Revisiting the Right to Discriminate
© 2014 by
(Inspired by Arizona's SB1062-vetoed)
This posting brings into question an issue that may have
been for too long, left on the cutting room floor of Civil Rights back in the
mid ‘60’s, and that is the Right to Discriminate. I am probably the least likely person to
bring up such a topic, given the history of Civil Rights in America and People
of Color, whose American beginnings go back to Slavery,
right here in America. The discussion of
the Right to Discriminate, while not
an actual right, per se, may need to be revisited given the manner in which discrimination
is coming about in America. Most often,
using religion, presenting such approaches supposedly addressing the “sinfulness”
of those who are the intended targets.
The Right to
Discriminate, while seemingly un-American, is growing in intensity, and may
cause more of us whose rights are to be protected, to actually look at those who are the
initiators of supposed discriminatory acts, and who may actually be the target
of discrimination themselves. Did that
make sense? We’ll get to making sense
later on. But for now, let us look at
the most recent incident of how the Right
to Discriminate issue was presented to the world, and how it may signal
what is to come. More importantly, it
may signal how we, as Americans may need to give ear, and give way to those
other American citizens who may ultimately, have the Right to Discriminate.
Governor Jan Brewer
(R), Arizona, recently vetoed a state-wide piece of legislation that awaited
her signature from the Arizona Legislature.
It was a bill that would have allowed businesses to refuse to serve
those who were determined, or presumed to be, Lesbian, Bi-Sexual, Gay or
Transgendered (LBGT). The bill would have allowed this form of
discrimination for of all things, religious reasons. It was an interesting bill, that had Governor
Brewer signed it, could have had a tremendously negative impact on the state’s
image, and a less than successful economic impact on the state’s economy.
Video: Arizona Governor, Jan Brewer (R) explaining
why she vetoed Arizona SB1062, http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/arizona-bill-controversy/arizona-governor-jan-brewer-vetoes-anti-gay-bill-n39666
But how did we know that?
How do we know that this bill, had it passed would have been damaging to
the State of Arizona? Well, it was
stated that conventions would have cancelled, and that other businesses would have
reconsidered bringing their businesses to Arizona. But that may have all been just talk.
How do we know that had the bill been signed that everything would not
have gone as normal? More importantly,
how did such a bill make it through the legislature? In America?
History
of Arizona SB 1062:
http://www.azleg.gov//FormatDocument.asp?inDoc=/legtext/51leg/2r/bills/sb1062.sthird.1.asp&Session_ID=112
I will not present a viable answer to these questions, but
it did cause me to consider the fact that America has had a long road of
discrimination to fight or defend, as evident by the Amendments to the
Constitution. I am sure that we are familiar with
them. For example, we cannot
discriminate against people because of the color of their skin, nor their
religion. We can’t discriminate against
people because of their age, their familial status, nor can we discriminate
against anyone because of their disability.
These are our laws, and we should be ashamed, as well as proud of these
law. Why?
We should be ashamed of our laws because in this great
nation of ours, we have to coin legislation that states: we are not going to
discriminate against a particular group of Americans. We should be proud because as a nation, we
got together as a people, and made sure that we did not want anyone,
particularly American citizens, to be discriminated against, regardless of
their race, creed, color, nationality, religion, familial status, disability,
sex, or sexual orientation. Is that it?
Did I leave out anyone? Did I
leave out any American? I hope not, but I shouldn’t have to worry
about leaving anyone out from being discriminated against. I have no qualms with any American,
regardless of whom they maybe. In other
words, there isn’t an American citizen that I do not want to do business
with. But, as the State of Arizona has
shown us recently, and perhaps not exclusively, that there are perhaps other states
within America who would love to close their doors to other Americans despite
the Constitutionally-invoked classes that they may fall in. And that, seems extremely un-American.
Morality vs. Economics
I wish to insert at this point a dichotomy of this snapshot
in America that caused the State of Arizona to be thrust onto the world
stage. The State of Arizona, has every
right to present, debate, pass or veto its various laws that encourage or
discourages, that motivates or dissuades any citizen, legally in the pursuit of
the American Dream. In this case, the
bill before The State of Arizona, proposed that businesses would be allowed to
refuse to serve patrons of a particular community, based on religion. In this case, it was the men and women who
are/were are perceived to be, Lesbian, Gay, Bi-sexual and/or Transgendered, or
acronymically referred to as LGBT. The bill, SB1062, would have allowed for
religious reasons, businesses to refuse service to this community of citizens.
SB1062 was controversial for a number of reasons. I won’t elaborate on all of those reasons,
but it should be noted that, despite the reason for the bill (religious
reasons), the veto (while not publicly stated by Governor Brewer), was
basically for economic reasons. In short, came down to an issue of Economics
and not Morality, that if, the State of Arizona had passed SB1062, businesses
would not have fulfilled their obligations.
That because of Arizona’s SB1062, that possible conventions, Super
Bowls, or jobs, would not have gone forth to do business with Arizona. SB1062 would have cost the State of Arizona
millions of dollars in all things, business.
Never mind, that two consenting adults were engaged in same-sex
relations, in stark contrast to the Biblical teachings of our religions, we
(Arizona) was going to lose money. So,
was it really about morality, as the SB1062 promoted, or money, as the veto
protected?
Citizens have a right to not do business with whom they may.
As a business owner, except where
allowable, you have to sell your homes, your food, your auto parts, your hotel
rooms to whomever seeks to do business with you. The Constitution suggests that regardless of anyone’s
disability, as a group, business or organization, you have to make sure that
your business, except as stated, that your facility is ADA compliant. And while these examples are constitutionally
required, those who are the beneficiaries of these constitutional protections,
they may not necessarily be protected from the unintended consequences of the ill-wills
of those whom the Constitution mandates.
For example, if someone of a particular religion enters into
an establishment that has to serve everyone, who is to say that the proprietor
will provide the same level of service as they would someone else of another
religion? If, for example, someone of
the LGBT community wishes to hold a convention in a given hotel, who is to say
that that hotelier is going to be completely compliant according to the
Constitution of the United States? No
one knows. But would it be fair to
speculate that the Constitution mandates behavior only to a certain point?
A False Sense of
Security for Protected Classes
For those of us who fit in description of Protected Classes,
and with the revelation of Arizona’s SB1062, there is an indication of a desire
of American citizens to
discriminate. While the bill was headed
up by the Republican party, the fact that it went that far within a State’s
legislature, suggests that those of us who believe ourselves to be protected
from discrimination, maybe just this shy of seeing those protections whittled away,
by both the Democrats and the Republican Party.
There is no apparent limit as to how many times a legislature will
present and vote on a bill, as evident in the Congress on the Affordable
Healthcare Act. Most recently, the 50th time by
the Republican-lead U.S. Congress, and
there is no indication that there won’t be a 51st attempt.
For those who are under the Protected Classes of the United
States Constitution, we need to be aware of the gradual decline in the
tolerance of a group of American citizens, who may believe that they have
received the wrong end of the stick of justice. Be aware, that they are coming
full force, stopping only short of picking up their guns and demanding that
their rights to discriminate be revisited.
They are demanding their day in court. The handwriting is on the wall for those of us
who believe that the protective statuses that we enjoy, will last forever. Be advised, that the U.S. Constitution is a
living, breathing document, and, like the wind, it is subject to change. The determinants and direction of our
constitution rest in the hands of the dogged few, who vote, presumably by
whatever direction their best interests lie.
That direction is changing as we speak, because the few who do vote,
pale in comparison to those who need to vote, and they are the members of the
Protected Classes, who seem to refuse to vote.
Do not, as a Protected Class of citizens of the United
States, presume that every aspect of the constitution will be in place in 10 or
20 years from now, regardless of (y)our protective status. Take a picture of it, for today, maybe it’s
last day in its present form. The Right to Discriminate is a real
issue for those who have sat idly by and who have felt the wrath of those who
benefit from that portion of the Constitution that protects them from
discrimination, while requiring those who would rather not do business with
select members of America, are forced to do, reportedly, because of their
religion. They are now chomping at the
bit, and they are ready to obtain their rights, even if it means taking (y)our
rights, by any means necessary. The Right to Discriminate, while
seemingly impractical, or even un-American, is the very essence of what our
democracy has preached, and whether unfair or not, it is such a right that will
be heard, from its most parochial form, to its most ardent form. And when the chips have fallen, wherever they
may fall, our various protected statuses may lie there on the very floor of
Civil Rights as did their rights in the ‘60’s, when the Voting Rights Acts,
for example, was passed for People of Color.
Age; Disability; Equal Pay/Compensation; Genetic
Information; Harassment; National Origin; Pregnancy, Race/Color; Religion;
Retaliation; Sexual Harassment and Sex.
(This list may not be a complete list of protected classes for which the
laws of Discrimination apply. Consult your EEOC Department or your attorney for
further information).
Religion? Really?
Religion is the one saving grace of many cultures. Theoretically, religion allows us to acquire
and live by rules that usurp laws that otherwise ensure that all citizens, of
any give culture, place and time, live cohesively, and in accord with one
another. But religion has also become
the weapon that many of us have come to use to thwart the very laws that
protect us. Religion, by whatever god
that is served, seems to conveniently focus on those issues that religion says
are wrong in other cultures. But
seemingly, religion does not seem to focus on forgiveness, tolerance, or
allowing where most appropriate for the law to act accordingly, that it allows
the law to act on its behalf, as in the case of Arizona’s SB1062. For reasons of religion, the State of Arizona
would enact legislation that protects the right to discriminate against a person
because of their presumed behavior, or community. And in furtherance of that discrimination, it
selects a specifically identified, and presumed misbehavior, by a specifically
identified set of individuals. All other
misbehaviors by that specifically identified individual or group of
individuals, whether condemned by their religion or not, shall not be
considered as so egregious as to require the State Legislature to
intervene. And, for that same religious
reason, it becomes inconsequential that other acts deemed unacceptable by that
said religion shall not be a reason to identify legislatively, although, and
possibly more egregious than the previously identified individual or group of
individuals, or behavior.
The question remains, how does one selectively decide,
according to one religion, that one sin is more egregious than the other? The question also remains, how does one
determine by way of religion that one act, deemed to be in violation of one’s
religion, become so important in violation, that it requires bringing the State
into play, to defend on behalf of one’s religion? Really?
How is this act, or set of acts, not disingenuous to one’s own religion,
is beyond me. Why not just state for the
record, that as American citizens, you have the right to discriminate, and go
for your day in court? Why tarnish your
religion, your god, or your values by using the State to push an agenda that
conflicts already with the mission of many religions that demand a separation
between religion and State?
Selectivity in Hatred
and Discrimination
The Constitution of the United States cannot change people’s
biases, or prejudices. And to that end,
those who have a propensity to hate a selected group should not be held in
check because of their hatred, they should be allowed to be guided by their
hatred, and to do business according to that hatred. With one caveat, however: Their hatred would not be selective. Those who have hatred, cannot be deemed to
have so much control over their hatred that they can turn it on and off at
will. Instead, they should be constitutionally
inclusive with like-minded owners, businesses and community organizations, who
despite standing behind religious doctrine, or any other form of theoretically
protective laws, would instead be included in a designated group of like-minded
owners, businesses, and community organizations who could choose not to do
business with any of the protected classes of Americans. How would that be? Here is an example:
NOTICE (Proposed legislation, subject to be amended by the United States
Constitution): Be it known, that this establishment or business/owner/proprietor, or
community organization, being legally licensed, and having paid all requisite
fees, is hereby declared exempt, under the state laws of (Any State, USA) and according
to the Constitution of the United States, regarding the protected classes of American citizens,
as amended is subject to the conditions afforded in The Right to Discriminate
Law, as amended. Be it further known
that the aforementioned group or organization, as named herein shall, without
limitation or penalty of law, refuse to serve, inform, or deliver any goods to said
protective classes of the citizens of the United States as provided for in the
Constitution of the United State of America, without penalty of law. Those citizens of said protected classes
shall include, but not be limited to: race, creed, color, sex, sexual orientation,
handicapped, gender or other such protected classes as provided for by the
United States Constitution, as amended.
Exclusions to the
Proposed Right to Discriminate
Would it make sense
that any exclusion to the United States Constitution would have an
exclusion? Yes, it would. Why?
Because despite the fact that such
a passage would be proposed and if passed, would still have exclusions. Here are 6 things to consider:
1.
The Right
to Discriminate Law would not apply to businesses, or organizations who
have not subscribed publicly to this law.
Publicly, as would be stipulated, require that any one group or
individual, or organization would have prominently applied for such a status;
would be required to publish said notice in the local papers, or have broadcasted
over the local radio and or television stations in the areas in which they do
or will do business; they would be required to publish on their websites, and
will also be required to post a notice on any structure or entrance to said
office of their Right to Discriminate
Status. Last but not least, said
individual, business or organization, shall include on their letterheads,
contracts, and/or emails or other such media or communications, a universal symbol
(as yet to be determined) that prominently indicates their Right to Discriminate status.
2.
This proposed Right to Discriminate law, would not protect any other protected
class of citizen who knowing or unknowingly decides to do business or engage in
any activity with said subject group, business or organization, when that
group, business or organization has made prominently known, or broadcasted
their status, or who have fulfilled all of their legal obligations as
prescribed by their local laws and the Constitution of the United States;
3.
The Right
to Discriminate status could be renewable every 5 years, with a life-time
option if so desired. (Thus allowing
additional other protected classes to be added or removed to the Constitutionally-protected
list).
4.
No one individual, or group, or business, who
accepts the conditions of the Right To
Discriminate Law, shall be entitled to receive governmental funds or
contracts. Such exclusion shall apply to
state, and federal contracts and funds as long as said group, organization or
individual subscribes to the Right to
Discriminate Law.
5.
Other exclusions may apply, by state, and is
subject to change with the approval of the courts of jurisdiction;
Hatred and
Discrimination-Interchangeable?
It may seem unfair to suggest that because one group does
not want to do business with another group, that it is hatred. After all, what religion teaches hatred? But if on the receiving end of
discrimination, there appears to be no other valid reason for not wanting to do
business with, or to include someone in a particular business venture, what is
the offending party to believe? It must
be hatred. And if it is hatred, to what
end does the offended party address the behavior of discrimination where, when
such discrimination is often without provocation, or warning? Historically, it has always been that
discrimination equaled hatred, and perhaps in the near future, that may
change. We will see.
WHY SUCH A PROPOSAL?
America is going on close to 250 years old. At what point does this country come to grips
with the fact that to have a country committed to supporting everyone’s dream,
in a manner that respects the rights of others becomes a false hope? Despite America’s image as a country that
embraces everyone’s differences, there remains one group of Americans whose
rights we must be overlooking. We must
be overlooking the rights of those who wish to be judged by their willingness
to discriminate. And yet, we try to
overlook them by protecting those whom they discriminate against. Why not provide an opportunity for those who
wish to discriminate to be able to do, without penalty, or without being
judged? And, why not allow that means of discrimination to come at a cost? Why not provide an opportunity for those who
would not want to do business with someone who hates them to choose not to go
into their establishments rather than be blind-side by discriminatory practices? America has grown tremendously, and there
can’t be this many people on this large a land mass where everyone is going to
get along. There has to be enough businesses that even the most hated can still
make a living without depending on those whom they hate, or if their religion
forbids the business association, to enter their doors. And conversely, there must be enough
businesses that the protected classes can patronize without being subjected to
unfair treatment. So, why not devise a
legislative process that opens the door to those who wish to do business
exclusively with their own, and not be penalized? With exceptions or exclusions, of course.
Who?
Who would be the beneficiaries of this type of
legislation? Ideally, we all would be. Those whose lives are built around selecting
those whom they hate and wishing to God that they didn’t have to serve them
because of some Constitutional provision, would benefit. The states and courts would benefit because
they would have reduced the number of lawsuits regarding discrimination. No one should have to go into, or do business
with a business that has declared the proposed status of The Right to Discriminate, if they are the intended target of that
business for discriminatory practices.
And for those customers, they should be only too glad to frequent an
establishment, or do business with someone who is not likely to judge them
because of the color of their skin, disability, or what have you as a protected
class of citizens.
What?
What would it take to make this happen? It doesn’t look like it would take much to
get a committee in Congress or the Senate to hash out this Amendment. Arizona has already shown that there are
willing legislators who will take the lead on putting in this type of
legislation in place. It doesn’t seem as
though it would be difficult a challenge to get State Legislators to gather
together and put a bill together that allows for The Right to Discriminate, either.
It Doesn’t Make Sense!
No, it doesn’t make sense that in America, a country whose
attempt at a lasting legacy that purports to open the doors to all, has found a
way to make a way to discriminate against a select group of its citizens, under
the guise of religion (Arizona Senate Bill –SB1062). And while religion may be a legitimate
reason, there remains a question of the sense that it makes that any given religion
would use the State, any State of Law within the United States, to its defense
to exercise selectivity in discriminating against her own citizens. It doesn’t make sense, that those whose
religion focuses selectively, on supposedly one “sin” of its citizens over
another. For example: why not those of
us who may have committed adultery, fornicating, killing, blasphemy, bearing
false witness or lying, stealing, and a host of other religiously unapproved
activities. How do these sins, as
reportedly upheld in the Bible, pale in comparison to the supposed sin of
homosexuality?
It doesn’t make sense that a country, so bold in its pursuit
to be the greatest example of what the world should hold itself out to be, has
opened the door to discrimination through legislation. No, it’s not new for America, but it should
not be revived, nor revisited, without a commitment to make right how
discrimination is just as damaging to our entire economy as one would perceive
homosexuality.
Jim Crow
laws showed the hatred of America, and to this day, those laws, while repealed
in one way, continue to show themselves quite well. How?
Look at our prisons-predominantly men of color; look at our
schools-closed wherever a person of color once attended; look at America’s
politics-addressing crime has been a euphemism for people of color, and where
the right to vote is at stake, anyone of color, or Hispanic in origin, are
subjected to laws that attempt to suppress their votes. It doesn’t make sense,
that in nearly 250 years, this country cannot pull itself out of the bonds of
hatred. And to that end, uses the cover
of law as a means of furthering that hatred.
No, it doesn’t make sense.
Trying to Make Sense
This Right to
Discriminate proposal makes perfect sense in a country whose destiny
appears to be too far to go to achieve true equality. It makes perfect sense as America has
demonstrated that to have a country that exists without discrimination is a bar
too high to reach. With the enactment of
The Right to Discriminate
legislation, America can let go of her goal, to have a country that allows for
everyone to pursuit the American Dream, without regard to race, creed, or
color, religion, sexual orientation, familial status, or disability, etc. It is appears to be too much for a country to
take on, regardless of her age, regardless of the milestones where women are
finally in line to be considered for the presidency, or regardless of the fact
that America has elected her first person of color to the office of the
President of the United States. It would
appear that America has reached her maximum allowable level where
anti-discrimination has exceeded its welcome.
This Right to
Discriminate proposal would seem sufficiently perfect for a country who
gave it her best. She set the amendments
in place, she set the laws in place, and she provided on as limited a bases as
possible that those who would be discriminated against, could seek the help of
the courts. But on her best day, America
has failed. America’s efforts of
subduing, or suppressing discrimination is on life-support, and it is just a
matter of time, when every state will have proposed more legislation than the
law should allow, to carry out discrimination at leisure, and her citizens
would be subjected to the very levels of discrimination that has been so
hard-fought against.
IF
If such a proposal (The
Right to Discriminate), were taken seriously, and I doubt that it will be, would
it improve America’s perspective internally?
Would the hatred subside? Not
hardly. Those who have the overwhelming
desire to hate, will hate. But if this
proposal were taken seriously, those whose hatred guides them, would be allowed
to do business among their own, without subjecting unsuspecting citizens to
their discriminatory behavior. But, the
key part of this proposal, is that those who wish to discriminate, could not
selectively discriminate. They would be
in a class of those who could eventually discriminate against their base, their
friends, or their business associates. If
such a proposal were taken seriously, then men and women of our protected
classes, would theoretically have better than half a chance to live out their
lives without worrying about their lives being directly affected by those whose
discriminatory actions work to quell their dreams. Is America's goal to promote equality too
lofty a goal to achieve? Did Arizona's
SB1062, Anti-Gay bill, though vetoed, indicate that the bar is set too high for
America to accomplish? Is it time to
revisit the right to discriminate and show how discrimination can work for all
Americans?
Maybe this isn’t the right time. Maybe, this isn’t the right way. But if it is the right time, or if it is the
right way, then America owes it to her citizens to begin now, to address
inequality and discrimination in a way that allows for each American to enjoy
the promises that awaits each and every citizen, present and future. If it is to be done, it is time for America
to take a quantum leap to open the doors to equality and prosperity, where one
citizen, or one group of citizens do not have to decide with whom to do
business, or to engage with constructively, while at the same time trying to
watch their back, economically, socially, or communally. If this is that time, then it would behoove
America to act with haste, to devise ways to constructively deal with
discrimination, or SB1062 will be represented in every state legislature, and
the possibility of a veto will be less of a probability.
DISCLAIMER: No information provided here shall be deemed
to be legal, financial or counseling.
For your respective concerns, consult your specialist or professional,
including your attorney, legislator, clergy, or CPA. Information provided here is deemed to be
from reliable sources, but not guaranteed.
No portion of this piece should be
considered as an endorsement to harass those of the LGBT community. Nor, should any portion of this piece should
be considered as an endorsement to harass or discriminate against those of the
Protective Classes as referenced here. Nor, should this posting be considered
as an intent, to solicit others to violate the rights of those protected by
EEOC, and/or the Constitution of the United States of America.
The Coveted Commandment and the
Coveted Commandment Blog are both copyrighted. ® 2014 by Wayne Dan Lewis, Sr.
