The Law Sir, is a Ass

            Though the law is not always “a ass” (after all, Dickens’ Mr. Bumble was only talking about a specific law), lawmakers all too often belong inside a donkey costume rather than a legislature.

            Two current examples, one from various state legislatures and a lesser one being bruited in Washington, are perfect examples.  In the past few months, nearly twenty percent of the states have proposed laws allowing businesses owners to refuse service or employment on the basis of their religious beliefs.  The legislature in Arizona has actually passed such a law.  The bills vary widely.  Some are honest about their purpose, stating that business owners can discriminate on the basis of a person’s sexual orientation, but others simply allow discrimination against anyone at all based on religious belief.

            The mind truly boggles.  There are some cases where sexual orientation is apparent – when a wedding photographer, caterer, or reception hall is asked to work with a gay or lesbian couple.  Leaving aside such distinctive cases, which still raise huge questions about, for example, whether a business, especially one that is formally incorporated, can have religious beliefs, two obvious problems arise:

            First, how would an individual’s sexual orientation, or any other violation of the business owner’s beliefs, become apparent?  “Hi, I’m gay.  Would you please fix my flat tire?”  “Do you have a table for two lesbians tonight?”  One assumes that those with virulent anti-gay prejudice are hardly gifted with excellent gaydar.  Would we have new signs saying “No gays need apply” or “Gays not wanted here?” Imagine the thought process:  “Oh dear, I’m gay and I have a toothache.  Better not go to that dentist though.”  “Whoops, I know we’re almost out of gas, but that station doesn’t allow a Subaru with two women in it to fill up.”

            Second, how can the rules be limited to gays?  Every religion has innumerable bans, some of which are common, others rare.  Just take Catholics: no gays, divorced people, users of birth control. Or Quakers: no soldiers.  Could Jews ban someone who recently ate a pork sausage, Hindus an eater of beef, etc. etc?

(I know some of these apply only to members of the religion, but no doubt some would claim even proximity to treyf is unbearable.)

            More important are the universals.  Take the Ten Commandments and their parallels.  What faith doesn’t list adultery, stealing, lying, dishonoring parents, murder, and the like among sins?  Jesus, after all, spoke against divorce, but never against homosexuality.  Maybe we should rewrite his admonition: “Let he who is without sin among you buy my wares; all others keep out.”  (Of course, the business owner should by rights have nothing to do with himself unless he has never violated any of his church’s tenets.)

            So not only are these bills small-minded, bigoted, and most likely unconstitutional, they are about as unenforceable as any ever dreamed up by ass-headed politicians.

            Not quite so illogical, but still disappointing, is the recent proposal that Olympic athletes should not have to pay taxes on the money they receive for winning.  At first glance not a big deal:  the prizes top out at $25,000, and for most medal winners, taxes on their endorsements and appearances will amount to much more.

            It’s only when you realize that all other prizes, including MacArthur grants and Nobel prizes, are taxed – thanks to a tax hike in 1986 during the Reagan administration – that you start to get annoyed.  Prior to 1986, it was felt that prizes given for achievement, and for which no services were rendered, should not be taxed.  Unlike Olympic athletes, no one explicitly works on a scientific or artistic project, or strives for peace, because a Nobel or MacArthur lies at the end of the trail.  In fact, Olympic athletes are more like NFL, NBA, or MBL players, or indeed like contestants on Jeopardy or The Price is Right than they are like the writers, doctors, economists, physicists, or peace activists, who are awarded the aforementioned or similar prizes.

            So, unless they donated their prizes, which some did, Al Gore, President Obama, and Jimmy Carter were taxed – and the Dalai Lama, Nelson Mandela, and Aug San Suu Kyi would have been taxed, had they been Americans.  But the first woman to do a backward 1080 on the half-pipe, or the couple who included the best twizzlers in their dance routine, should get a pass?  

            The message couldn’t be clearer: curing cancer, stopping a war, making a breakthrough discovery, are all well and good, but what really boosts American prestige is finishing a tenth of a second ahead of someone on a hill.  What’s next?  The Indy 500 / Wimbledon / World Cup / NASCAR exemption? 

            Of course, guys like Scott Hamilton could have used the extra cash to hire a cab (if he can get one) to take him to a restaurant in Phoenix that would serve him.