Arizona senate oks refusing same sex customers

[FaxModem1]

KVOA Arizona FOX 4

Arizona Senate OKs bill that allows refusal of service to gays

The Arizona Senate has passed a Republican-backed bill that expands the rights of people to assert their religious beliefs in refusing service to gays and others.

Democrats and civil rights groups opposed the bill being pushed by social conservatives, saying it would allow discriminatory actions by businesses.

But GOP Sen. Steve Yarbrough of Chandler says his push was prompted by a New Mexico case where the state Supreme Court allowed a gay couple to sue a photographer who refused to take pictures of their wedding. He says he's protecting religious rights.

Democrats sponsored eight hostile amendments during Wednesday's debate that were rejected by Republicans who control the Senate.

A similar bill is making its way through the House.

Right after Kansas killed their bill, Arizona decides to pick up the slack.

[Tribble]

Well, see, the Republicans whole platform is about attacking minorities, and their list of acceptable targets is shrinking every year. So they have to keep attacking gays for as long as possible, lest they run the risk of running out of "acceptable" groups of people to hate.

[Tsyroc]

KVOA Arizona FOX 4

Right after Kansas killed their bill, Arizona decides to pick up the slack.

There are a fair amount of douche bags in this state, especially up North. I still wonder how we managed to be fairly liberal in regards to medical marijuana but still do crap like this. I suppose there isn't anything specific in the Bible against smoking weed.



ps. KVOA is an NBC affiliate and not FOX.

[bilateralrope]

How long till the lawsuit ?

[Alyrium Denryle]

How long till the lawsuit ?

Days.

[ResistanceForever]

Do any opposition candidates try to point out that these kinds of bills (and the politicians who sponsor/vote for them) tend to be money sinks (in terms of lawsuits) for their state? I can't recall anything like this happening in my state (Pennsylvania), so I really don't know...

[Purple]

Do any opposition candidates try to point out that these kinds of bills (and the politicians who sponsor/vote for them) tend to be money sinks (in terms of lawsuits) for their state? I can't recall anything like this happening in my state (Pennsylvania), so I really don't know...

I am not sure what you think would be achieved by that. People who support this kind of thing would just see the statement as a confirmation of their already existing ideas that the big bad government is oppressing states rights to deal with the gays. And people who don't support them probably don't need an economic reason to go with the common sense one.

[ResistanceForever]

What I hope would be achieved (and this may be a tad naive of me) is that people on the fence, people who are new to voting, or people who are fiscally conservative would vote for a new opposition candidate who points out the financial folly of supporting a candidate who supports this kind of bill.

At the heart of it, I always thought that people might vote for these legislators for reasons other than their social conservatism (e.g. a fiscal conservative might vote for someone who was also a social conservative solely for the fiscal aspect) and an opposition candidate could appeal to conservative voters who would otherwise vote for the social conservative because they were the "closest" to their political viewpoint.

But you're probably right; homophobic, ultra-religious bigots will probably re-elect them anyway, especially if gerrymandering has been in full swing there...

[Tsyroc]

Apparently this bill is to go to the governor next. I don't hold out much expectation that Governor Jan Brewer will veto this.

I understand and support the idea behind the first amendment, and I do think that people should be allowed some leeway in who they do business with, but not serving people because they are gay is just a douchebag reason. I even think it's a stretch in trying to justify this sort of discrimination by saying they are protecting the proprietor's right to religious freedom.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Apparently this bill is to go to the governor next. I don't hold out much expectation that Governor Jan Brewer will veto this.

I understand and support the idea behind the first amendment, and I do think that people should be allowed some leeway in who they do business with, but not serving people because they are gay is just a douchebag reason. I even think it's a stretch in trying to justify this sort of discrimination by saying they are protecting the proprietor's right to religious freedom.

Oh... Oh my. I just read the text of this sucker. They were clever, they simply codified the strict scrutiny test for any prohibition on religious activity--even with regard to laws of general applicability.

My god, this shit has so many unintended consequences that I am salivating at the chance to troll a government when I next go visit my mother.

[Crossroads Inc.]

As I understand it, You could replace "Homosexual" with the word "Negro" and it would read like a wet dream written in the 1950's

[Lagmonster]

Oh... Oh my. I just read the text of this sucker. They were clever, they simply codified the strict scrutiny test for any prohibition on religious activity--even with regard to laws of general applicability.

My god, this shit has so many unintended consequences that I am salivating at the chance to troll a government when I next go visit my mother.

For those of us who are Canadian and ignorant of the law (lawgnorant?), can you explain what the strict scruitiny test for prohibition on etc., etc., is and how they've made trouble for themselves, as you see it?

[Mr Bean]

Apparently this bill is to go to the governor next. I don't hold out much expectation that Governor Jan Brewer will veto this.

I understand and support the idea behind the first amendment, and I do think that people should be allowed some leeway in who they do business with, but not serving people because they are gay is just a douchebag reason. I even think it's a stretch in trying to justify this sort of discrimination by saying they are protecting the proprietor's right to religious freedom.

There is an excellent way to prevent Jan Brewer from signing this. All we need is one wealthy Arizonan to point out that such laws are very traditional... and very traditionally were applied to Jews. For added bonus you can also return to segregated lunch counters if you wish.

Why if your religion (Like Mormonism) has a shout out to not allow mixing of the races or special laws for dealing with non-people of your faith you can enforce them all under this new religious law.

[Alyrium Denryle]

As I understand it, You could replace "Homosexual" with the word "Negro" and it would read like a wet dream written in the 1950's

No. They dont mention gayness at all, it is an inference made + floor arguments.

Here is the text.

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

For those of us who are Canadian and ignorant of the law (lawgnorant?), can you explain what the strict scruitiny test for prohibition on etc., etc., is and how they've made trouble for themselves, as you see it?

There are three levels of scrutiny in 14th amendment law. Whenever a government want to discriminate (read: make a law saying you cannot do something, on the basis of some sort of group membership, by which I mean race, religion, national origin etc etc etc) they have to apply one of three tests, depending on the suspect class.

Rational Basis Scrutiny: It needs to have a good reason, on paper. This is used for groups where a real difference can exist between members of different subsets within that class. For example, the government saying people with various disabilities cannot be DEA agents.

Heightened Scrutiny: It needs to have a really really good reason, and the law or rule must be related to that reason in a way the state can prove. This is used for particular classes like sex and illegitimacy.

Strict Scrutiny: The government needs a really really good reason, the proposed law or rule must be substantially related in a provable way to that reason, and must be as narrowly construed as it is possible to be in furtherance of that rule. This is used for Suspect Classes that have faced discrimination in the past, and whenever a Fundamental Right like voting is involved.



The AZ bill applies Strict Scrutiny to any law of general applicability, and specifies that this shall be a defense in court (or cause to bring legal action) whenever such a law is violated for religious reasons. In other words, if there is a law that says I cannot discriminate in employment that generally applies to the population (read: does not specify anyone for particular treatment or inherently violate the rights of one group over another).

So, lets say there is an animal cruelty prevention law, and I construe my religion as requiring me to sacrifice small goats to Odin by way of skinning them alive. Say I get arrested for this. I can use this as a defense in court. It applies to the "religious beliefs" of ANYONE. Public venues, school officials, people at the DMV, private businesses etc.

Just think for a minute.

[Flagg]

Time to shut off federal funds.

[Simon_Jester]

Does the federal government need an official justification to do that?

If so, how do you get that justification from the fact that Arizona basically just said that "freedom of religion" allows you to commit pretty much any crime* and use as your defense "Stop oppressing my culture religion, you ethnocentric bitch!"

*I don't know how this law applies to felonies, mind you...

[TimothyC]

Does the federal government need an official justification to do that?

Unless restrictions saying that what Arizona is doing is not allowed, they can't just cut off funds. You can't apply new restrictions to existing fund transfers anymore.

[Crossroads Inc.]

Just a by the by...
Here are some things I caught in the "Arizona Republic" by Lawmakers supporting the Bill...

Rep. Eddie Farnsworth
R-Gilbert
"The measure has nothing to do with the LGBT community, because it is currently not protected under state discrimination law.
A business owner can already decide not to hire somebody who is gay or lesbian. This doesn't change that.
You guys are trying to make this something that doesn't exist. These are small changes."

Rep. John Kavanagh
R-Fountain Hills.
"This bill protects the religious from persecution.
The decedents of the people who fled religious persecution are now being criminally prosecuted by politically correct governments.
All this bill does is protect the religious freedoms that the people who began this country came here to establish."

Rep. David Gowan
R-Sierra Vista.
"This bill strengthens against discrimination acts taken by others who want to force someone to do something.
We're strengthening the rights of citizens to believe as they see fit."

Rep. Steve Montenegro
R-Litchfield Park.
"We are trying to protect peoples religious liberties.
We don't want the government coming in and forcing somebody to act against their sacred faith beliefs or having to sell out if you are a small business owner.

Those quotes were from the Friday 21 edition of the "Arizona Republic"

Personally, IF the bill passes into law. I hope, OH how I hope people will troll the fuck out of it. Or just abuse it...
Lets see what happens when Muslim shop owners refuse service to a women who is un escorted by a man.
Or Christians refusing service to Mormons because "their that weird cult"
Or shoot, ANY on in the whole state refusing service to ANY other person who is not the same religion as them.

Yeah this will be "Fun"

[ResistanceForever]

"Exercise of religion" means the practice or observance of religion, including the ability to act or refusal to act in a manner substantially motivated by a religious belief, whether or not the exercise is compulsory or central to a larger system of religious belief.

Does this mean that, even against a law declaring same sex marriages illegal, I can (as a judge of the state) declare a same sex marriage legal if such an act adheres to my religious beliefs?

[Kuja]

[Darth Lucifer]

This will also have an impact on women's issues and reproductive rights. Part of the bill states who can make religious liberty claims: “Any individual, association, partnership, corporation, church, religious assembly or institution, estate, trust, foundation or other legal entity.”

A central issue in two upcoming Supreme Court cases, Conestoga Wood Specialties v. Sebelius and Hobby Lobby v. Sebelius, is whether a for-profit corporation can raise a religious liberty claim under RFRA (Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993)— something that no court had ever agreed to until religious employers started objecting to the HHS contraception and birth control mandate.

RFRA and laws modeled after it is a naked power grab by legislators who disagree with the rulings passed down from SCOTUS and the Federal Court system, plain and simple. The case which prompted the creation of RFRA was a direct attempt by congress to explicitly overrule a Supreme Court opinion which disfavored religious exemptions in generally applicable laws. In the same vein, these State-level bills like the proposed Kansas and Arizona laws are sad attempts by gay bashers in office to overrule decisions reached in Romer, Lawrence, Windsor, and other cases which have ruled in favor of LGBT ppl.

[Simon_Jester]

I can certainly see the argument for why a for-profit corporation can't claim religious freedom exceptions to laws.

Either it's legally an immortal bodiless person owned by its shareholders, in which case its claim to be a member of a religion is laughable (can anyone show me the baptismal records? What would Buddha or Christ or Muhammed say about the soul of a corporation?)...

Or it's legally a subhuman entity that exists purely as a 'bag' for holding aggregated wealth, and has no direct rights in its own person at all- not even freedom of speech, let alone freedom of religion.

[PKRudeBoy]

Huh, that actually got me thinking. Would corporate personhood violate the Thirteenth Amendment? Being an owned person is pretty much the definition of slavery.

I'm sure Scientology would be more than willing to induct whatever corporation that wants to join. For a nominal fee, of course

[Simon_Jester]

But does Scientology authorize homophobia?

[Rogue 9]

But does Scientology authorize homophobia?

Yes. Dianetics classifies homosexuality (among many other things) as an illness and, of course, recommends "auditing" to clear it.