Controversy Over Arizona "Religious Freedom" Bill

[Cabal]

What's behind Arizona plan to let businesses refuse to serve gays?

It’s either a small fix to protect the free exercise of religion or a "no cake for gays" bill that would invite businesses to discriminate, depending on whom you talk to.

The legislation, SB 1062, would bolster a business owner’s right to defend refusing service to someone when the owner believes doing so would violate their the practice and observance of religion. Supporters call it a "religious freedom" bill.

As Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer weighs whether to sign the measure into law, here’s a look at what the proposal is all about.

Why was SB 1062 proposed?

Last August, the New Mexico Supreme Court ruled that a photography company discriminated against a same-sex couple when in 2006 it refused to shoot the couple's civil-commitment ceremony.

New Mexico law specifically bars a public accommodation from denying services to someone based on that person’s sexual orientation or gender identity. Twenty-one states have similar laws, according to Human Rights Campaign.

Arizona isn’t one of them. But state lawmakers were concerned about the implementation of another law: the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.

Arizona and New Mexico are among 26 states that, along with the federal government, recognize the gist of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, said Joe LaRue, an attorney at the Alliance Defending Freedom who helped draft SB 1062.

The act prevents a law from placing a “substantial burden” on an individual’s religious beliefs.

LaRue said it has been used by people about 200 times nationwide since 1993 to argue in court that they don’t have to do something the law requires because the action interferes with their religion.

The law was invoked by the New Mexico photographers. But in that case, a court ruled for the first time that the law could not be invoked in a lawsuit between two private parties, LaRue said. The photographers have asked the U.S. Supreme Court to hear an appeal.

“The problem is the New Mexico Supreme Court created a loophole that if government is not party to a legal proceeding, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act cannot be used as a defense,” LaRue said.

Why the need if the law is only under threat in New Mexico?

“Freedom is too important to leave to chance,” LaRue said.

He offered an example:
“There is a law that bans discrimination at public accommodations based on religion in Arizona. Let’s pretend that I’m a bakery and that in my town here in Arizona, Westboro Baptist Church comes to picket a funeral of a soldier, and they tell me to bake a cake. They want it to say, ‘God hates ...’ and that terrible word they use.

“It would offend my dignity. I don’t want to give voice to that horrible message. Right now, they could sue me for discriminating based on their religious beliefs. If the Arizona courts went the way of the New Mexico courts, I would lose and if they targeted me, I could lose my business because of the damages I’d have to pay out. I would never be able to assert my Religious Freedom Restoration Act defense because it’s available only if the government is prosecuting me.”

University of Arizona law professor Toni Massaro said many Arizona lawmakers likely fear that either the federal government or the courts will expand gay rights and other rights in ways that would restrict religious freedom.
What does SB 1062 do?

“They are amending Arizona law in a way that would make clear it covers businesses and allows them to use the religious freedom law as a defense if someone would sue them for sexual orientation discrimination,” Massaro said.

 

[Acala]

The law was not needed. Businesses already could discriminate if they so desired. It was just a grandstand play pandering to the intolerant. Way to go Arizona.

 

[Natural Citizen]

What's behind Arizona plan to let businesses refuse to serve gays?

Hm. Couldn't tell you. Maybe they are viewed as subhuman or something? Let's wait and see if wonderboy runs in and speaks up for the prejudices against these folks. No? Nothing to be had?

I think I already expressed my view on it in the Religion thread though in all seriousness.

 

[DamianTV]

The Right to Refuse Business is already protected by the 9th and 10th.

And for the record, what exactly does a persons sexuality have to do with Religion in general? They are about as similar as Apples and Carburetors.

 

[Brett85]

Every libertarian should support this bill. Freedom of association is very much a libertarian principle.

 

[Acala]

Every libertarian should support this bill. Freedom of association is very much a libertarian principle.

Arizonans already HAD this freedom. This bill is nothing more than a political cheap shot. It changes nothing at all.

 

[Cabal]

This bill was a preemptive strike of sorts in response to rulings in New Mexico and apparently other states that had determined businesses cannot discriminate to deny service based on sexual orientation.

It's all right there in the article.

 

[Tywysog Cymru]

It's not worded well, its very easy to compare to Jim Crow laws unfortunately.

 

[Brett85]

Arizonans already HAD this freedom. This bill is nothing more than a political cheap shot. It changes nothing at all.

I'm not entirely sure about the Arizona bill, but the bill that was introduced here in Kansas which is supposedly so "controversial" simply allowed businesses the right to not provide services for ANY marriage. So if a gay business owner didn't want to provide services for a Christian couple who had just gotten married, he wouldn't be forced to either. So at least the Kansas law was very libertarian.

 

[DamianTV]

How about the right to refuse service to the State itself? Govt gets a lot of crap from non govt companies, often propping them up.

 

[kcchiefs6465]

Arizonans already HAD this freedom. This bill is nothing more than a political cheap shot. It changes nothing at all.

I have not read the bill, nor do I have any intention to, nor am I particularly well versed on Arizonan state law but can you expound on this a little bit?

I was under the impression the Federal statutes encompassing all of the states require people to interact with those they otherwise would not have based on a SPLC politically correct defining of different groups. I see the signs in the workplace daily, but truthfully have not taken the time to read them. I do know generally what they espouse and can say that it is a travesty to the law.

Doesn't this bill simply clarify that at no later date, can a law be enacted, forcing Arizonan businesses to provide services to another?

 

[Antischism]

 

[kcchiefs6465]

Let's do it.

I feel my chances of attaining freedom in Arizona are multiple fold than other states or even the country.

You'd be amazed at the number of random people that have a general understanding of economics as well as libertarian inclinations. I can at least speak to them.

Getting away from California would be nice.

 

[Acala]

This bill was a preemptive strike of sorts in response to rulings in New Mexico and apparently other states that had determined businesses cannot discriminate to deny service based on sexual orientation.

It's all right there in the article.

In the states where this became an issue it was an issue pursuant to State law. In Arizona there is no state law prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation so it was not an issue here until some politicians made it one as a purely symbolic gesture of dominance - and one based on promoting the division of people and rooted in the idea that it is a proper function of the state to regulate business practices.

Furthermore, now that the government has done what it does so well - stir up division among the people - we are likely to get a backlash and I would not be surprised to see a ballot initiative that will prohibit discrimination. Mission accomplished, assuming the mission is to keep the people broken up into factions.

 

[Acala]

I have not read the bill, nor do I have any intention to, nor am I particularly well versed on Arizonan state law but can you expound on this a little bit?

I was under the impression the Federal statutes encompassing all of the states require people to interact with those they otherwise would not have based on a SPLC politically correct defining of different groups. I see the signs in the workplace daily, but truthfully have not taken the time to read them. I do know generally what they espouse and can say that it is a travesty to the law.

Doesn't this bill simply clarify that at no later date, can a law be enacted, forcing Arizonan businesses to provide services to another?

Federal law does not prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation.

And a state cannot tie its own hands. In other words, today's legislature cannot pass a law that next year's legislature cannot undo. But today's legislature CAN inflame the people enough that they pass a ballot measure that WILL tie the hands of the legislature in the future. It is a tactical blunder to provoke people needlessly.

 

[Acala]

I'm not entirely sure about the Arizona bill, but the bill that was introduced here in Kansas which is supposedly so "controversial" simply allowed businesses the right to not provide services for ANY marriage. So if a gay business owner didn't want to provide services for a Christian couple who had just gotten married, he wouldn't be forced to either. So at least the Kansas law was very libertarian.

The libertarian position is that government has nothing to say about it, which was the status in Arizona until now. It is nothing but political breast beating on an issue that does nothing but divide people. If they are really interested in liberty, there is a lifetime's worth of work to do cutting real chains on business and liberating people from excessive government instead of garnering headlines with do-nothing legislation. But this is all about pandering to special interests and trying to get elected.

 

[tod evans]

As a business owner (not in Az) I discriminate at will..

Attitude is my biggest pet-peeve, if I don't like yours I'll run ya' off...

 

[Brett85]

The libertarian position is that government has nothing to say about it, which was the status in Arizona until now. It is nothing but political breast beating on an issue that does nothing but divide people. If they are really interested in liberty, there is a lifetime's worth of work to do cutting real chains on business and liberating people from excessive government instead of garnering headlines with do-nothing legislation. But this is all about pandering to special interests and trying to get elected.

But the government has had things to say about it, because the government has forced a private bakery owner to sell a wedding cake to a gay couple, has forced a photographer to photograph a gay wedding, etc. So these kind of bills absolutely are necessary to protect the principle of freedom of association and religious freedom. And I would have to read the language of this particular bill, but the Kansas bill didn't single out homosexuals at all, but simply said that no private individual or private businesses will be forced to provide services for ANY marriage, straight or gay.

 

[Murray N Rothbard]

Every business should be able to discriminate. Same way we can discriminate privately.

 

[erowe1]

It's not worded well, its very easy to compare to Jim Crow laws unfortunately.

If there were a bill to make it legal for businesses to discriminate against people based on race, we should all support that one too.