Arizona bill awaiting signature by the governor

[Ohiogal]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? Arizona

Arizona may sign a very scary bill into law that legalizes discrimination in the name of religious freedom. While some people think it is aimed ONLY at homosexuals (and that is just fine with them), the bill is very broadly written and could allow a business to discriminate against anyone in the name of religious freedom. IN other words, if you claim religious freedom, you can refuse to serve or deal with unmarried parents, divorced people, interracial couples, those who are of different religions than yourself, and various other things. This law is reminiscent of the old Jim Crow laws. You would be able to fire someone (or be fired) in Arizona if you claim religious freedom.

The Supreme Court has dealt with similar cases based on race. But for some reason the Arizona legislature passed this law and it is on the governor's desk. There is a drive to stop it from becoming law but the implications are scary and terrifying.

 

[CdwJava]

I think you've been reading too much into the bill as written.

http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/51leg/2r/bills/sb1062p.pdf

It would not bring back the bad-ol-days of Jim Crow. In fact, it does little more than codify and clarify the law in AZ so that people of faith can exercise that faith without fear of prosecution. In some states bakers, owners of venues, providers of goods, photographers, etc. have either been put out of business by the state or prosecuted because they exercised their right to religious freedom and declined to provide the service - in many cases after providing leads to competitors who WOULD provide the same service! It seems that some of those businesses were specifically targeted.

The law is not entirely necessary - yet - in AZ as state law already makes it largely legal for retailers to discriminate based upon sexual orientation. But, this law would seem only to reinforce or codify that which already exists by default.

Frankly, I find it appalling that the power of the state has been utilized so at all in order to penalize those with a genuinely held religious belief such that they have to choose between their livelihood and their faith. To me, that's simply foul. Unfortunately, I live in CA where religious freedom is becoming more and more stifled and such a law that protects religious freedoms will never even make it to the legislature for a vote.

 

[Ohiogal]

I think you've been reading too much into the bill as written.

http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/51leg/2r/bills/sb1062p.pdf

It would not bring back the bad-ol-days of Jim Crow. In fact, it does little more than codify and clarify the law in AZ so that people of faith can exercise that faith without fear of prosecution. In some states bakers, owners of venues, providers of goods, photographers, etc. have either been put out of business by the state or prosecuted because they exercised their right to religious freedom and declined to provide the service - in many cases after providing leads to competitors who WOULD provide the same service! It seems that some of those businesses were specifically targeted.

The law is not entirely necessary - yet - in AZ as state law already makes it largely legal for retailers to discriminate based upon sexual orientation. But, this law would seem only to reinforce or codify that which already exists by default.

Frankly, I find it appalling that the power of the state has been utilized so at all in order to penalize those with a genuinely held religious belief such that they have to choose between their livelihood and their faith. To me, that's simply foul. Unfortunately, I live in CA where religious freedom is becoming more and more stifled and such a law that protects religious freedoms will never even make it to the legislature for a vote.

It allows ANY religious belief to be exercised -- divorced women and unwed mothers could be discriminated against due the Bible's prohibitions against divorce and premarital/out of marital sex. If you believe wholeheartedly that races should mix, you can then discriminate against other races. Fear of prosecution? Ummm, if you own a business the Supreme Court has already settled the issue. You can't discriminate for illegal purposes. Arizona's law is very broad. It really is. It is NOT necessary at all. Unless you want discrimination codified.

So if someone thinks as a religious belief sincerely held that divorce is a sin and should not happen, they can refuse to hire divorced women without fear of lawsuits. For instance.

 

[CSO286]

It allows ANY religious belief to be exercised -- divorced women and unwed mothers could be discriminated against due the Bible's prohibitions against divorce and premarital/out of marital sex. If you believe wholeheartedly that races should mix, you can then discriminate against other races. Fear of prosecution? Ummm, if you own a business the Supreme Court has already settled the issue. You can't discriminate for illegal purposes. Arizona's law is very broad. It really is. It is NOT necessary at all. Unless you want discrimination codified.

So if someone thinks as a religious belief sincerely held that divorce is a sin and should not happen, they can refuse to hire divorced women without fear of lawsuits. For instance.

OG, just a question then: Those sign in restaurants/ gas stations, any regular mom-and-pop shops that read "Management reserves the right to refuse service to anyone at any time"**************legal or no?

 

[Ohiogal]

OG, just a question then: Those sign in restaurants/ gas stations, any regular mom-and-pop shops that read "Management reserves the right to refuse service to anyone at any time"**************legal or no?

Depends on the reason for refusing service. Is it based on marital status? Parenting status? Race? A federally protected right? A disability? If so, then it is not legal. This bill in Arizona allows for refusal of service based on federally protected reasons if you claim religious freedom. And you can't be sued.

If you are refused service because of your race, you can sue the gas station/restaurant. This law doesn't allow for that as it is a defense to claim, "my religion doesn't allow me to support divorced people/interracial couples/race mixing/different races/unwed parents" and there is no penalty.

 

[tranquility]

Arizona may sign a very scary bill into law that legalizes discrimination in the name of religious freedom. While some people think it is aimed ONLY at homosexuals (and that is just fine with them), the bill is very broadly written and could allow a business to discriminate against anyone in the name of religious freedom. IN other words, if you claim religious freedom, you can refuse to serve or deal with unmarried parents, divorced people, interracial couples, those who are of different religions than yourself, and various other things. This law is reminiscent of the old Jim Crow laws. You would be able to fire someone (or be fired) in Arizona if you claim religious freedom.

The Supreme Court has dealt with similar cases based on race. But for some reason the Arizona legislature passed this law and it is on the governor's desk. There is a drive to stop it from becoming law but the implications are scary and terrifying.

Such comments are silly and overwrought. While scaremongers want to make it out to be the horror of horrors, the point is to let those with a sincere religious belief a defense when the law requires them to act against that belief. First, state statute will not overrule federal statutes. All the protections under the Constitution and federal law will still be there.

The law is stupid and unnecessary. If there had not been court made law by people trying to push an agenda in the courts they had not yet been winning in votes, we would not be discussing this. But, when the legislature pushes back against the courts, suddenly we should all be scared to death because everyone is at risk. The fact many want to take the penumbric right to privacy and change it into an insistence all must celebrate something they actually feel is against their sincerely held beliefs is the agenda that should be feared. The core of the issue and debate did not have to do with serving those who are gay, but from demanding all participate in same sex marriage. The opprobrium is not from those with true fear there will be no room at the lunch counter for black, christian, gay, whatever's, but from those who see their agenda of of having everyone celebrate two of the same sex coming together in the same way they celebrate marriage as it has been known (with rare exceptions) since humankind developed the institution slowed.

 

[Ohiogal]

Such comments are silly and overwrought. While scaremongers want to make it out to be the horror of horrors, the point is to let those with a sincere religious belief a defense when the law requires them to act against that belief. First, state statute will not overrule federal statutes. All the protections under the Constitution and federal law will still be there.

The law is stupid and unnecessary. If there had not been court made law by people trying to push an agenda in the courts they had not yet been winning in votes, we would not be discussing this. But, when the legislature pushes back against the courts, suddenly we should all be scared to death because everyone is at risk. The fact many want to take the penumbric right to privacy and change it into an insistence all must celebrate something they actually feel is against their sincerely held beliefs is the agenda that should be feared. The core of the issue and debate did not have to do with serving those who are gay, but from demanding all participate in same sex marriage. The opprobrium is not from those with true fear there will be no room at the lunch counter for black, christian, gay, whatever's, but from those who see their agenda of of having everyone celebrate two of the same sex coming together in the same way they celebrate marriage as it has been known (with rare exceptions) since humankind developed the institution slowed.

No one is saying that churches must allow gay marriages. NO one is saying that. And there is nothing in Arizona law that says sexual orientation is protected. The law is ridiculous and what I stated is true in how that it could be applied.

 

[CdwJava]

Well, if the only argument is what the bill MIGHT do, then there's no point discussing it as a matter of law. It MIGHT do many things ... it MIGHT also protect the legitimate religious freedoms of people who believe that they cannot, say, support a LGBT wedding or commitment ceremony.

Note the language that the act being requested by the person or business must be of a substantial burden. I think that it would be hard to argue based upon any mainstream faith that a person is substantially burdened by not catering to a divorced person. Not to mention with the high level of divorce in this country what a dumb business decision that would be!

We either have freedom OF religion, or we do not. From my perspective, we are becoming more and more a nation where the First Amendment is being tossed on its ear and interpreted to mean a freedom FROM religion. The law seems to say, now, that you are free to hold your faith to be true so long as you do so quietly and in private. Sorry, but we cannot BE quiet about it.

 

[tranquility]

No one is saying that churches must allow gay marriages. NO one is saying that. And there is nothing in Arizona law that says sexual orientation is protected. The law is ridiculous and what I stated is true in how that it could be applied.

The main change from the bill is to provide the same protection of the religious freedom act that groups (like churches) get in the current law to individuals. The impetus was Elane Photography v. Willock, the New Mexico case that provided that a person who had sincerely held religious beliefs against same sex marriage had to participate in a commitment ceremony (I don't think same sex marriage was legal in NM at the time.) by photographing the ceremony.

 

[Ladyback1]

OG, just a question then: Those sign in restaurants/ gas stations, any regular mom-and-pop shops that read "Management reserves the right to refuse service to anyone at any time"**************legal or no?

Was in a little diner this weekend, and their sign read "We reserve the right to refuse service to mean people..."
I thought that was rather a good sign!

This is one of those laws that could become a slippery slope, on either side.
If a bakery chooses not to make a wedding cake for a bi-racial couple, why then can't the bi-racial couple just go somewhere else? But, then again, WHY would a business turn away business? Especially, in small mom & pop type businesses, word of mouth "advertising" is huge. A good "reference" if you will, can bring in more business; while a negative reference can kill business.

I'll be the first to admit, my beliefs are that you should "play nice with others and share your toys". Unfortunately, there are those who rely so heavily on religion that they focus on one or two things, and don't see that they are hurting themselves as well as others, when they are "mean".

 

[tranquility]

Was in a little diner this weekend, and their sign read "We reserve the right to refuse service to mean people..."
I thought that was rather a good sign!

This is one of those laws that could become a slippery slope, on either side.
If a bakery chooses not to make a wedding cake for a bi-racial couple, why then can't the bi-racial couple just go somewhere else? But, then again, WHY would a business turn away business? Especially, in small mom & pop type businesses, word of mouth "advertising" is huge. A good "reference" if you will, can bring in more business; while a negative reference can kill business.

I'll be the first to admit, my beliefs are that you should "play nice with others and share your toys". Unfortunately, there are those who rely so heavily on religion that they focus on one or two things, and don't see that they are hurting themselves as well as others, when they are "mean".

A recent meme touched on the subject:
http://imgur.com/BUURWkt

Of course, the person pushing the agenda did not find the humor:
http://www.businessinsider.com/gay-wedding-cakes-jon-stewart-josh-barro-2014-2

 

[LdiJ]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? Arizona

Arizona may sign a very scary bill into law that legalizes discrimination in the name of religious freedom. While some people think it is aimed ONLY at homosexuals (and that is just fine with them), the bill is very broadly written and could allow a business to discriminate against anyone in the name of religious freedom. IN other words, if you claim religious freedom, you can refuse to serve or deal with unmarried parents, divorced people, interracial couples, those who are of different religions than yourself, and various other things. This law is reminiscent of the old Jim Crow laws. You would be able to fire someone (or be fired) in Arizona if you claim religious freedom.

The Supreme Court has dealt with similar cases based on race. But for some reason the Arizona legislature passed this law and it is on the governor's desk. There is a drive to stop it from becoming law but the implications are scary and terrifying.

I read about that last week and ABSOLUTELY agree with you. I think its insane that the bill ever got out of committee, let alone passed on the to governor for signature. The author of the article I read seemed to believe that the governor WOULD sign it.

 

[tranquility]

I read about that last week and ABSOLUTELY agree with you. I think its insane that the bill ever got out of committee, let alone passed on the to governor for signature. The author of the article I read seemed to believe that the governor WOULD sign it.

Everything the scaremongers are saying might happen if the bill passes are legal under current law. While some cities have passed ordinances protecting sexual orientation (At least the "normal" ones.), it is currently not illegal under Arizona law to deny services to a person because they are gay. To think this law is a big old darn deal is because of marketing by those with an agenda. What are the changes to the current Religious Freedom Restoration Act?

-Those covered by RFRA would include "any individual, association, partnership, corporation, church, religious assembly or institution or other business organization." This is the big change that gives protection to individual and not just churches and the like.
-A religious freedom violation can be asserted "regardless of whether the government is a party to the proceeding." This is also a big change because of the hope to make every person aggrieved to be their own attorney general. The private right of action for putative violations that are not against any law but are against what some want the law to be is how moneyed interests can force the issue in the courts.
-The person asserting a religious freedom violation must show three things: "1. That the person's action or refusal to act is motivated by a religious belief. 2. That the person's religious belief is sincerely held. 3. That the state action substantially burdens the exercise of the person's religious beliefs." This actually changes current law for the better and provides those aggrieved more protection than under current law.

If this is going to take everything down the slippery slope into rampant discrimination, why is it not happening now under current law? There is nothing preventing it. Yet....

This is an agenda-driven controversy and is unrelated to actual problems with the law. One will find that the end result is the same as today. Society will accept reasonable people no matter their sexual orientation but will find a way to opt out of participating in things that they object to.

 

[cbg]

I have not read the bill, just articles about it, so this is a question, not an argument or a rebuttal.

Does the bill specify that it is limited to sexual orientation, or is that just the assumed target and any characteristic could theoretically be targeted?

 

[CdwJava]

The bill is short and sweet:

http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/51leg/2r/bills/sb1062p.pdf