Veto The Arizona Bill and Then....

Let's be clear. It would be a legal fiasco for th Jan Brewer to sign the new legislation allowing private businesses to refuse service to persons based on religious ideology. Just veto it.

There is no need for such a provision because the Constitution and 1964 Civil Rights Act already covers such actions. I know, you the reader are like "huh". Hear me out. First a quick story:

I used to have a web design business. One day I was offered a client, a church. I read the material they wished for me to use to design their site. In it was a rather inflamatory statement about Mohammed being Satan or a demon or something to that effect. While I have my issues with Islam, Comparisons to Satan, I felt, would put me in the middle of religious conflict to which I did not wish to be a part. I declined the work.

See, I declined to do work. The church got someone else to do the work and I decided to not do work for any religious organization. Here's why it was perfectly legal:

No one can make a business produce a work.

Read that again.

Now lets go back at the source of the legislation. I cake maker was asked by a gay couple for a wedding cake. They wanted a cake that was reflective of their "lifestyle" and would therefore have two men (or two women) where a bride and groom would be put. The owner of the business refused to sell them a cake to that specification and therefore declined to do any business with them. That's where he went wrong and where "no one can make a business produce a work" comes in.

The owner of the business could have simply stated that he only produces wedding cakes with brides and grooms on them. If they were interested in such a cake he would gladly sell them one. If that was not satisfactory then he knows of other cake businesses who may have the designs they are looking for.

In other words the cake store owner did not have to decline to serve the potential customer.

Think of it this way: You cannot go to a Ford dealership and demand to be sold a BMW (lets assume they don't also sell BMW's of any kind). Either you buy exactly what they are selling or you go somewhere else. Now there are those who would say "what if he decided that he didn't want to sell a wedding cake to a black couple?"

Same thing applies. He'd have to say with a straight face that he doesn't produce any cakes whatsoever that black people could want. Good luck with that. He might say, he doesn't have "black bride and groom" (or whatever other combination) to put on a cake, which is actually a plausible explanation.

But that is how wedding cake man could have handled the situation and others will have to in the future. Don't refuse service, simply define your business within certain parameters.

Then there is the issue of "private clubs".

By the 1964 Civil Rights Acts, private clubs are allowed to discriminate in any way they please. If a business is so concerned about not serving a certain part of the public, then it can become like BJ's and Costco and become a members only organization. No sales can be done unless you are a member. Membership applications may be open to the public, but membership does not have to be, and no court can do anything about it.

Because these two methods of restricting who one does business with is available to all business owners there is no need for such "written in stone" legislation on the state level.