My mother always said: “Son, if you don’t have anything nice to say, don’t say it at all.” Years later, one of my friend’s quotes rings a tad more true: “Cory, if you don’t have anything nice to say, come sit down right beside me.”
For the sake of this article, imagine the latter.
Our legislators are at it again. In their confused attempt to “restore” religious freedom, the Senate unanimously passed SB 2681, or the Mississippi Religious Freedom Restoration Act. It’s now a conservative trend in other states, notably the more high-profile Arizona bill. Fortunately, Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer vetoed their bill this past week.
But our well-reasoned bill, like its cousins elsewhere, was just plain stupid for several reasons:
First, this type of bill is redundant and unnecessary. It incites class divides and provides excuses to discriminate against someone for purely political reasons. I’ll admit, my libertarian leanings do call for the rights of individuals in nongovernmental establishments to refuse service to anyone because an absolute property right calls for just that. Yet, certain cases warrant an exclusion given our state’s history, particularly the current discrimination laws on the books and the one that should be developed based on LGBT residents. I understand that the harm discrimination causes is less than government’s burden via regulation, but I’ve seen too much here in Mississippi to believe that is 100 percent true given our current hostility, even in all my libertarian, basking glory.
Second, the First Amendment already ensures religious freedom. Did Mississippi now intend for religion to start bullying a certain class of people? Seems like it. Businesses can generally refuse to service anyone they please (ever notice the “no shoes, no shirt, no service” signs in our clean gas stations?).
Yet, a business owner bases those types of judgments on a conscious choice by the consumer, not because the owner doesn’t like them for how they were born or who they are. Businesses may face ramifications from the public and even other businesses for turning away someone for no good reason. That outcry is our right and good for them. Besides, private conduct can be the most effective tool to advocate for free-market solutions instead of government intervention — i.e., private shaming and consumers voting with their economic and monetary footprint.
Third, we should encourage freedom of association, not freedom of discrimination. A capitalist who values the economic dollar over petty concerns about social beliefs should have no problem serving people wedding cakes or any service that is generally open to the public as long as his or her bottom line is enhanced. Yes, I’m aware that this means I’m placing my views of “petty” concerns over someone else’s possible important concerns. In general, people may care far more about social issues than I. But that doesn’t change the virtue of a dollar: It’s still greenish and worth less every day the Federal Reserve has control over it.
So, let’s wrap this up with a notable fact: The members of the Mississippi Senate voted for a bill they didn’t read and didn’t understand, which sounds a lot like our Congress in D.C. too, don’t you think? Perhaps legislation may not lend itself to every eye, in every circumstance. But somehow, even on the federal level, Rep. Justin Amash in Michigan is able to grasp complicated or mundane bills and explain every vote on his Facebook page. If we are going to hold public servants accountable and pay them a salary while they work away in Jackson, we should expect the highest integrity possible.
Or, we could mimic the state of New Hampshire by paying our state representatives nothing. I like that idea, one of true public service and sacrifice. It may very well prevent some ignorance from continuing to run for election now that money isn’t involved.
Either way, the old quote from “Forrest Gump” reigns true here: “Stupid is as stupid does.” I see no reason to hold my “not nice” opinion on subjects regarding ignorance of an individual. It was clear why the bill was passed; it was clear why it should have failed. The one thing that remains unclear is: What in the hell were the bill drafters drinking when they thought SB 2681 was a good idea? Fortunately, the Mississippi House wised up and ditched the controversial portion — they must have switched from vodka to bourbon.
Now, that wasn’t very nice at all. Good, I say; come sit by me.
Cory Ferraez is a third-year law student from Columbus.
