly power in that respect.
We all know monopolies are bad things, and in this case it was even worse than usual. Hence why the government had to step in and fix the issue.
Arizona is different, though. As a state, Arizona is not homogenous to the point where any one group will be discriminated against enough to entirely deny them essential services and, as such, it is not the same situation that necessitated earlier government intervention.
What Should Be Done?
It is, then, my belief that they should shelve the bill, perform a study to ensure that no one will be entirely denied essential services as a result of the bill, remove the portion that allows government employees to deny services to individuals, and only then should they pass it.
Unfortunately, none of that is going to happen, so I'm instead going to hope that it get vetoed or overturned in court. Either one is fine by me.
No comments:
Post a Comment