Arizona to Refuse to Serve Gays

The issue of homosexuality has been a critical factor causing dispute among members of the community. The LGBT social movement is a political ideology that sought to ensure that members of the society fully accepted individuals who recognized themselves as lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender. In this protests that took place for the mid 20th century, the members of this community were advocating for an increased recognition from the constitution and the laws of the country. The American movement sought to develop significant measures that would help ensure that the broader society eradicated the belief that the members of these group are queer and mentally challenged. Through political and cultural activities, the members challenged dominant constructions of femininity, masculinity, and heterosexual nuclear families. In this way, the LGBT members were classified as a fixed minority group. The primary aspects of this practice was that sexual orientation are innate and cannot be changed by conscious prompts hence they should receive the liberal political goals of freedom and equal opportunities. The following research looks into the decision by Arizona businesses to deny services to gays.

Statement of Problem

The US federal government has openly advocated for the equal treatment of the members of the community irrespective of their age, gender, race, or sexual orientation. However, the practice of discriminating against the members of the LGBT group has been a common practice. Since the early 1990s there have been numerous research studies that seek to identify the importance of providing protection for individuals who identify with any of the above sexual orientation. In this practice, the LGBT student group Pride Alliance from the University of Arizona has actively spoken up about keeping the institution safe and welcoming for members of the group. The primary intention is to prevent against high levels of depression, bullying, suicide, and victimization of both students and faculty members of the institution. 

Despite the increase in support of the US federal government making it legal for individuals of the same sex to become married, it was evident that the law significantly affects the protections of the minority community. This has become evident in the few years after the passing of the law. It was seen in 2013 in Washington State where a florist refused to sell flowers to a gay couple who were purchasing them for their wedding that would follow. The action is depicted as discrimination primarily because the florist, Barronelle Stutzman, had for a long time served the couple prior to the incident (Savage, 2017). Another issue occurring later in the same year in New Mexico where a photographer politely declined to make take pictures of a Lesbian couple as they take their commitment vows. The practice of refusing service has become a cause for national concern after another incident took place in Colorado. A baker blatantly turned down the offer to bake a wedding cake for a same-sex couple resulting in a major lawsuit.

The issue of primary concern is the decision by the Arizona lawmakers as they pushed for the enforcement of the Senate Bill 1062 in 2014. The House of Representatives proposed a state law that allowed individual and legal entities an exemption from any law that significantly burdened their ability to exercise their religious beliefs. While this law depicted that such a practice would be the choice of individuals and business owners to decide the people they would wish to engage in commerce. However, the primary target for such a practice would be the minority group the LGBT. Then Governor Jan Brewer was under significant pressure from the American Civil Liberties Union, businesses among other associated organizations that sought to ensure that the bill is not signed into law. 

State arguments for both sides of issue

Religious liberty has been the primary cause for the proposed freedom to deny service. According to the Arizona lawmakers, the SB 1062 was intended to make revision of Section 41-1493 of the Arizona Revised Statutes. The statute prevents the law from substantially burdening a person’s exercise of religion unless the burden is the least restrictive measure of furthering the compelling government interest. The lawmakers through the proposed SB 1062 noted that there was need to expand the definition of the term person such that it included churches, individual, association, corporation, or partnership. It would also include trusts, estate, foundations or other legal entities. In this regard, the law would serve as a major claim for religious freedom in the defenses used in lawsuits in spite of whether the government was part of the proceedings involved. Then Governor Jan Brewer, a Republican, vetoed the bill identifying that it gave businesses the right to use religious grounds as defense for prejudice.

Another significant argument used in defense of refusal to serve gay people was the free speech. Elaine Huguenin, a photographer by profession in New Mexico, challenged a law in the state that forbade businesses that are open to the public from discriminating against gay people. According to the defendant, the law does not have the right to force its people to say something that they do not believe. In this case, Ms. Huguenin stated that documenting the commitment ceremony of a lesbian couple would go against something her religion identifies as wrong. She described video-shooting as a practice that tells a story and one that will greatly describe her feelings and emotions towards the event taking place. The practice is an expression protected by the constitution based on the First Amendment right. 

In all of the cases presented above, it is evident that the primary issue of concern for the members of the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender community is discrimination. The lawsuit raised by Robert Ingersoll and Curt Freed against Barronelle Stutzman showed that the latter was actively discriminating against the couple (Porterfield, 2013). The two individuals had been long time customers for her business, Arlene’s business, as they had bought flowers from her before. The case between Vanessa Willock and Misti Collinsworth against Elaine Huguenin also demonstrated similar practice (Liptak, 2013). In this regard, while the photography is a protected expression by the Constitution, the first amendment right defense does not allow for the refusal of service for gay couples as it the more important. The New Mexico law prohibits such practices hence the decision by the plaintiffs to raise a complaint against the photographer.

Which side has the momentum and will eventually prevail

The issue of refusing gay people service has become a contentious issue that will only continue to grow. The three cases mentioned above have highlighted the growing concern from the legislatures who are actively seeking to create a situation that will result in clear discrimination against the minority group. The Arizona Senate Bill 1062 was subsequently vetoed by the Governor as its establishment was a loophole for creating an environment where equal treatment of the members of society would not prevail (Santos, 2014). Through the bill, all members of the society would begin to incorporate the first amendment right of religious practice as a basic factor of upholding practices that are contrary to the compelling government interests. The issue of equality and the attitudes towards minority groups has not been taken to consideration (Santos, 2014). It is evident that the Arizona representatives allowed the bill to be repealed primarily on the economic consequences that would follow. 

The action by the government of other states have shown a similar upholding the views of incorporating religious beliefs as a basic factor of rejecting certain aspects of the law that they do not agree with. This is evident in Missouri senate bill 916, Illinois House Bill 4263, South Dakota Senate bill 66, Tennessee House bill 2467 and Senate Bill 2566, Oregon Ballot initiative #52, and Hawaii House Bill 2493 (Steinmetz, 2014). All the above proposals have been contested as they seek to protect members of the community as they maintain rights to refuse to provide goods and services based on their religious faith. The practice will significantly influence the nature of interaction between the society and the members of LGBT (Santos, 2014). The issue may result in potential discrimination and unequal treatment of people. 

References

Liptak, A. (2013) Weighing Free Speech in Refusal to Photograph Lesbian Couple’s Ceremony . The New York Times, Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/19/us/weighing-free-speech-in-refusal-to-photograph-ceremony.html?smid=pl-share  

Paulson, M., & Santos, F. (2014) Religious Right in Arizona Cheers Bill Allowing Businesses to Refuse to Serve Gays. The New York Times, Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/22/us/religious-right-in-arizona-cheers-bill-allowing-businesses-to-refuse-to-serve-gays.html  

Porterfield, E. (2013) Washington state florist sued again for refusal to service gay wedding . Reuters, Retrieved from https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-gaymarriage-washington/washington-state-florist-sued-again-for-refusal-to-service-gay-wedding-idUSBRE93I08820130419  

Santos, F. (2014) Arizona Governor Vetoes Bill on Refusal of Service to Gays . The New York Times, Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/27/us/Brewer-arizona-gay-service-bill.html  

Savage, D. G. (2017) A baker refused to make a cake for a gay couple due to religious beliefs. Supreme Court will rule on the case in fall . Los Angeles Times, Retrieved from http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-court-gays-religion-20170626-story.html  

Steinmetz, K. (2014) 6 Proposals Denying Service to Gays You Haven't Heard About . Time, Retrieved from http://time.com/10140/arizona-kansas-same-sex-bill-refusal-of-service-gay/