Arizona House Passes Religious Discrimination Bill, Sending To Governor

[mrs izzy]

I am sitting here wondering how a protected discrimination class has the power or right to discriminate against others because of there protected rights status.

I do not know anymore. Seems religion rules over basic human rights.

Izzy

[Eva Marie]

Arizona group urges veto of gay bill
http://www.aljazeera.com/news/americas/2014/02/arizona-group-urges-veto-gay-bill-2014224181343533684.html
Al-Jazeera English/AP, no author listed

Arizona's biggest business advocacy group has called on the state's governor to veto [the] bill [. . .]

Three Republican state senators who voted for the bill are now urging Governor Jan Brewer to veto it.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Those senators are asking her to veto it because of the potential loss of tourist dollars, and other business revenue. You'd think they would've thought of that before signing it?

Heh...... i'm amused at the ineptitude on display here by Arizona's senators, who apparently had a "oh crap" moment after they voted for it and then saw where the people & business stood on the issue. The power of the purse is speaking now, and I expect that the backlash will keep getting worse and worse until this law goes away.

I think that Jan Brewer had better veto it if she knows what is good for her for the next election.

[suzifrommd]

Heh...... i'm amused at the ineptitude on display here by Arizona's senators, who apparently had a "oh crap" moment after they voted for it and then saw where the people & business stood on the issue.

I am too.

It always surprises me how people insulate themselves from views counter to their own, and then are surprised at the public backlash from actions they take based on assuming everyone is like them.

I liken it to the Komen disaster when the Susan Komen foundation decided to cut off all funds going to Planned Parenthood because they assumed that their distaste for birth control was shared by their contributors. Luckily the slack was picked up by ACS and other organizations, because Komen will never be the same.

Let's hope AZ can save itself from that fate.

[Jamie D]

I am sitting here wondering how a protected discrimination class has the power or right to discriminate against others because of there protected rights status.

I do not know anymore. Seems religion rules over basic human rights.

Izzy

The issue is not discrimination.  It is whether the freedom of conscience, a natural right, a key in the founding of the United States, is to be trumped by legislation, despite Constitutional guarantees.

The Arizona law was proposed in reaction to this issue and Supreme Court case in neighboring New Mexico:

http://www.towleroad.com/2013/11/new-mexico-wedding-photography-discrimination-case-now-at-the-supreme-court.html

In August, a concurrence accompanying the New Mexico Supreme Court's ruling against Elane Photography said that the owners, Jon and Elaine Huguenin, must abandon their freedom as "the price of citizenship."

This sort of thinking should chill to the bone anyone who cherishes their right to free expression.

[suzifrommd]

In August, a concurrence accompanying the New Mexico Supreme Court's ruling against Elane Photography said that the owners, Jon and Elaine Huguenin, must abandon their freedom as "the price of citizenship."

This sort of thinking should chill to the bone anyone who cherishes their right to free expression.

Are there any freedoms that people should be made to give up?

Should I have the freedom to murder? To rape? To rob?

Should I be free to harass someone? To prevent them from going about enjoying their life by deliberately obstructing their activities?

If the answer to any of these at all is "no", that isn't the question not whether we must abandon some of our freedom as the price of citizenship, but instead exactly which freedoms we should abandon? And, of course, whether the freedom to discriminate against and humiliate gay people (or black/latino/muslim/etc. people) is among those freedoms.

I actually find a world where people DON'T abandon some of their freedom as the price of citizenship FAR more chilling. If people are free to do anything they want to me as long as it meets their personal moral code, then I am safe only if I am capable of inflicting bigger harm on them (and on whatever gang they have behind them) than they can on me.

[Jamie D]

Are there any freedoms that people should be made to give up?

Should I have the freedom to murder? To rape? To rob?

Should I be free to harass someone? To prevent them from going about enjoying their life by deliberately obstructing their activities?

If the answer to any of these at all is "no", that isn't the question not whether we must abandon some of our freedom as the price of citizenship, but instead exactly which freedoms we should abandon? And, of course, whether the freedom to discriminate against and humiliate gay people (or black/latino/muslim/etc. people) is among those freedoms.

I actually find a world where people DON'T abandon some of their freedom as the price of citizenship FAR more chilling. If people are free to do anything they want to me as long as it meets their personal moral code, then I am safe only if I am capable of inflicting bigger harm on them (and on whatever gang they have behind them) than they can on me.

Murder, rape, and robbery are not "freedoms."  They are crimes.  Among your fundamental natural rights are those to life, liberty, and property.  And you have a natural right to be yourself.  So harassment is wrong.  You have a natural right of free association.  And so prohibiting same-sex relationships between consenting adults is wrong.

It all flows from fundamental human rights.

So when the photographers choose not to associate or do business with a lesbian couple because it is objectionable to the photographers' free will and exercise of conscience, we should respect that.  If a government forces/compels people to perform a service that violates their moral codes and /or deeply held religious beliefs, the government becomes an enslaver.

[Jill F]

Consider these hypotheticals.

An elderly lesbian couple's air conditioning fails in the middle of an Arizona heat wave.  Because they live in a remote area, there are only two service companies to choose from.  Both are owned by bigots who are now allowed to deny services to the couple who later die from heat stroke.

A gay couple drives through Arizona and stops at the last gas station for miles because they are low on fuel.  The station's owner decides not to let them fuel up and strands them.  He also refuses to sell them food and water.

A person who isn't even gay is refused a vital service because he is perceived to be gay.

A Muslim working at the only open convenience store refuses to sell you beer.

F&*k Arizona!

[Amy The Bookworm]

Consider these hypotheticals.

An elderly lesbian couple's air conditioning fails in the middle of an Arizona heat wave.  Because they live in a remote area, there are only two service companies to choose from.  Both are owned by bigots who are now allowed to deny services to the couple who later die from heat stroke.

A gay couple drives through Arizona and stops at the last gas station for miles because they are low on fuel.  The station's owner decides not to let them fuel up and strands them.  He also refuses to sell them food and water.

A person who isn't even gay is refused a vital service because he is perceived to be gay.

A Muslim working at the only open convenience store refuses to sell you beer.

F&*k Arizona!

THIS kind of thing is the type of issues that really bothers me about this bill.

As for the argument about religion and morals? I get you're trying to play devil's advocate,  JDLR, but if you're going to use that logic ... why stop at LGBT people? Why not bring back Jim Crow laws, or hey! Slavery! What's wrong with that? Some people may think it's morally right. Simply put, if you run a business, you're agreeing to serve the public. I forget the legal term, but it's why you can't, say, toss a disabled person out of your shop because, gosh darn, you don't like wheelchairs or you find that guys lack of a pinky finger disturbing. If you can't do that, don't open a business.

Also, under fundamental human rights, in the U.S. Pursuit of Happiness is another one of those rights.

[Jamie D]

Consider these hypotheticals.

An elderly lesbian couple's air conditioning fails in the middle of an Arizona heat wave.  Because they live in a remote area, there are only two service companies to choose from.  Both are owned by bigots who are now allowed to deny services to the couple who later die from heat stroke.

A gay couple drives through Arizona and stops at the last gas station for miles because they are low on fuel.  The station's owner decides not to let them fuel up and strands them.  He also refuses to sell them food and water.

A person who isn't even gay is refused a vital service because he is perceived to be gay.

A Muslim working at the only open convenience store refuses to sell you beer.

F&*k Arizona!

Hypotheticals and highly unlikely.

Use your economic power to boycott Arizona.

[Jamie D]

THIS kind of thing is the type of issues that really bothers me about this bill.

As for the argument about religion and morals? I get you're trying to play devil's advocate,  JDLR, but if you're going to use that logic ... why stop at LGBT people? Why not bring back Jim Crow laws, or hey! Slavery! What's wrong with that? Some people may think it's morally right. Simply put, if you run a business, you're agreeing to serve the public. I forget the legal term, but it's why you can't, say, toss a disabled person out of your shop because, gosh darn, you don't like wheelchairs or you find that guys lack of a pinky finger disturbing. If you can't do that, don't open a business.

Also, under fundamental human rights, in the U.S. Pursuit of Happiness is another one of those rights.

Good question.  Since the founding of the country, we have had three Constitutional Amendments outlawing chattel slavery, guaranteeing due process and equal protection, and established privileges and immunities for former slaves.

The ADA requires businesses to make an accommodation for the disabled.  Quite a bit different than being forced to take pictures or decorate wedding cakes.

Let's try something more to the point ...

Suppose a gay organization wanted the finest Christian sculptor in the country, who specialized in religious art, to sculpt a life-sized statue depicting gay sex for their building's public lobby.  Should that artisan be compelled by law to accept the commission?  Should the artisan be subject to a fine or prison for declining to make the statue?

[DriftingCrow]

Here's the proposed act itself: http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/51leg/2r/bills/sb1062p.pdf

I'll have to read it more carefully later, since I just pulled it up, (and statutes are usually very poorly written).

Suppose a gay organization wanted the finest Christian sculptor in the country, who specialized in religious art, to sculpt a life-sized statue depicting gay sex for their building's public lobby.  Should that artisan be compelled by law to accept the commission?  Should the artisan be subject to a fine or prison for declining to make the statue?

I am all for people having their freedom of religion, and business owners do have a right to accept or reject commissions and business for many types of reasons. In this case, the artist I believe has a right to say no. There's kind of a difference between small business owners who do the work themselves versus big companies who don't serve customers or do the work themselves directly (such as, I'd be strongly opposed if say, Chick-Fil-A said "we're a Christian company, therefore, it's against our religious beliefs to serve LGBT customers, we'll set a new Arizona-wide policy stating to turn known or perceived LGBT customers away". Sure we could use the power of the purse, but I think allowing certain blatant discrimination against groups of people sets a bad precedent.).

However, my concern is more with things like: is really just attending a same-sex wedding as a photographer or serving LGBT people in your restaurant really a violation of your religion? Certainly the Bible, Torah, etc. books have been interpreted as saying that having same-sex physical relations is a sin, but is serving people who partake in these relations breakfast at your restaurant, or letting them book a room in your hotel, or being their criminal defense attorney making you violate your religion?  If it actually is a true violation, I'd see an argument that they shouldn't be sued based on the US Constitution. But, if there really is (again, I do need to reread that text in the link above again to really determine this) in this bill an injunction against the business from being sued if they bring this up as a defense, how do we know if there's a true religious reason for the discrimination or if it's just someone who's bigoted using their religion as a shield? I want to know, does the court first have some kind of a hearing to determine if there's an actual religious reason before dismissing the lawsuit? What standards do we use to determine what's an "unreasonable burden" (starts at line 42 of the AZ bill)? If it is dismissed, can it be appealed?

[Jamie D]

Here's the proposed act itself: http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/51leg/2r/bills/sb1062p.pdf

I'll have to read it more carefully later, since I just pulled it up, (and statutes are usually very poorly written).

I am all for people having their freedom of religion, and business owners do have a right to accept or reject commissions and business for many types of reasons. In this case, the artist I believe has a right to say no. There's kind of a difference between small business owners who do the work themselves versus big companies who don't serve customers or do the work themselves directly (such as, I'd be strongly opposed if say, Chick-Fil-A said "we're a Christian company, therefore, it's against our religious beliefs to serve LGBT customers, we'll set a new Arizona-wide policy stating to turn known or perceived LGBT customers away". Sure we could use the power of the purse, but I think allowing certain blatant discrimination against groups of people sets a bad precedent.).

However, my concern is more with things like: is really just attending a same-sex wedding as a photographer or serving LGBT people in your restaurant really a violation of your religion? Certainly the Bible, Torah, etc. books have been interpreted as saying that having same-sex physical relations is a sin, but is serving people who partake in these relations breakfast at your restaurant, or letting them book a room in your hotel, or being their criminal defense attorney making you violate your religion?  If it actually is a true violation, I'd see an argument that they shouldn't be sued based on the US Constitution. But, if there really is (again, I do need to reread that text in the link above again to really determine this) in this bill an injunction against the business from being sued if they bring this up as a defense, how do we know if there's a true religious reason for the discrimination or if it's just someone who's bigoted using their religion as a shield? I want to know, does the court first have some kind of a hearing to determine if there's an actual religious reason before dismissing the lawsuit? What standards do we use? If it is dismissed, can it be appealed?

Well, in the New Mexico case, which prompted the law in Arizona, the wedding photographers were fined over $6,000 because they did not "abandon their freedom" (in the words of the New Mexico Supreme Court).

The NSA wants us to abandon our freedoms.  Scary.

[DriftingCrow]

Apple Presses Arizona Governor to Veto Bill Aimed at Gays, Businesses
http://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2014/02/25/apple-presses-arizona-governor-to-veto-bill-aimed-at-gays-businesses/
Wall Street Journal's Digits; Daisuke Wakabayashi

Apple said it has asked Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer to veto a bill that allows the state's businesses to refuse service to gay customers on religious grounds.

Apple's request comes months after the company announced plans to build a new component-manufacturing plant in the state after years of outsourcing most of its production to Asia.

-------------------------------------------

Well, in the New Mexico case, which prompted the law in Arizona, the wedding photographers were fined over $6,000 because they did not "abandon their freedom" (in the words of the New Mexico Supreme Court).

From what I recall of the NM case, I did disagree with the court's wording there, and I can't recall all the details of that particular case enough to determine my view on the judgment. Clearly, we need to find a balance that allows people of all groups (including religious people) to be free of discrimination.

[suzifrommd]

Suppose a gay organization wanted the finest Christian sculptor in the country, who specialized in religious art, to sculpt a life-sized statue depicting gay sex for their building's public lobby.  Should that artisan be compelled by law to accept the commission?  Should the artisan be subject to a fine or prison for declining to make the statue?

Does the sculptor advertise that he will sculpt anything for anyone? If not, he is not required to perform any given service. But if he IS willing to perform a service, than he must do it for the gay organization.

I.e. If he's willing to sculpt gay sex, he can't turn the gay organization down because they're gay. He must perform for them any service he is willing to perform for any non-gay organization.

Make sense?

[Jamie D]

Does the sculptor advertise that he will sculpt anything for anyone? If not, he is not required to perform any given service. But if he IS willing to perform a service, than he must do it for the gay organization.

I.e. If he's willing to sculpt gay sex, he can't turn the gay organization down because they're gay. He must perform for them any service he is willing to perform for any non-gay organization.

Make sense?

Not really.  What you suggest is "coercion."

The craftsman or artisan must be allowed to exercise their own judgement.  After all, their name is associated with the final product.

Justice Benjamin Cardoso wrote in Palko v Connecticut, "Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance."

Thomas Jefferson wrote that no part of the Constitution "ought to be dearer to man than that which protects the rights of conscience against the enterprises of civil authority."

Justice Owen Roberts wrote in the famous Jehovah's Witness case, Cantwell v Connecticut, "Freedom of conscience and freedom to adhere to such religious organization or form of worship as the individual may choose cannot be restricted by law. On the other hand, it safeguards the free exercise of the chosen form of religion. Thus the [First] Amendment embraces two concepts, freedom to believe and freedom to act."

[amZo]

I am too.

It always surprises me how people insulate themselves from views counter to their own, and then are surprised at the public backlash from actions they take based on assuming everyone is like them.

I liken it to the Komen disaster when the Susan Komen foundation decided to cut off all funds going to Planned Parenthood because they assumed that their distaste for birth control was shared by their contributors. Luckily the slack was picked up by ACS and other organizations, because Komen will never be the same.

Let's hope AZ can save itself from that fate.

I assume they had a distaste for abortion, not birth control. If their mission is to save lives, I think their decision was consistent with their principles. Throwing a tantrum and not donating to Komen was immature and just showed the true colors of people who put saving women's lives beneath the desire to have women kill human life without shelling out a few bucks courtesy of Komen.

I think these state bills have been poorly thought out and I agree their authors' lack of understanding how people would view this is tone deaf to say the least. Bad court rulings should not lead to bad legislation, it's simply bad policy. There's probably some good things to be debated on this issue, but in America that doesn't happen any longer, it all gets hijacked and spun to make the other side look terrible. When people get tired of this, it'll go away until one side can benefit from it again.

[Jill F]

Does the sculptor advertise that he will sculpt anything for anyone? If not, he is not required to perform any given service. But if he IS willing to perform a service, than he must do it for the gay organization.

I.e. If he's willing to sculpt gay sex, he can't turn the gay organization down because they're gay. He must perform for them any service he is willing to perform for any non-gay organization.

Make sense?

OK, suppose I'm part of a straight couple and at my wedding I want a video taken afterward of us doing the deed.  I think most videographers would refuse and I'm OK with that.

[amZo]

Not really.  What you suggest is "coercion."

The craftsman or artisan must be allowed to exercise their own judgement.  After all, their name is associated with the final product.

Justice Benjamin Cardoso wrote in Palko v Connecticut, "Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance."

Thomas Jefferson wrote that no part of the Constitution "ought to be dearer to man than that which protects the rights of conscience against the enterprises of civil authority."

Justice Owen Roberts wrote in the famous Jehovah's Witness case, Cantwell v Connecticut, "Freedom of conscience and freedom to adhere to such religious organization or form of worship as the individual may choose cannot be restricted by law. On the other hand, it safeguards the free exercise of the chosen form of religion. Thus the [First] Amendment embraces two concepts, freedom to believe and freedom to act."

We also live in a very litigious society. People, especially sole proprietors face huge exposure to lawsuit when they go into business for themselves. I know since I've done so for six years now, I've lost a lot of sleep due to disagreements with clients and I've seen how immoral people can be. They'll throw everything at the wall to see what sticks if they think they can score a few bucks from you, or to place their bad business results on someone else.

Small business needs the right to use discretion before doing business with someone.

[suzifrommd]

Not really.  What you suggest is "coercion."

Is it coercion when the government punishes any anti social activity? I.e. are laws against theft, rape, murder, sexual harassment, or reckless driving, coercion? Or just laws against singling out a certain group for the humiliation of being denied services that others take for granted?

[amZo]

Brewer vetoed the bill. Now on to the next hyped up wedge issue controversy to divide the country. This is why I want smaller more impotent government. Small and impotent, yep, that's what this nation needs.