Is it All About Hate?: Understanding Proponents of the Arizona “Discrimination” Law



There’s been a lot of controversy about “gay discrimination laws” lately, namely about a failed bill in Kansas and a bill that’s currently making it’s way through the Arizona government. These bills essentially ensure that business owners will not be sued if they refuse service to someone because they are gay. Naturally almost all of the media attention is negative, with articles about bigotry and discrimination, as well as comments that we might be seeing “No Gays Need Apply” signs showing up in businesses around the country. Personally I don’t necessarily support such laws. However I do think there is a good reason that they’re being proposed, a reason that is mostly being ignored because of the shock value of a bill that appears to support discrimination.

I think the main reason why these bills are contentious are a matter of framing. Just about anything can be made to sound good or bad based on how you frame it. The framing these bills have mostly received is along the following lines: “This bill will allow small businesses to refuse service to people simply because they are gay.” Or even “These bills make it legal to discriminate against gays.” These are powerfully negative framings. Who would want to support a bill like that? On the other hand, the bills can be framed another way. “These bills ensure that an individual cannot be forced to do work that violates their religious beliefs. “ This framing puts it in a completely different light. After all, we don’t want to force people to violate their religious beliefs. That would be going against the first amendment. The funny thing is that all three of those framing are technically accurate. I just think it’s important to take them all into account when trying to find your own stance on this contentious issue.

On the one hand these bills do seem to be legalizing discrimination based on sexuality, which is obviously bad. I completely understand why people are upset about this, and I think they have a right to be. On the other hand we need to recognize why the bill is being proposed in the first place: to protect religious rights. Separation of church and state is a road that goes both ways. The government is not allowed to force a person to violate their religious beliefs. That’s what “separation of church and state” is all about. The phrase comes from a letter Thomas Jefferson wrote to churchgoers who were concerned that the new government was going to prevent them from practicing their religion, or force them to convert to another faith. Thomas Jefferson assured them that the first amendment built “a wall of separation between Church & State” and that the government would not interfere with their beliefs. In the case of these bills, the concern is that the government will force business owners to perform work that they have religious objections to.

So, again, the controversy about this law is a matter of framing. If the question is “Should the government legalize discrimination?” the answer is obviously “No!” But if the question is “Should the government force people to violate their religious beliefs?” the answer is also obviously “No!” The concern of the proponents of these bills is that under the current system people can, and have, been sued for refusing to serve gay individuals based on religious obligations (photographers declining to photograph a gay wedding, bakers declining to bake cakes for a gay wedding, etc.). This appears to be an example of the government punishing individuals for following their religious conscience.

Now I personally do not think it is morally wrong for a Christian baker to bake a cake for a gay wedding, or at least not any more “wrong” than it is for a baker to bake a cake for a person’s third wedding after two messy divorces. However some people do have moral objections against that kind of work, and even if I disagree I support their right to follow their religious beliefs. On the other hand, I don’t think a bill like this is the way to do it. I believe that the ideal solution is for the courts to handle this. If someone is sued because they refused to violate their religious beliefs then the courts should (ideally, remember) recognize that their first amendment rights are being violated. That’s the whole purpose of the judicial branch of government: to identify when laws violate a citizen’s constitutional rights. Passing a bill seems more likely to simply cause controversy (as we’ve already seen) instead of understanding as to why supporters of religious rights are concerned. If our current laws violate the first amendment then it is the job of the courts to overturn them. On the other hand, I can understand that everything is not ideal and our judicial system is far from perfect. I can see why some people would rather pass a law then put their faith in the judiciary.

So, whether you’re for or against these bills, try to understand the other side’s perspective. This isn’t about bigots and persecutors fighting each other, but rather about two different ideas that are both good but sometimes have trouble working together: individual rights (religious liberty) and civil tolerence (human dignity). And always remember, whatever the controversy is, that moral, rational, and educated individuals can disagree on important issues. Try not to demonize anyone out there.


About Mark Hamilton

I am, in no particular order, a nerd, an aspiring writer, a Christian, an aspiring filmmaker, an avid reader, a male, a YEC, a GM, and a twenty something. I like learning how things are made, finding out how to do things from scratch, and I you can find more of my writing at

Posted on February 26, 2014, in Christianity and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink. 3 Comments.

  1. Interesting points and I’m glad you brought the issue up about serving anyone who is on a second or third marriage. The only way this could even be considered to be about consistent religious rights would be if the same people refusing to serve gay customers were refusing to serve anyone who does anything they disagree with on religious grounds. The inconsistency with which they wish to apply their right to discriminate proves it’s nothing to do with religion. Discriminate against everyone you think is a sinner, or no-one. What would Jesus have done?

    • In general I do not speculate on the authenticity other people’s religious beliefs. If I knew a Jew who refused to eat pork but regularly enjoyed shellfish I would try not to judge, even if I personally don’t think they’re being consistent. I personally disagree with some of the reasoning behind those who don’t want their services to support gay marriage, but I strongly believe that people should be allowed to follow their conscience. Even if their conscience is a bit inconsistent. I think it only serves to further polarize the issue if we make blanket statements that are disparaging to either side. I have no doubt that there are individuals for whom religious objections are a cover for less savory motivations, but I don’t like it when people tell other people the “real” reason why they want to do something. I know that I certainly would not appreciate it if someone who disagreed with me implied that the real reason I disagreed with them was because I was a bigot, and the sentiment certainly does not foster communication and understanding between opposed groups.

      But yes, I do believe that many people are inconsistent in the application of their faith when homosexuality is involved. I think this is less because of bigotry and has more to do with the fact that many people do not understand or interact with homosexuals. Most people know someone who has had a divorce, but not everyone knows someone who is openly gay, especially in certain sections of the religious community. This can lead to misunderstandings about homosexuality in general, which can lead people to treat it differently than they do other sexual conditions they believe to be wrong (fornication, adultery, divorce, etc.). The solution to this is communication and understanding, which can be difficult when things become polarized.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: