Jan Brewer, Governor of
Arizona finally vetoed the bill that would have allowed discrimination against
Gays and Lesbians for religious beliefs. Did she do this because such a bill was
blatantly discriminatory? No. Did she do so because such a bill would pretty
obviously Unconstitutional? No. Did she veto it because, as Jon Stewart
insisted, it was morally repugnant? No. Did she do it because it was a really
stupid idea? No. Perhaps she insightfully realized it was mixing religion with
politics? No. Maybe because she realized it was inherently unworkable? I don’t
think so. Did she do it because she bowed to pressure from her two State
Senators and others? Well, yes and no.
In the best tradition of
American capitalism she did it simply because it was bad for business. Business
leaders pointed out to her that would stigmatize the State and thus might
affect tourism and business in general, might result in people boycotting the
state, and, perhaps more important of all, it might make them risk losing the
Super Bowl (I think I recall they previously lost a Super Bowl because they
opposed a Martin Luther King holiday).
In any case, after milking it
for a certain amount of media time, she vetoed it. I’m not certain that anyone involved in this
failed endeavor considered the basic fact that such legislation violates a
basic principle of modern, large-scale, industrial, capitalistic, urban life.
In small communities of the past, and to a certain extent in remaining rural
small communities, social transactions, including business ones, take place on
a personal, face-to-face basis. Most everyone knows everyone else, your word is
your bond, and any potential personal problems are easily avoided.
In large-scale societies,
where most everyone lives these days, personal factors are rarely involved in
any business transactions. The overwhelming majority of our transactions are
fundamentally based on legal contracts. While you don’t necessarily have to
actually sign a contract to purchase something (although often you do), all
transactions are basically legal agreements. That is, a merchant agrees to sell
you something at a fixed or an ageed-upon price, and you agree to buy it at
that price. You are both obligated to that contract. Both the buyer’s and
seller’s personal beliefs have nothing whatsoever to do with it (other than
their respective beliefs about the quality or usefulness of the object being
purchased).
Obviously if personal
beliefs, like religious ones, or others such as gun rights, are introduced into
such a system, potential chaos would occur. You could never be certain that you
could purchase something if the potential seller imposed his or her personal
religious or other beliefs onto the
transaction. Christians could discriminate against Muslims, or even women
wearing headscarves, Muslims could discriminate against Christians, especially
if they smoked or drank, and so on.
It is true that you often see
signs like “No shoes, no shirt, no service,” or “We reserve the right to refuse
service,” but such reservations have mostly to do with cleanliness and health
or rowdy behaviors, irrespective of the individual’s religious or other
beliefs, and they minimize misunderstandings and potential problems.
In short, our system for the
vast majority of our transactions allows no place for personal beliefs,
religious or otherwise. Trying to introduce personal beliefs into such a system
would be totally unworkable. In this Phoenix case you would often have to guess
if individuals were Gay or Lesbian, you would have to be suspicious of any same
sex pair, and so on. And, of course, if it became legal to discriminate against
Gays and Lesbians, why not Blacks, Hispanics, Asians, Indians, Muslims, Buddhists,
Catholics, Jews, atheists, short people, tall people, redheads, midgets, anyone
who did not share your own personal beliefs, and how would you ever know. As
there are hundreds of different religions, with all kinds of strange and
bizarre beliefs, the very idea of discriminating on religious grounds is
absurd. I don’t think we need random discrimination to potentially enter our
lives because some Christians do not approve of others on the basis of their
presumed sex lives. And what’s with this obsession over Gay sex anyway? We don’t
ordinarily worry or wonder much about heterosexual sexual behavior, even though
it involves in some (unknown and uncounted) cases similar sexual practices, and
who knows what kinds of other “kinky” sex. Do most people ask their friends and
relatives what kind of sex they engage in? Do most people even care? We should
stop wasting time with clueless, harebrained, and ridiculous ideas that will
never float and will surely fail.
If you believe in equality, if you believe in
standing up for the rights of all, especially for people most affected by
bigotry and discrimination, then you have no choice but to be present and
accounted for when it comes to standing up for gays and lesbians in our
society.
No comments:
Post a Comment