Arizona

The problem with the bill that Jan Brewer just vetoed wasn't its social significance or its impact on gay rights. It was the bill itself. It was a bad bill, and it would have been a bad law.

First and foremost, it was a law that asserted rights that already existed. We already have too many of those. We have the right to associate, or in this case not to associate with whomever we please. What the law gives, the law can take away. It was also a law that nominally intended, among other things, to protect a segment of citizens against litigation. That kind of law is like lipstick on a pig.

The Jim Crow laws codified racism. They required it. The Arizona law would codify discrimination against gay people. It doesn't matter that it didn't require it. Were gay folk going to insist on being served before the law? Some few would, but the vast majority would not. It is basic human nature to avoid places where we're not wanted. Were most of them going to insist after the law? Not really. Same reason. Would some people test the law? Of course, and not just truly gay people. The law would have accomplished nothing but to unnecessarily radicalize the whole issue.

The stated purpose of the bill was to protect a business owner's "sincerely held religious convictions." Really bad idea. It implies that one deeply held conviction needs more protection than another. It also implies that one person's interpretation of their religion has more merit than another's. There are plenty of Gay Christians. Engaging the law to interpret, and worse, to enforce religious convictions is dangerous. It leads to exactly the reason this country was founded, and it is an explicit violation of the first amendment.

Without questioning those interpretations or convictions, there is still the question of how the business owners are supposed to know that these people are gay. Would gay people be required to wear a sign or a special hat to alert the business owner that they are gay? That's the problem with vaguely worded bills like this one. My example is admittedly hyperbolic, but it isn't a stretch to imagine a business owner complaining that a gay man didn't identify himself so the business owner could legally discriminate against him. The law would be unenforceable, which, if for no other reason, makes it a bad law.

It's silly to assume that very many businesses would take advantage of the law. Gay folk tend to be more affluent consumers, and business owners know that. Alienating a productive demographic is a poor business decision. Also, it is an unarguable fact that anyone who starts randomly throwing patrons out because he thinks they're gay is not going to be in business long. Zealous crazies are a definite minority.

Which all leads us to the actual purpose and motivation for the bill. Political chest-thumping. A political fringe has a significant presence in the Arizona legislature. The fringe presence plays to a fringe constituency. The fringe grabbed national attention that they couldn't possibly hope to gain in other ways. This is evidenced by the fact that large numbers of businesses in Arizona, as well as mainstream politicians urged Governor Brewer to veto the bill. It would have furthered the establishment of Arizona as a state full of right-wing crazies that the immigration bill already started. It would have cost the state millions in business and revenue. It's not even a case of political expediency overwhelming principle. It would have caused real damage to real people. We already live in a country where the unintended consequences of political jostling cause more harm than is necessary.

It wasn't an issue of gay rights. It could very well have applied to people who color their hair purple. It was a huge step down the slippery slope of religion mixed with government, and it was just plain bad government.