The land home to the Grand Canyon brought a slew of controversy this week when reactionary legislators passed a religious freedom bill. The bill is an amendment that rides on the shoulders of an act that began after Native American Church members were fired for using psychedelic cacti more than a decade ago. It enshrines Arizona citizens’ rights to religious freedom by declaring that anything done or not done because of a “sincerely held” religious belief is well and good, so long as it doesn’t conflict with government interests.
At first glance, this sounds cool: Supporters paint a picture of an Arizona where this bill helps ensure that everybody’s rights are safe and nothing bad will happen to anyone ever.
The problem is that this isn’t true. SB1062 was created in response to cases in other states where people have been sued for refusing service to same-sex weddings and commitment ceremonies. Arizona decided to make sure that never happened. It was written and passed by a few legislators with the intent of allowing owners of businesses like bakeries, restaurants, hotels and photography studios to discriminate against gay potential customers in the name of religion. Its passage has, understandably, generated a ton of outrage. Although it seems some supporters of the bill do so out of genuine desire for religious freedom, the words and actions of too many others make clear how this bill will be used.
State Sen. Al Melvin, in a tiff with Anderson Cooper, all but confirmed SB1062’s purpose of legalizing discrimination by dodging Cooper’s questions. He harkened to “pillars of society” that he said are under attack as justification for the bill.
Luckily for those who support equal rights, Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer vetoed the bill on Wednesday.
She did that for a number of reasons. Outrage had Arizona citizens and businesses protesting — a pizza parlor put up a sign that said “We reserve the right to refuse service to Arizona Legislators,” that was soon copied across the state. Many Arizonans were upset about the negative publicity this brought their state, and they felt like they were repeating the experience of the controversial and very strict immigration bill passed there in 2010. There were economic pressures too — Arizona is slated to host the Super Bowl in 2015.
The NFL strongly pushed for Brewer to overturn the bill and considered moving the game somewhere else if that didn’t happen. Apple Inc., which is going to open a factory in the state, also called for the veto. Several Arizona politicians, including Sen. John McCain, opposed SB1062. Even legislators who originally voted for the bill changed their minds and asked the governor for a veto. It was a victory for LGBT rights in this country — but a narrow one.
This debate reflects a paradox of American politics: State governments have more direct influence on their constituents than the federal government, but historically use that influence to disenfranchise entire swaths of the population. It’s a shame because the states are arguably more effective at passing legislation and can act as a check against the more ridiculous federal policies — see any article ever written about federal reactions to marijuana legalization in Colorado and Washington. Sadly, the states most often use this power to do things like keep people they don’t like from voting.
But luckily, that same structure makes state governments easily accessible, compared to Washington. It’s a smaller land area, smaller constituency, and — let’s not be naive — money buys power. State elections are cheaper than national ones. Extreme factions of both parties have, are and, in all likelihood, will take advantage of and hijack state legislatures. But then again, so can sane, responsible representatives.
They just have to be elected first.
[Alec Carver is a UF journalism freshman. His column appears on Fridays. A version of this column ran on page 6 on 2/28/2014 under the headline "‘Religious freedom’ bill ignites controversy"]
