Will those opposed to equality win again?
There are two bills in the Arizona Legislature that would guarantee equality to some currently excluded citizens, but I doubt that either proposal will make it to Gov. Doug Ducey’s desk, since they’ve already been “vetoed” by unelected co-governor Cathi Herrod of the Center for Arizona Policy.
The two anti-discrimination measures — Senate Bill 1249 and House Bill 2546 — mirror one another and would outlaw discrimination against a person based on “sexual orientation” or “gender identity.”
We already have a number of additions to the law that protect individuals from discrimination. It’s been necessary to create such laws because our idea of equality has expanded and evolved over time. We’ve come to recognize that many of our brothers and sisters were left out, so we’ve tried to periodically fix that. The crux of the changes that would happen under SB 1249 and HB 2546 (with additions to current law in capital letters) reads like this:
“Discrimination in places of public accommodation against any person because of race, color, religion, sex, SEXUAL ORIENTATION, GENDER IDENTITY, national origin or ancestry is contrary to the policy of this state and shall be deemed unlawful.” Pretty straightforward.
Cathi Herrod and the Center for Arizona Policy issued a press release condemning the measures.
That simple public pronouncement might be enough to kill the bills. Lawmakers (particularly Republicans) cower before Herrod and her deeppocket pals. And over the years, we’ve learned that when Herrod calls the tune, Ducey dances the dance.
Hopefully, that won’t happen this time.
The Center for Arizona Policy says it “promotes and defends the foundational values of life, marriage and family, and religious freedom.”
Foundational values? When you scrape away the gobbledygook, we’re talking about outdated beliefs that have marginalized, and led to prejudicial treatment of, many American citizens.
The two bills in the Legislature, which have both Republican and Democratic sponsors, aim to provide another necessary fix.
In a fearmongering press release, Herrod’s group claims, in part, “Small businesses that serve all customers but do not communicate all messages would be forced to choose between their livelihood and their beliefs, thereby denying free speech rights guaranteed under both federal and state constitutions.”
Actually, no. Small businesses “that serve all customers” would have to do nothing more than serve all customers. In other words, not discriminate.
Herrod’s group says, “Nondiscrimination laws are supposed to shield people from unjust discrimination, but these types of bills are being used throughout the country as a sword against individuals and organizations that have a historic understanding of sexuality and gender.”
There’s another dark and loaded phrase: “A historic understanding of sexuality and gender.”
We’ve heard variations of that all
through our history, always as a way of excluding or discriminating against people.
There was a time when individuals and organizations with a “historic understanding” of race prevented African-Americans from enjoying anything close to their full civil rights.
There was a time when individuals and organizations with a “historic understanding” of gender prevented women from exercising those same rights.
There was a time when individuals and organizations with a “historic understanding” of religion and ethnicity and national origin allowed American citizens of all sorts to be discriminated against by fellow citizens.
What history tells us is that many of our “historic understandings” were wrong.
They still are.