Black out 'blue laws'

A few weeks after my 21st birthday, I thought it'd be nice to serve a bottle of wine with the Italian dinner I had intended to make that evening for some friends. I picked out a red wine and proceeded to a check-out lane, where I promptly had the bottle confiscated.\n"I'm sorry, sir," the cashier said. "You can't buy this today. It's Sunday."\nWhich apparently is true: Indiana is one of the dozen or so states left that still abides by some form of "blue laws" -- laws dating back to colonial America that require the mandatory observance, under penalty of law, of the Christian Sabbath as a day of rest. \nTraditionally, these laws were as far-reaching as forcing nearly every business in town to close on Sundays. Today, they just commonly prohibit the sale of packaged alcohol on Sundays. (You can still typically order an alcoholic beverage in a restaurant.)\nBut the blue law trend, as prevalent as it once was, is now on the decline, and states are taking measures to black out the blue laws from their books. In the past three years, more than ten states have reversed their bans on Sunday liquor sales, including Kansas, whose state legislature voted on May 1 (a Sunday, nonetheless) to allow local municipalities to vote by resolution or referendum and opt out of the ban.\nThe Indiana General Assembly should follow other states and act to reverse the arcane Sunday prohibition. (In the end, I'm not particularly optimistic they will, since they had a lot of trouble this last legislative session approving things that constitutionally required approval.)\nMy objection to blue laws is not that of inconvenience. Neither does my objection lie in economic interests. Some opponents of blue laws, such as the food and beverage lobby, seem to think not being able to sell liquor on one day of the week is a regressive economic factor. As a free market supporter, I think they should be able to sell liquor any day of the week they want. But I'm under no illusions that it's somehow harming their abilities to make profits.\nAnd still, my objection is not with the idea of a day of rest. I love the nature of a Sunday, particularly of a lovely-weather Sunday. In addition to being a day of worship for many, it's a wonderful recuperation day, a day of super-size newspapers, of lunch with family and friends, of watching trick-shot bowling competitions on ESPN. \nMy objection instead is with the clear religious entanglement issues revolving around state-sanctioned blue laws. In 1961, the Supreme Court rejected a First Amendment challenge to blue laws. The Court agreed the laws had a historical religious motivation, but found Sunday was an arbitrary day -- that just happens to be the Christian Sabbath -- that assures easy enforcement and guarantees a common day for rest and leisure.\nBut Justice William O. Douglas' dissent in that case is as practical today as it was 40 years ago. "Refraining from work or recreation in deference to the majority's religious feelings about Sunday is within every person's choice. By what authority can government compel it?" the justice wrote, adding, "If a religious leaven is to be worked into the affairs of our people, it is to be done by individuals and groups, not by the Government."\nAnd that's the issue. Observe the appropriate Sabbath to your religion, if you wish. But blue laws should be abolished because the true meaning of a "day of rest" can't help but be lost when it's forced upon everyone by their government.