Susan's Place Transgender Resources

http://www.buzzfeed.com/tonymerevick/arizona-house-passes-religious-discrimination-bill
BuzzFeed; Tony Merevick

After hours of, at times, heated debate, House lawmakers voted 33–27 to approve Senate Bill 1026 — which was passed in the state Senate on Wednesday — sending the legislation to the desk of Republican Gov. Jan Brewer.

The law would protect individuals and businesses who are sued if they refuse services to anyone if doing so would violate their religious beliefs. The bill's sponsors and other supporters say people and businesses should be able to refuse to do business with anyone if it goes against their religious beliefs.

Critics [. . .] say the bill will lead to rampant discrimination, specifically against people in the state's LGBT community.

The feds will overturn this quickly if Brewer signs it.  Apparently the US Constitution means nothing to the AZ State Legislature.  I mean, why do they waste so much precious taxpayer money on crap that will never fly?

This link is mostly just a photo:

This Restaurant Has The Perfect Response To Arizona's New Religious Discrimination Bill (http://www.buzzfeed.com/kmallikarjuna/this-restaurant-has-the-perfect-response-to-arizonas-new-rel)

"The law would protect individuals and businesses who are sued if they refuse services to anyone if doing so would violate their religious beliefs. The bill's sponsors and other supporters say people and businesses should be able to refuse to do business with anyone if it goes against their religious beliefs."

I am not so sure that this law would run afoul of the US Constitution.  In fact, it is in perfect keeping with the original intent of the 1st Amendment in the Bill of Rights.

In 1785 (two years prior to the drafting of the Constitution and four years prior to the debates in Congress on the proposed Bill of Rights), James Madison wrote an objection to a proposed law in Virginia, that would have allowed the state to collect taxes from all churches in the name of "public morality."  This objection, known as "Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments," is a 15-point masterpiece.  The central point of Madison's objection was that "freedom of conscience" was the central tenet of all civil liberties.

When Madison introduced his draft Bill of Rights, in the First Congress (1789-1791), one of his proposals read:

The civil rights of none shall be abridged on account of religious belief or worship, nor shall any national religion be established, nor shall the full and equal rights of conscience be in any manner, or on any pretext, infringed.

I think it is easy to see the stamp of Madison's thinking in the final text of what became the 1st Amendment.

"Freedom of conscience" is clearly something more than freedom of religious belief.  It is the idea that you can not be coerced by government actions to perform acts that violate your fundamental principles.  It is the reason that "conscientious objectors" were excluded from military service, or that people can refuse to salute the flag, or say the Pledge, etc.

The Arizona law protects freedom of conscience.  I suggest that Madison, "the Father of the Constitution," would approve.

"I think we should obtain the confidence of our fellow-citizens, in proportion as we fortify the rights of the people against the encroachments of the Government."

We've since had Amendments added to the Constitution which limits peoples rights to discriminate if they're "state actors" or in other circumstances.

In Heart of Atlanta Motel v United States, the petitioner argued that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 violated his 5th Amendment right to choose the customers he wished to serve, and that being force to integrate his motel was a violation of due process and a violation of his 13th Amendment rights by making him an involuntary servant. However, the Supreme Court said that due to the nature of his motel, it's location, and connection to interstate commerce, the Federal government had the right to make him serve African Americans as well.

While the AZ bill is different as it's supposed to "protect" religion freedoms, it is inconsistent with the Civil Rights Cases. You can still legal dislike certain groups of people and are entitled to believe that certain groups are "living in sin". However, you should still serve people if you're a businessman if not serving a group would be a violation of Privileges and Immunities, Civil Rights laws, etc. and serving that customer isn't a violation of your religion itself (such as if you're a UPS driver, delivering a package to an LGBT Organization likely isn't a violation of Christian ecclestical law).

The problem I see with AZ's proposed law is that it'll likely be used to justify discriminatory behavior. I don't know everything about the bill and it's limits, but I'd be concerned of a motel owner saying "no gays allowed, married straight couples only" in a big sign on it's front door.

Quote from: LearnedHand on February 22, 2014, 09:32:57 PM
We've since had Amendments added to the Constitution which limits peoples rights to discriminate if they're "state actors" or in other circumstances.

In Heart of Atlanta Motel v United States, the petitioner argued that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 violated his 5th Amendment right to choose the customers he wished to serve, and that being force to integrate his motel was a violation of due process and a violation of his 13th Amendment rights by making him an involuntary servant. However, the Supreme Court said that due to the nature of his motel, it's location, and connection to interstate commerce, the Federal government had the right to make him serve African Americans as well.

While the AZ bill is different as it's supposed to "protect" religion freedoms, it is inconsistent with the Civil Rights Cases. You can still legal dislike certain groups of people and are entitled to believe that certain groups are "living in sin". However, you should still serve people if you're a businessman if not serving a group would be a violation of Privileges and Immunities, Civil Rights laws, etc. and serving that customer isn't a violation of your religion itself (such as if you're a UPS driver, delivering a package to an LGBT Organization likely isn't a violation of Christian ecclestical law).

The problem I see with AZ's proposed law is that it'll likely be used to justify discriminatory behavior.

I am not sure that Heart is an apt analogy.  The Reconstruction Amendments, were the underpinnings of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, central to Heart of Atlanta's challenge, and in the case itself the claim was upheld that Congress powers to regulate under the Commerce Clause.  All fine and good.  But I don't know/recall any subsequent Amendment has been been acknowledged to undercut the religious freedoms guaranteed in the First Amendment.

In my mind, the best way to combat discriminatory behavior by a business, is to use one's economic power to boycott its products and services.

I see this as an issue of coercion rather than discrimination.

I don't see the lack of the AZ law as undermining religious freedoms granted in the US Constitution. If we already have the freedoms, why do we need a second bill?

I do agree that economic power is useful and can bring about changes, but I don't think it's the only solution. 

Quote from: LearnedHand on February 22, 2014, 10:05:21 PM
I don't see the lack of the AZ law as undermining religious freedoms granted in the US Constitution. If we already have the freedoms, why do we need a second bill?

I do agree that economic power is useful and can bring about changes, but I don't think it's the only solution.

You make the same sort of case that the Federalists made during the original ratification debates - that additional  guarantees (Bill of Rights) weren't needed, as the limited federal government had no power to interfere in the first place.

The Arizona law provides an additional level of state protection for those claiming a religious freedom.  I have not read the entire text, but it appears to indemnify the businesses from lawsuits.

So, I can stop serving Christians if it is against my religious beliefs?  Good.

Was there ever really a time when religions served to compel their believers to do good instead of condoning the evil they do?

Quote from: suzifrommd on February 23, 2014, 05:28:57 PM
Was there ever really a time when religions served to compel their believers to do good instead of condoning the evil they do?

This is probably more of a discussion for the Spirituality board, I'll probably split this from the topic if the conversation tends to go more in this direction.

However, I believe the answer is "Yes", since there's a difference between what a religion says and the people who "run it". Many religions have good people and don't condone evil; just recently in California a gay man was attacked near a Sikh Gurdwara, and the Gurdwara gathered collections and offered a reward for information  (http://elkgrove.patch.com/groups/police-and-fire/p/sikh-temple-offers-reward-in-strikes-assault-case)that would lead to the discovery of who the attacker was. I think that's a good example, since many people think all or most religions wouldn't come to support the LGBT community, especially considering how in Punjabi culture being openly gay is still extremely taboo. I think that with politics, and the easy spread of news on mass media that the bad apples over shine the good ones, and the ones with the negative opinions are more vocal and tend to get their opinions forwarded, re-tweeted, etc. more often.

Quote from: VeryGnawty on February 23, 2014, 08:43:46 AM
So, I can stop serving Christians if it is against my religious beliefs?  Good.

The libertarian in me says the government should not be coercing you to violate any of your Constitutional guarantees.

Alexander Hamilton, writing as Publius in "Federalist #78," talk about a key principle:

(W)here the will of the legislature, declared in its statutes, stands in opposition to that of the people, declared in the Constitution, the judges ought to be governed by the latter rather than the former.

The Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, is statutory law.  The religious guarantees in the Constitution are of a higher order.  If statutory civil rights are in opposition to constitutional religious liberties, then the religious rights must prevail, under our system of law and government.  If this is an egregious situation (and it may well be), then the proper solution is to place those civil rights into Constitutional law through the normal processes ... or overthrow the government (revolution).

Quote from: VeryGnawty on February 23, 2014, 08:43:46 AM
So, I can stop serving Christians if it is against my religious beliefs?  Good.

I believe that this law will have unintended consequences since it is written so broadly. People could claim to worship anything and then use that reason to refuse service to anyone for any reason. The case you described could very well be one of those consequences.

It could result in a backlash against businesses that choose to take advantage of this law and deny service to people. Businesses that serve everyone could simply advertise their inclusive position and make money off of those who don't. Business owners now have the right to serve or exclude whoever they want, but such a decision comes with a price tag.

It might result in lost revenue from businesses that have conventions in Arizona taking their business elsewhere.

I guess we will have to wait and see how it goes.

Kia Ora,

::) Why don't the USA be done with the U as in "United" and be called by its proper name the "Independent States of America"....Just a thought  ;)

And on a more serious note, Eva Marie makes a good point of which enlighten shop owners will take advantage of this golden advertising opportunity...

Metta Zenda :) 

I can see where the breadth of this bill is going to really give Arizona a kick in the financial rear since it could be construed by many to let them get away without paying taxes on religious grounds.  But that is a time honored and embedded argument around every state for years. 

Quote from: Anatta on February 23, 2014, 09:39:15 PM
Kia Ora,

::) Why don't the USA be done with the U as in "United" and be called by its proper name the "Independent States of America"....Just a thought  ;)

And on a more serious note, Eva Marie makes a good point of which enlighten shop owners will take advantage of this golden advertising opportunity...

Metta Zenda :)

That's called the "power of the purse."  ;)

Quote from: Vicky on February 24, 2014, 12:03:25 AM
I can see where the breadth of this bill is going to really give Arizona a kick in the financial rear since it could be construed by many to let them get away without paying taxes on religious grounds.  But that is a time honored and embedded argument around every state for years.

Nope, that won't happen.

1) there exists a Constitutional Amendment authorizing income taxes, and text in the original Constitution pertaining to taxation.

2) the Arizona law acts to indemnify business owners from legal action if they deny services based on their religious convictions.

3) certainly no Christian would claim to be exempt from paying taxes in light of...

"Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God's"

If they do, Caesar will throw their ass in jail.

Poor innocent dear -- I worked for the CA version of the IRS for 33 years, sad real life experience says someone will do what I suggested, good Christian or bad and try to back it up with that law.  It was pointed out to me personally that a likeness of Caesar was NOT on any U.S. "medium of governmental notes" as a matter of these folks religion, and divinely given message of non liability.   

Quote from: Vicky on February 24, 2014, 12:29:05 AM
Poor dear -- I worked for the CA version of the IRS for 33 years, someone will do what I suggested, good Christian or bad and try to back it up with that law.  It was pointed out to me personally that a likeness of Caesar was NOT on any U.S. "medium of governmental notes" as a matter of these folks religion, and divinely given message of non liability.

LOL Franchise Tax Board!!  Yeah, you might run into some kooks and crazies, but the purpose of the Arizona does not work in the way you suggest.

Here is the text, as best as I can tell:

41-1493.01.  Free exercise of religion protected

A.  Free exercise of religion is a fundamental right that applies in this state even if laws, rules or other government actions are facially neutral.

B.  Except as provided in subsection C of this section, state action shall not substantially burden a person's exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability.

C.  State action may substantially burden a person's exercise of religion only if it the government or nongovernmental PERSON SEEKING THE ENFORCEMENT OF STATE ACTION demonstrates that application of the burden to the person's exercise of religion in this particular instance is both:

1.  In furtherance of a compelling governmental interest.

2.  The least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.

D.  A person whose religious exercise is burdened in violation of this section may assert that violation as a claim or defense in a judicial proceeding, regardless of whether the government is a party to the proceeding.

E.  A person that asserts a violation of this section must establish all of the following:

1.  That the person's action or refusal to act is motivated by a religious belief.

2.  That the person's religious belief is sincerely held.

3.  That the state action substantially burdens the exercise of the person's religious beliefs.

F.  The person asserting a claim or defense under subsection D of this section may obtain injunctive and declaratory relief.  A party who prevails in any action to enforce this article against a government shall recover attorney fees and costs.

G.  For the purposes of this section, the term substantially burden is intended solely to ensure that this article is not triggered by trivial, technical or de minimis infractions.

H.  For the purposes of this section, "state action" means any action, except for the requirements prescribed by section 41-1493.04, by the government or the implementation or application of any law, including state and local laws, ordinances, rules, regulations and policies, whether statutory or otherwise, and whether the implementation or application is made by the government or nongovernmental persons.

http://www.azleg.gov//FormatDocument.asp?inDoc=/legtext/51leg/2r/bills/hb2153h.htm&Session_ID=112

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?

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

Quote from: LearnedHand on February 24, 2014, 09:49:03 PM
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.

Quote from: Eva Marie on February 24, 2014, 11:15:58 PM
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.

Quote from: mind is quiet now on February 24, 2014, 10:21:59 PM
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.

Quote from: JdlR on February 25, 2014, 03:53:58 PM
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.

Quote from: suzifrommd on February 25, 2014, 05:26:32 PM
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.

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!

Quote from: Jill F on February 25, 2014, 05:54:01 PM
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.

Quote from: Jill F on February 25, 2014, 05:54:01 PM
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.

Quote from: Amy The Bookworm on February 25, 2014, 07:25:02 PM
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?

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).

Quote from: JdlR on February 25, 2014, 08:26:37 PM
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?

Quote from: LearnedHand on February 25, 2014, 10:19:24 PM
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.

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.

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

Quote from: JdlR on February 25, 2014, 10:31:36 PM
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.

Quote from: JdlR on February 25, 2014, 08:26:37 PM
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?

Quote from: suzifrommd on February 26, 2014, 03:38:48 PM
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."

Quote from: suzifrommd on February 25, 2014, 10:32:14 AM
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.

Quote from: suzifrommd on February 26, 2014, 03:38:48 PM
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.

Quote from: JdlR on February 26, 2014, 04:19:31 PM
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.

Quote from: JdlR on February 26, 2014, 04:19:31 PM
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?

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.  :D