NIT – A bill under consideration in Arizona would allow business owners with certain religious beliefs not to do business with gays.
Arizona’s Religious Freedom Restoration Act has been on the books since 1999 and has not been updated during that time. The bill – SB1062 – makes changes to that act.
Late last week, the Arizona House approved SB1062 33-27 and earlier, the bill passed the Arizona Senate 17-13. The bill now goes to ultra-conservative Governor Jan Brewer, known for putting her finger in the face President Barack Obama.
The bill has a chance of being signed by Brewer, who recently told CNN that “I think anybody that owns a business can choose who they work with or who they don’t work with.”
According to the bill, business owner would be able to deny service to homosexuals as long as they are only acting on their religious beliefs.
UPI/Kevin Dietsch
Republican U.S. Senator John McCain said Tuesday that he hopes Governor Brewer vetoes the bill.
Others against the bill say that if passed, it would open a floodgate of lawsuits in the state.
A proponent of the bill – the Center for Arizona Policy – said that the bill “clarifies that the definition of ‘person’ includes all types of businesses and legal entities. Although the question of whether private business owners should be afforded First Amendment protection should be a non-issue, opponents of religious freedom continue to argue that for-profit businesses do not have consciences. They argue that businesses cannot operate according to a sincerely held religious belief and make a conscientious objection to a government mandate.”
I want to marry my girlfriend, dog, and horse all at the same time. If I can’t then you are not tolerant of my lifestyle therefore I am a victim of discrimination.
And, I hope we can all make a trip to the grocery store to shop. Won’t let my spouses enter? Discrimination!
In what state do you want to marry your horse and dog, and in what state would that be legal?
Who determines what’s legal?
The State of Colorado let it’s citizens vote in favor of regulating legal weed in direct violation of Federal law. Why don’t the Feds enforce?
The majority of citizens in Virginia and Texas vote to define marriage as between one man and one woman, and yet Federal Judges issue rulings striking down.
This is simply about money, power, and votes.
As far as I’m concerned, you can marry anyone or anything you’d like…you can marry your tree in the backyard if you like. But what get’s recognized as to financial or legal benefits is up to challenge. Basically what I hear you saying is that NO marriage should be recognized for anything other than a religious or personal recognition,and there is a good argument to be made for that. Should 3 wives be forbidden? Why shouldn’t 3 adults be allowed to enter into whatever marriage arrangement / contract they like? You see so much rides on definitions of traditional marriage in terms of payments to spousal benefits, and this is what they are most concerned with protecting. However, there is an easy fix to that: All payees to benefits need do is disperse the benefits evenly among no matter how many wives or husbands are involved. So if death benefits stipulate $1000 a month to surviving spouses, and the man is married to 3 wives, then the $1000 would be divided into $333.333 X 3 and paid to each wife. I don’t see a problem with that as long as no more or less is paid out between a polygamist marriage versus monogamous one. Capiche?
Another perspective:
The law is fundamentally flawed because it uses “religious beliefs” as the logic for a business owner to refuse service. In this law it is my understanding the focus of the law is toward “homosexuals.” To that end I agree that is discrimination, plain and simple.
The law should read that if I own a business and I don’t like your behaviour and your presence would cause me grief or to loose business then I should have the right to choose who I sell my service or product to based on my ability to make a profit and be comfortable and feel safe in my own environment. That is the way freedom should work.
That sounds like a broad brush, and it is. The owner of the business will either suffer a loss or his judgement call worked for him in his business environment and he continues on. That is the way freedom should work.
No law should be based on someone’s religious beliefs and focused solely on one purpose.
I would veto this particular law.
I do believe if you put your own money and take the risk, then you have the right to sell to whom you want to. That is the way freedom should work.
I know there are a lot of you that would like to take that freedom away from people. If that happened to me, I would close up shop and move on and find a place where I was free from oppressive laws.
This in itself is an oppressive law. If we allow one group the ‘right’ to discriminate based on their religious beliefs, where will it stop? There is a statement penned during the holocaust by Martin Niemoller
“First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out–
Because I was not a Socialist.
Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out–
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out–
Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me–and there was no one left to speak for me.”
Do you want to be the one who ‘they’ come for? I don’t. Discrimination is wrong. It leads to horrors that none of us should want to experience.
A swing and a miss.
The “They” in Martin Niemoller’s quote refers to the government; not a private business.
BTW what do “gays” look like?
Yes, I know that they is the government – the Nazis. My point is that once we start down that road, who is going to stop it? The governor is part of the government, isn’t she? And if our government starts accepting these kinds of laws, then Niemoller’s fear becomes a reality. And, you are right on in asking what does a gay person look like. If you saw Michael Sam walk into your place of business, would you automatically classify him as gay? Maybe the business owner will have every one sign a paper as they walk into the business stating their sexual preference.
But this law doesn’t discriminate against anyone. It will simply allow a private business to do so. I, myself, don’t believe that many private businesses will discriminate; to do so will (IMHO) lead to extinction.
And yes, how will a business determine who is “right” and who is “wrong” to serve?
Duh
Very thoughtful response. Yes, the law should be struck down as unconstitutional. The right to refuse service should be left up to the business’ proprietor, so long as it was not blatant nor blanket discrimination.
That has happened in the past as was the case with redlining and steering. We already have enough rules and laws in place to discourage discrimination, what we don’t need is a law that actually encourages it.
Is the bill descimination, or does it give preferential treatment to gays?
I think the Jews and blacks should be kept out of OUR schools and businesses also. what ya think? Sounds stupid doesnt it. just like this bill.
I believe that anyone who is open to the public should have to serve all of the public. If they are running a private club then they can pick who they want in the club. What a terrible country this would be if this should pass. It is just wrong to try to segregate people like that. It is right wing religion at it’s very worse. How can they call themselves Christian and still promote something like that. I do not understand the gay lifestyle but as long as they act decent like everyone else they should not be singled out like this. What people do behind their doors is no one else’s business.
Every business that you go into there is a sign somewhere that says “we reserve the right to serve or to refuse your service” or something like that. I believe it is up to the owners to serve or not to. If they decide not to and the word gets out they could lose business, it’s all up to them.
@maybe-they put up those signs but they will not hold up in court and they know it. Lets see someone refuse to serve a black person or a Jew and see what happens. It is no different for a gay person. As long as they are not causing a disturbance and they are open to the “public” I think they should serve them.
I have seen that sign almost everywhere I went, we even had it in our store but we served everybody. I never saw anybody being refused service even with that sign up.
@LVS. this is discrimination at its worst. The guy who is trying to pass this law is also running for governor of Arizona, and I watched a one on one interview with him last night with Anderson Cooper on CNN. Cooper who is gay just tore him to pieces, and the politician finally just gave up answering questions. Like you I don’t agree or understand the lifestyle, but I am against discrimination, and am for equal rights for all.
No shirts. no shoes. no Mexicans.no blacks. no jews. no gay boys. no lgbt’s. what a wonderful world!