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

"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 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?