Come on, Arizona!

In early 18th century America, you could tell how someone was inclined politically by looking at the words they chose to describe the rumblings of rebellion against Britain here in her 13 North American colonies. Ask someone how they felt on the question of independence, and you favored splitting from Britain. Ask how someone felt about treason, and you favored staying a British citizen. Keep in mind, speaking out against the crown and plotting to overthrow the established government was treason. But, history books are written by the winners, and so we generally laud the revolutionaries as forward thinking freedom fighters.

Much can be accomplished just by simple choice of words. "The Devil's Dictionary" offers this definition for a standard household item: "An implement used chiefly to place dead animals in the mouth." EEEWWW, you say, until you read that the item in question is a fork. I've had restaurant meals with relatives who asked if a dish was vegetarian by saying, "Are there any dead animals in there?" After all, that's what meat is. (Full disclosure: I eat meat, and I do not mind hearing it described as dead animals.)

We often choose our words so that anyone holding an opposing view will sound narrow minded, unreasonable, violent, or any other negative connotation, just like choosing "independence" over "treason." Right now, as I write this in February 2014, the Arizona state legislature has passed a bill that is being described as a "religious freedom" issue. Who can be against religious freedom? Even my non religious, atheist or agnostic loved ones feel strongly about allowing religious freedom. Most Americans do. We have grown up seeing it as important. How could someone be against Arizona SB 1062 and therefore against religious freedom?

Well, here's the problem, from my point of view. The bill is not about religious freedom. It is not about free exercise of religion or conscience. It is specifically aimed at making it legal to exclude people with whom you do not agree, and prevent them from doing business with you.

So, why is that so bad? For instance, I own a photography business. I would not want to photograph a KKK rally. I would flatly turn down any offers to shoot porn (despite the fact that there are buckets of money to be made in porn, and I can think of lots of good, noble and also fun things that I could do with buckets of money). My husband once turned down a request to shoot portraits of a funeral, including portrait-type shots of the deceased, because he was uncomfortable doing so. That should be our right. No one should howl discrimination or file a lawsuit if we turn down their proposed job.

The thing is, it's already legal to turn down work. It happens all the time. Sometimes I'm already booked for that date, or I'll be out of town, my price is beyond their budget or any number of other reasons. Sometimes people turn me down, instead. I'm a writer, but I certainly don't get a "yes" every time I ask if a publication will publish my work. If I needed an attorney, the attorney would get to decide if they wanted to represent me, not the other way around.

You know those signs that hang in virtually every business that say, "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone"? Those exist for a reason. Maybe you walked into a restaurant with dreadful body odor. Other patrons complain, or just get up and leave. The restaurant owner is within his rights to ask you to leave. He shouldn't even have to give a reason. If he wants you to leave, it's his restaurant, so he has a legal right to kick you out. He does not need a special law that says, "If persons with offensive body odor ("offensive" being defined as noticeable and unpleasant to a reasonable person, or to a majority of persons) come within x number of feet of persons preparing, serving or eating food or beverages of any kind, the business owner may ask said person(s) to vacate the premesis." It is totally unnecessary for the law to be that specific, or for laws addressing each instance in which it would be OK not to serve someone. Bartender thinks you've had too much to drink? He can refuse to serve you. You're not dressed appropriately (either violating the "no shoes, no shirt" clause, or not wearing dress clothing at a high end restaurant)? They can refuse to let you in the door. It's already legal to make those decisions.

Can you imagine the legislative gridlock that would result from trying to spell out every single instance in which it's OK to turn down business? Even assuming that there were no other pressing needs to be addressed (HA HA HA!), it would be exhaustively time consuming, nitpicky and counterproductive. Plus, there would always be some loophole - "Ah ha! The statute says I can't come in wearing snowy galoshes, but it says nothing about muddy ones!" It's just beyond ridiculous.

Business owners reserve the right to refuse you business. Period. It doesn't need spelled out any further.

That's issue 1. Issue 2 is related, but on a different subject.

Remember, this law says that it's about the exercise of religious freedom. Again, such a statute should be unnecessary, because religious freedom is already guaranteed by law. No one can be forced to worship, or to worship in a particular way. No one can be kept from worshipping as they please.

Members of the clergy cannot be told to whom they must provide services, or how. If you go to a particular church or clergy member and ask, for instance, to be baptized, they will decide that based on their church's requirements. The government cannot tell them what those requirements are or should be. The answer may be yes, or no, or "after you fill these requirements," but no one outside the church should have any say in that at all. Opinions, sure, but influence, no.

This, folks, is the essence of religious freedom. With these two provisions - worship, or don't, as you please, and keep non-church interference out of churches - you're set.

I'm assuming that Arizona lawmakers are well intentioned. I assume that about anybody, until they prove me wrong. I have to assume that they're trying to make sure that nobody has to violate their conscience during the course of the work day. Here's the problem: they have explicitly stated that it's OK to refuse someone service because you do not agree with their lifestyle and/or religion. The impetus behind the law was to make it legal to turn down a potential customer if they are gay, and your religion teaches that homosexuality is wrong.

What?

In well over two decades of taking photos professionally, I have never asked a client about their sex life, ever. My religion teaches that premarital and extramarital sexual relations are wrong, but I have never, ever asked a couple hiring me for a wedding if they're having sex. I have never asked someone who wants a portrait whether or not they are an adulterer. EVER. Do you know why? Because it's none of my business.

We, as a society, have lost all sense that there are things that are none of our business.

If I were a member of the clergy, and a couple asked me to marry them, I'd have a right to ask about things that do not affect the wedding vendors. I might well ask about their sex lives. But I'm the photographer. I don't need to know! Neither does the caterer, the florist, the band or DJ, the dress shop, the servers, the limo driver or anyone else they've hired. Their sex life is between them, God, and occasionally, their clergy. If I am not any of those people, I don't need to know. Don't ask me to photograph your sex life, and we'll get along fine.

"But how can you work with people whose lifestyle you find offensive?" people ask. "Isn't that violating your moral code?" Setting myself up as judge violates my moral code.

Not only do I not believe in premarital or extramarital sex, I believe that alcohol and tobacco use is wrong. I believe that gambling is wrong. I believe that lying is wrong. I believe that cheating on your taxes is wrong. As a religious person, I do not think that civil authority carries the same weight as religious authority; therefore, I do not view civil marriage in the same light as I view a religious ceremony. I also believe that proper religious authority is available only in my church.

Yet, I have photographed civil weddings, weddings for people of other faiths, weddings for couples who live together (and even who have children together), weddings for homosexuals. Although I'm not privy to details, I'll bet I've taken photos for adulterers. At many, many events I work, there is alcohol served and tobacco consumed. I'll bet that I've photographed gamblers, liars, cheats, and other less than sterling types.

I did my best work for all of them.

I cannot, simply cannot, imagine a mindset that says, "I should only deal with those who belong to my faith and are living it to a degree that I find acceptable." It is not my job to shun huge swaths of society.

A friend of mine owns a computer consulting firm. She's Buddhist. If someone wanted her to design a website for a butcher shop, or a terrorist organization, I would not be surprised if she turned them down. Yet I will venture to say that she has never turned down a client because they were Christian, or Jewish, or ate meat. I'm very sure that she doesn't even ask. She's undoubtedly done work for restaurants that serve meat. I'm pretty sure that if a parochial school or church congregation wanted her to design a website, or troubleshoot their machines, or any other work, she'd do it and do it well. That's what being a reasonable human being looks like.

We have family in Arizona. Right now, under Arizona's law, my daughter could have a restaurant refuse to serve her because she's Mormon and the owner (or hostess or server) thinks that the Mormon Church is a cult. Is that what we want in America?

Once upon a time in America, it was legal to kill someone, just because they were Mormon. Governor Boggs of Missouri decided, under pressure from angry citizens, that Mormons were a threat to the peace and security of the community. In 1838, Boggs issued Executive Order 44, which stated, "the Mormons must be treated as enemies, and must be exterminated or driven from the State if necessary for the public peace—their outrages are beyond all description."

The law remained on the books until 1976, when it was formally pronounced unconstitutional. I remember hearing, as a young person, about a Missouri man who murdered his neighbor and plead not guilty, on the grounds that his neighbor was Mormon, and the law was still on the books.

"How did the citizens tolerate Hitler's laws?" we ask; this is how. He said that the laws were protection, for the good of society - and besides, they won't hurt YOU, Average Citizen. They'll hurt other people, people who deserve it.

It doesn't matter if it hurts you.

My niece lives in Arizona, and could be grilled about her sex life if she went to buy a sofa, or a car, or a sandwich. Do you want to be asked who you're sleeping with before you can take home merchandise? Do you really need to account to a sandwich shop employee? (Do you need to ask about their sex life? What if they're an adulterer or polygamist or into something icky with animals - how could they possibly assemble your sandwich?) How is it that the Arizona legislature thinks it's OK for businesses to even ask who, if anyone, my niece is intimate with?

When I go to visit my family, I don't want to be turned away from a museum because I'm Christian and the owner is Hindu.

A woman in a headscarf or a man in a turban could be legally denied virtually any service under Arizona's new law, if the business owner were Christian and felt affronted by those who are not.

Religious freedom does not mean refusing to deal with those who are different from ourselves. Calling this bill a "religious freedom" issue does not make it a good idea.

I do not want to talk to total strangers about my worship or my sex life before I can make a purchase. I do not want to ask them about theirs before they hire me. No one should have to answer those questions in order to conduct business. That's religious freedom.