Controversy Over Arizona "Religious Freedom" Bill

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.

Your use of the term "the government" creates confusion. The incidents you cite were the result of STATE LAW in those states. Such laws do not exist in Arizona so those problems do not exist here. This legislation does not solve an existing problem, it merely panders to a group of people who have their undies in a bunch about what is happening in other states.

So these kind of bills absolutely are necessary to protect the principle of freedom of association and religious freedom.

This kind of bill is absolutely useless. The problems you cited were the result of State laws. Arizona does not currently have such laws, but if the legislature decided down the road that it wanted to have such laws, this new law would do nothing whatsoever to prevent it. The legislature cannot tie its own hands. A bill passed today can be just as easily repealed next year. This is pure political posturing and has no legal effect at all.

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.

Please. Who do you think is being fooled by that? The purpose of this bill was to pander to a group of the electorate that is upset about gay marriage. And the side effect was to slap the gay community in the face. It had zero legal effect. And its political effect was to mobilize a highly active group to start agitating for the very law that the bill was supposed to protect against.
 
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.

You may be right. But the pushers of the gay agenda don't seem to think so. They're making a really big deal out of this.
 
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.

Right. It's hard to believe how inconsistent some people here are. Social liberalism trumps libertarianism for a lot of people.
 
This kind of bill is absolutely useless. The problems you cited were the result of State laws. Arizona does not currently have such laws, but if the legislature decided down the road that it wanted to have such laws, this new law would do nothing whatsoever to prevent it. The legislature cannot tie its own hands. A bill passed today can be just as easily repealed next year. This is pure political posturing and has no legal effect at all.

It doesn't matter if Arizona has such a law. You have the courts that are creating some kind of Constitutional right for gay and lesbian couples to force private individuals to provide services to them. That's the point we've gotten to in America now. People now have a "right" to other people's services. That's why a bill like this is necessary, to try to protect the state against these kind of court decisions.
 
And the side effect was to slap the gay community in the face.

How does it slap anyone in the face?

If it says anything to them, it just says, "You're not a special person with special rights who gets to have the state force people to do business with you if they don't want to." That's not a slap. That's just a perfectly neutral statement that every man woman and child on the planet, gay or straight, black or white, Christian or Satanist, ought to just take for granted.

Calling that a slap in the face makes it look like you don't agree with it.
 
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.

@tywysog- I remember talking to you about this a year or so ago and you didn't agree with me. What's your position on this now?
 
Arizona governor may veto bill that allows business owners to deny gays, lesbians

Three Republican senators who voted for Senate Bill 1062 said Monday they made a bad decision in a rushed process and are now asking Gov. Jan Brewer to veto the right-to-refuse-service bill.

“We feel it was a solution in search of a problem,” Sen. Bob Worsley, R-Mesa, said in an impromptu news conference outside the state Senate. He was joined by Sen. Steve Pierce, R-Prescott.

The two, along with Senate Majority Whip Adam Driggs, R-Phoenix, sent Brewer a letter Monday morning asking for a veto.

“While our sincere intent in voting for this bill was to create a shield for all citizens’ religious liberties, the bill has instead been mischaracterized by its opponents as a sword for religious intolerance,” the three wrote. “These allegations are causing our state immeasurable harm.”

Under the bill, business owners would have the freedom to deny service to gay and lesbian customers as long as they assert their religious beliefs as a reason for doing so. Brewer has until Saturday to decide whether to veto the bill, to the satisfaction of business leaders; sign it into law, an act that could put the state’s economy and tourism industry in jeopardy; or allow it to become law without her signature.

Pierce and Worsley said the bill was moved along very quickly, not giving them enough time to convince fellow lawmakers to vote against it. Besides, Pierce said, they didn’t want to “tear apart” the GOP caucus, which was sharply divided last year over Brewer’s push for Medicaid expansion.

But the reaction from constituents to the business community reinforced their discomfort with their “yes” votes, they said, leading to the call for a veto.

Worsley noted the bill made a fairly minor tweak to the state’s existing statute protecting religious freedom, and said that was more reason to question why the bill was needed.

He said he asked Senate President Andy Biggs, R-Gilbert, over the weekend to allow the Senate to reconsider last week’s vote, but Biggs declined. If such a vote were to happen, it would fail, since the three Republicans would join with the 13 Democrats to vote it down.
 
Ultimately it's going to get to the point where Christians are persecuted and thrown in prison for being opposed to homosexuality. This is the kind of thing that the Bible says will happen in the last days.
 
American Airlines to Apple Oppose Arizona Bill Aimed at Gays

Companies from Apple Inc. to American Airlines Group Inc. called on Arizona Governor Jan Brewer to veto a bill allowing businesses to refuse service on religious grounds, a measure that opponents say is meant to allow discrimination against gays.

The measure passed last week prompted tourists to cancel reservations and companies to say they would locate elsewhere if it became law. The bill threatens to reverse an economic recovery in a state among those hardest hit by the housing crash, opponents said, and to cement a reputation fostered by a 2010 anti-immigration law and a fight in the 1990s over celebrating the Martin Luther King holiday.

“There is genuine concern throughout the business community that this bill, if signed into law, would jeopardize all that has been accomplished so far,” Doug Parker, chief executive officer of Fort Worth, Texas-based American, wrote in a letter to Brewer yesterday. He said that it has the potential to reduce the desire of companies to relocate in the state and to repel convention business.

“Our economy thrives best when the doors of commerce are open to all,” he wrote.

US Airways Group Inc., a predecessor of American, traces its roots back to a company founded in Phoenix in 1981. The newly merged American, created in December, has promised to keep the city as a flight hub for three years.

Super Issue

Asked Feb. 22 whether she plans to sign the bill this week, Brewer said she needed to review it.

“I don’t have to make a decision until next Friday, so I’ve got plenty of time,” Brewer said at a National Governors Association meeting in Washington.

Brewer also declined to say whether next year’s Super Bowl could move from Arizona if the bill is in effect.

“You should address that issue to the Super Bowl,” she said.

Aaron Baer, a spokesman for the Center for Arizona Policy, which supports the measure, said it would allow residents to run their businesses in accordance with their faith.

“The attacks and the misinformation and outright lies have nothing to do with what Senate Bill 1062 is all about,” he said. “It brings Arizona in line with what a majority of courts and circuit courts have ruled.”

New Tactic

After the Republican-controlled state Senate approved the measure Feb. 21, businesses and gay rights groups lobbied the governor to veto it. Cupertino, California-based Apple, which is opening a facility this month in Mesa employing 700 people making a material used to strengthen iPhone screens, also asked Brewer to kill the bill.

Hundreds protested it yesterday at the statehouse in Phoenix, the Arizona Republic reported.

Furor over the bill prompted several Republicans who voted for the measure to change their minds. In a letter yesterday to Brewer, Senators Adam Driggs, Bob Worsley and Steve Pierce urged the governor to veto it.

“While our sincere intent in voting for this bill was to create a shield for all citizens’ religious liberties, the bill has instead been mischaracterized by its opponents as a sword for religious intolerance,” the senators wrote. “These allegations are causing our state immeasurable harm.”

New Strategy

Arizona’s bill is similar to measures proposed in Georgia, Idaho, Maine, Mississippi and Kansas in response to the gay-marriage movement. Seventeen states, plus the District of Columbia, have legalized the practice.

“This is a new strategy,” said Eunice Rho, advocacy and policy counsel at the American Civil Liberties Union in New York. “As more states and the public are recognizing the freedom to marry, proponents of this legislation have been quite explicit in their desire to use freedom of religion to discriminate.”

Arizona business groups said publicity surrounding the bill’s quick trip through the Republican-controlled legislature prompted firms to reconsider their commitment to the state.

“This legislation will likely have profound negative effects on our business community for years to come,” wrote James Lundy, chairman of the Greater Phoenix Economic Council, and Barry Broome, its chief executive officer, in a Feb. 21 letter to Brewer.

“With major events approaching in the coming year, including Super Bowl XLIX, Arizona will be the center of the world’s stage,” they added. “This legislation has the potential of subjecting the Super Bowl, and major events surrounding it, to the threats of boycotts.”

Gay Linebacker

A National Football League spokesman said the organization was following the issue.

“Our policies emphasize tolerance and inclusiveness, and prohibit discrimination based on age, gender, race, religion, sexual orientation,” Brian McCarthy said in an e-mailed statement.

The NFL may hire its first openly homosexual player at its draft in April. Michael Sam, a University of Missouri linebacker who is preparing for the draft, said Feb. 10 that in August he told his teammates and coaches that he was gay.

There is money on the line in Arizona. A boycott sparked by an immigration crackdown in 2010 cost it $141 million in lost contracts and convention business, according to a report commissioned by the Center for American Progress, a Washington research group that says it was founded “to support the progressive movement.”

The Phoenix-based Arizona Lodging & Tourism Association received hundreds of calls and e-mails from visitors planning to travel to the state on business, or for leisure, said Debbie Johnson, chief executive officer of the 500-member group.

“People said they were either canceling trips or they would never visit again if the governor didn’t veto the bill,” said Johnson. “We’ve also gotten messages from our members saying, ’Hey, we got hit with numerous cancellations.’”
 
You may be right. But the pushers of the gay agenda don't seem to think so. They're making a really big deal out of this.

Exactly! They were not making a big deal of it and now they are. Mission accomplished?
 
How does it slap anyone in the face?

If it says anything to them, it just says, "You're not a special person with special rights who gets to have the state force people to do business with you if they don't want to." That's not a slap. That's just a perfectly neutral statement that every man woman and child on the planet, gay or straight, black or white, Christian or Satanist, ought to just take for granted.

Calling that a slap in the face makes it look like you don't agree with it.

I agreed with the law as it was - government was silent on the subject and there was no prohibition against discrimination. NOW the government is once again involved in marriage and regulating business. It didn't protect freedom, it merely exercised its power and stirred up conflict where none existed.
 
Cite one such case.

http://christianpost.com/news/christian-bakers-who-refused-to-bake-wedding-cake-for-lesbian-couple-found-guilty-of-civil-rights-violation-after-gay-activists-forced-shutdown-of-shop--112995/
 

You're missing what Acala is saying, and apparently you're not reading the articles on this issue. Even the article you just linked explains the point being made:
it violated the [New Mexico Human Rights Act, or NMHRA]

"To allow discrimination based on conduct so closely correlated with sexual orientation would severely undermine the purpose of the NMHRA"

The court also rejected Huguenin's free speech argument, saying that the NMHRA does not compel speech. "They may, for example, post a disclaimer on their website or in their studio advertising that they oppose same-sex marriage but that they comply with applicable antidiscrimination laws." Likewise, the court said, the law doesn't regulate the content of the photographs. "The NMHRA does not mandate that Elane Photography choose to take wedding pictures; that is the exclusive choice of Elane Photography."

NM already has laws (NMHRA) on the books that prohibit this kind of discrimination where Arizona does not. The proposing of the bill in Arizona was preemptive, according to the proponents of the bill, because they're afraid of anti-discrimination legislation and rulings that may eventually take place down the road.
 
Every business should be able to discriminate. Same way we can discriminate privately.

Absolutely. No shoes, no shirt, no service. If some guy that owns a bagel shop doesn't want to serve some guy that walks in wearing a Nazi uniform, that is his right to refuse to serve him. Stupid liberals want laws to protect gays, which is a noble thought, but the reality is that creating laws against discrimination for private transactions has unintended consequences. Now what happens if a Nazi walks into a Jew's store in New Mexico... the owner has to serve the asshole or he can be sued.

What is the alternative? Well the photographer that refused to take pictures of the gays could have shown up and taken a bunch of blurry photos that were unusable and would that have made the gays people happy? No. If the Jew is forced to serve the Nazi, is he probably going to spit on the food? Yes.

One of the stupidest concepts that liberals have taken and run with is the idea that people should be forced to do work for others. Isn't that just slavery?
 
http://christianpost.com/news/christian-bakers-who-refused-to-bake-wedding-cake-for-lesbian-couple-found-guilty-of-civil-rights-violation-after-gay-activists-forced-shutdown-of-shop--112995/

Again, already illegal.

It is illegal in that state to discriminate against gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people in public places like restaurants and bakeries in Oregon.

Oregon law bans discrimination against gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people in jobs and in places that serve the public, such as restaurants and bakeries.

These are state laws in New Mexico and Oregon, as well as in other states.
 
Back
Top