Arizona business can limit services to homosexuals
Graphic by Clara Illka
March 1, 2014
A new proposed bill in Arizona would offer protections to residents who refuse service to gays and lesbians according to their religious beliefs. It would provide increased protection for citizens based on their religious views. The proposed bill should pass because American citizens have a freedom of religion and a choice of whether or not to provide services with anyone.
The bill states that any workers sued in a civil case to claim that they have the legal right to withhold service if doing so would “substantially burden” their religious freedom. Those opposed believe that the bill gives rights to religious individuals that minority groups simply do not have.
State law already makes it illegal for the government to impose requirements on people that violate their religious beliefs.
“What’s missing,” said Republican senator Steve Yarbough in an interview with The Blaze. “A defense in civil lawsuits, when the fight has nothing to do with the government.”
This is not the first time Arizona lawmakers have considered measures to allow the freedom of religion to trump customer rights.
“It’s a fact-intensive question in those instances when you’ve got the preference that we’ve got for public accommodation and the First Amendment right to the free exercise of religion,” Yarbrough said in the same interview with Billy Howell, an author for The Blaze. “How does the friction play out?”
Most notably is a law which permits pharmacists, who are licensed by the state, to refuse on religious or moral grounds to dispense the “morning after” pill designed to block pregnancy following unprotected sex. Yarbrough said a pharmacist who is a devout Catholic should not be forced to be a part of what he or she believes is someone’s immoral act.
“If he’s the only pharmacy in Bisbee, you may have a problem,” he said. But Yarbrough said the outcome would be different “if there are two more down the road and Target does this and there’s no issue, and he knows that you can go there.”
Although some believe that this new law prohibits civil rights and is un-American, the first amendment gives American citizens freedom of religion and a choice that should not be stopped or regulated by the government.
The proposed bill will give additional protection to citizens based on their religious beliefs and will allow American citizens to have a choice in who to provide services with.
Nick Wicker • Apr 1, 2014 at 10:08 pm
Contrary to other commentators, I agree with your stance! I personally believe that any business should be allowed to deny service to any potential customer for any reason. In any other circumstance, the transaction simply wouldn’t be a voluntary exchange. Nonetheless, you have argued your point well, and the piece is an achievement. I commend you.
Sydney Spreck • Apr 1, 2014 at 9:28 pm
I agree with Kelly on this one, your article is well written with few mistakes, but in my opinion your logic is immoral and flawed. It is your right to believe as you do, but to me homophobia is on the same level as racism, and you wouldn’t argue that people should be allowed to deny services to people based on their race, would you? Sexuality is a part of each person and not something they can change, just as race is, and we must wait for the United States to acknowledge this fact. You’re entitled to your opinion, but it is regrettable that you feel this way.
Kelly Roehrig • Apr 1, 2014 at 8:01 am
Although I believe whole-heartedly that this bill is one of the worst examples of how the religious majority is using the guise of God to enable their discrimination of others, I’m glad that you have an opinion and were able to articulate it well. I’m glad this bill did not pass, because what you forgot to mention is the thousands of lives that would be changed for the worst because of a groups’ discriminatory views. It is sickening that people can use religion, which I do believe one of the main messages in the Bible is to love, to hate and harm others.