As the saga continues, Wal-Mart now enters the fray:
In the statement, Walmart CEO, Doug McMillon says, “Every day in our stores, we see firsthand the benefits diversity and inclusion have on our associates, customers and communities we serve. It all starts with our core basic belief of respect for the individual. Today’s passage of H.B. 1228 threatens to undermine the spirit of inclusion present throughout the state of Arkansas and does not reflect the values we proudly uphold. For these reasons, we are asking Governor Hutchinson to veto this legislation.”
And the Arkansas governor obliges:
Arkansas Gov. Asa Hutchinson says he does not plan to sign the religious freedom bill that sits on his desk right now, instead asking state lawmakers to make changes so the bill mirrors federal law.
The first-term Republican governor said he wants his state “to be known as a state that does not discriminate but understands tolerance.”
Cristian Farias at TNR believes the Arkansas law, as originally passed, is more extreme than the Indiana law:
In the event the victim of discrimination brings suit against the business, the locality would likely join the action, since it’s interested in enforcement of its nondiscrimination edicts. But at that point, the new Arkansas law would require the locality to show that nondiscrimination toward gays and lesbians “is essential to further a compelling government interest.” The italicized language is exclusive to Arkansas, and presumably would lead courts to afford great deference to the religious beliefs of the business owners vis-à-vis the customers or the municipality’s interest in a nondiscriminatory environment.
The bill’s definition of “substantial burden” on religion also seems broader because it specifically singles out any action designed “to prevent, inhibit, or curtail religiously-motivated practice consistent with a sincerely held religious belief”—these are the oft-cited wedding-vendor scenarios. And “religious belief” itself is defined nebulously as “the ability to act or refuse to act . . . whether or not the exercise is compulsory or central to a larger system of religious belief.” It’s not hard to imagine the range of attitudes that fall into this definition—including a flat denial as “God told me it’s wrong for me to serve you.”
This is the old hierarchy problem: what takes precedence, government or religion? Well, of course government does; but religion claims a special place in the minds of humanity, or so it claims: an all wise entity (or entities) not subject to the whim of man, but instead commanding them. But, of course, not everyone gets the same message; indeed, messages are conflicting. Thus the clashes, ranging from today’s tragedies in the Middle East to the various wars, insurrections, etc in Europe in most any age range before 1900 that you care to pick.
So the US government has the ticklish problem of not stepping on religious beliefs while still running a coherent system. A thought experiment: my sect practices human sacrifice. The government prohibits murder and even suicide and the courts have ruled the government has a compelling reason to prohibit those sacrifices.
So this is another, interesting push at the envelope. Can businesses pick their customers dependent on religious sensibilities? Hobby Lobby has a foot in the door, and now the religious fundamentalists are trying to assert a new right. Much to their surprise, though, they’ve discovered their allies do not automatically follow along in all things; Big Business does not wish to risk the talent upon which their success rests, and they’ve moved to make it clear this is not acceptable.
My sense is that a good court would overturn this law. “Religious sensibilities” may seem common-sensical and logical to the sect members holding them, but everyone not a member of that sect may find them bewildering – and at some point that will include right-wingers who find themselves kicked out of a restaurant because they’re whatever-they-are. This leads to distrust, based on religious differences, and in a nation that depends on ignoring religious differences, by not permitting them to rule our reality, by actually not even knowing – or caring – what sect you worship within – well, this cannot be permitted.
(Updated 7/27/2015 to fix an incomplete – and incoherent – sentence)
