Arizona lawmakers pass controversial anti-gay bill
Feb 26, 2014 12:59:56 #
Brian Devon wrote:
Good post. You sound like someone who believes that hate is not a religious value. Kudos.
:thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:
:thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:
This is an interesting situation. What Law should apply when a customer requests services or a product from a business, but the business doesn't provide the service or product because of their religious belief?
In essence, can a business turn down a Lawful request of a customer? And can State Legislatures create Laws siding with one side over another?
Feb 26, 2014 13:10:32 #
JimMe wrote:
This is an interesting situation. What Law should apply when a customer requests services or a product from a business, but the business doesn't provide the service or product because of their religious belief?
In essence, can a business turn down a Lawful request of a customer? And can State Legislatures create Laws siding with one side over another?
In essence, can a business turn down a Lawful request of a customer? And can State Legislatures create Laws siding with one side over another?
Have you ever seen the signs posted on the front doors of convenient stores that say, " NO SHIRT NO SHOES NO SERVICE " ? Well in the future they will say " NO SHIRT NO SHOES. NO SODOMITES "
Feb 26, 2014 13:14:44 #
Boo_Boo
Loc: Jellystone
Here is the breakdown of what the bill says:
ARIZONA STATE SENATE
Fifty-First Legislature, Second Regular Session
FACT SHEET FOR S.B. 1062
exercise of religion; state action.
Purpose
Modifies the definition of exercise of religion and allows a person to assert a free exercise claim or defense in a judicial proceeding regardless of whether the government is a party to the proceeding.
Background
The First Amendment to the United States Constitution provides in relevant part that Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. The latter portion of the provision is known as the Free Exercise Clause. In 1990, Congress passed the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), which instructed courts to apply strict scrutiny when government substantially burdens a persons exercise of religion, even if the burden results from a law of general applicability. However, the United States Supreme Court has since held that the federal RFRA may not be extended to the states and local governments (City of Boerne v. Flores, 521 U.S. 507 (1997)).
In response to City of Boerne v. Flores, Arizona enacted state-level protection from the government substantially burdening the free exercise of religion using the strict scrutiny compelling interest test (Laws 1999, Chapter 332). Accordingly, government may substantially burden a persons exercise of religion only if it demonstrates that application of the burden to the person is both in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest and the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest (A.R.S. § 41-1493.01).
Exercise of religion is defined as the ability to act or refusal to act in a manner substantially motivated by a religious belief, whether or not the exercise is compulsory or central to a larger system of religious belief (A.R.S. § 41-1493).
There is no anticipated fiscal impact to the state General Fund associated with this legislation.
Provisions
1. Expands the definition of exercise of religion to specifically include both the practice and observance of religion.
2. Expands the definition of person to include any individual, association, partnership, corporation, church, estate, trust, foundation or other legal entity.
3. Changes the terminology within the prohibition of burdening a persons exercise of religion to apply to state action instead of government.
4. Defines state action as any action 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 action is made or attempted to be made by the government or nongovernmental persons.
5. Specifies that a free exercise of religion claim or defense may be asserted in a judicial proceeding regardless of whether the government is a party to the proceeding.
6. Makes technical and conforming changes.
7. Becomes effective on the general effective date.
Prepared by Senate Research
January 14, 2014
SLL/ly
All the people who have gone off, looking at only what the liberal media wants you to think....should have read the document.
Here is a link to the document, so you can read the entire contents.....
http://www.azleg.gov//FormatDocument.asp?inDoc=/legtext/51leg/2r/bills/sb1062s.htm&Session_ID=112
Knowing that many people will not go to the link, here it is:
Arizona State Legislature
Bill Number Search:
Fifty-first Legislature - Second Regular Session
Senate
House
Legislative Council
JLBC
More Agencies
Bills
Committees
Calendars/News
Senate Engrossed
State of Arizona
Senate
Fifty-first Legislature
Second Regular Session
2014
SENATE BILL 1062
AN ACT amending sections 41‑1493 and 41‑1493.01, Arizona Revised Statutes; relating to the free exercise of religion.
(TEXT OF BILL BEGINS ON NEXT PAGE)
Be it enacted by the Legislature of the State of Arizona:
Section 1. Section 41-1493, Arizona Revised Statutes, is amended to read:
41-1493. Definitions
In this article, unless the context otherwise requires:
1. "Demonstrates" means meets the burdens of going forward with the evidence and of persuasion.
2. "Exercise of religion" means the practice or observance of religion, including the ability to act or refusal to act in a manner substantially motivated by a religious belief, whether or not the exercise is compulsory or central to a larger system of religious belief.
3. "Government" includes this state and any agency or political subdivision of this state.
4. "Nonreligious assembly or institution" includes all membership organizations, theaters, cultural centers, dance halls, fraternal orders, amphitheaters and places of public assembly regardless of size that a government or political subdivision allows to meet in a zoning district by code or ordinance or by practice.
5. "Person" includes a religious assembly or institution any individual, association, partnership, corporation, church, religious assembly or institution or other business organization.
6. "Political subdivision" includes any county, city, including a charter city, town, school district, municipal corporation or special district, any board, commission or agency of a county, city, including a charter city, town, school district, municipal corporation or special district or any other local public agency.
7. "Religion‑neutral zoning standards":
(a) Means numerically definable standards such as maximum occupancy codes, height restrictions, setbacks, fire codes, parking space requirements, sewer capacity limitations and traffic congestion limitations.
(b) Does not include:
(i) Synergy with uses that a government holds as more desirable.
(ii) The ability to raise tax revenues.
8. "Suitable alternate property" means a financially feasible property considering the person's revenue sources and other financial obligations with respect to the person's exercise of religion and with relation to spending that is in the same zoning district or in a contiguous area that the person finds acceptable for conducting the person's religious mission and that is large enough to fully accommodate the current and projected seating capacity requirements of the person in a manner that the person deems suitable for the person's religious mission.
9. "Unreasonable burden" means that a person is prevented from using the person's property in a manner that the person finds satisfactory to fulfill the person's religious mission.
Sec. 2. Section 41-1493.01, Arizona Revised Statutes, is amended to read:
41-1493.01. Free exercise of religion protected; definition
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, government 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. Government 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 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, and obtain appropriate relief against a government 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.
E. G. In 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 minims 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.
©2007 Arizona State Legislature.
privacy statement
If you go to the link, the changes to the existing bill is in blue.
ARIZONA STATE SENATE
Fifty-First Legislature, Second Regular Session
FACT SHEET FOR S.B. 1062
exercise of religion; state action.
Purpose
Modifies the definition of exercise of religion and allows a person to assert a free exercise claim or defense in a judicial proceeding regardless of whether the government is a party to the proceeding.
Background
The First Amendment to the United States Constitution provides in relevant part that Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. The latter portion of the provision is known as the Free Exercise Clause. In 1990, Congress passed the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), which instructed courts to apply strict scrutiny when government substantially burdens a persons exercise of religion, even if the burden results from a law of general applicability. However, the United States Supreme Court has since held that the federal RFRA may not be extended to the states and local governments (City of Boerne v. Flores, 521 U.S. 507 (1997)).
In response to City of Boerne v. Flores, Arizona enacted state-level protection from the government substantially burdening the free exercise of religion using the strict scrutiny compelling interest test (Laws 1999, Chapter 332). Accordingly, government may substantially burden a persons exercise of religion only if it demonstrates that application of the burden to the person is both in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest and the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest (A.R.S. § 41-1493.01).
Exercise of religion is defined as the ability to act or refusal to act in a manner substantially motivated by a religious belief, whether or not the exercise is compulsory or central to a larger system of religious belief (A.R.S. § 41-1493).
There is no anticipated fiscal impact to the state General Fund associated with this legislation.
Provisions
1. Expands the definition of exercise of religion to specifically include both the practice and observance of religion.
2. Expands the definition of person to include any individual, association, partnership, corporation, church, estate, trust, foundation or other legal entity.
3. Changes the terminology within the prohibition of burdening a persons exercise of religion to apply to state action instead of government.
4. Defines state action as any action 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 action is made or attempted to be made by the government or nongovernmental persons.
5. Specifies that a free exercise of religion claim or defense may be asserted in a judicial proceeding regardless of whether the government is a party to the proceeding.
6. Makes technical and conforming changes.
7. Becomes effective on the general effective date.
Prepared by Senate Research
January 14, 2014
SLL/ly
All the people who have gone off, looking at only what the liberal media wants you to think....should have read the document.
Here is a link to the document, so you can read the entire contents.....
http://www.azleg.gov//FormatDocument.asp?inDoc=/legtext/51leg/2r/bills/sb1062s.htm&Session_ID=112
Knowing that many people will not go to the link, here it is:
Arizona State Legislature
Bill Number Search:
Fifty-first Legislature - Second Regular Session
Senate
House
Legislative Council
JLBC
More Agencies
Bills
Committees
Calendars/News
Senate Engrossed
State of Arizona
Senate
Fifty-first Legislature
Second Regular Session
2014
SENATE BILL 1062
AN ACT amending sections 41‑1493 and 41‑1493.01, Arizona Revised Statutes; relating to the free exercise of religion.
(TEXT OF BILL BEGINS ON NEXT PAGE)
Be it enacted by the Legislature of the State of Arizona:
Section 1. Section 41-1493, Arizona Revised Statutes, is amended to read:
41-1493. Definitions
In this article, unless the context otherwise requires:
1. "Demonstrates" means meets the burdens of going forward with the evidence and of persuasion.
2. "Exercise of religion" means the practice or observance of religion, including the ability to act or refusal to act in a manner substantially motivated by a religious belief, whether or not the exercise is compulsory or central to a larger system of religious belief.
3. "Government" includes this state and any agency or political subdivision of this state.
4. "Nonreligious assembly or institution" includes all membership organizations, theaters, cultural centers, dance halls, fraternal orders, amphitheaters and places of public assembly regardless of size that a government or political subdivision allows to meet in a zoning district by code or ordinance or by practice.
5. "Person" includes a religious assembly or institution any individual, association, partnership, corporation, church, religious assembly or institution or other business organization.
6. "Political subdivision" includes any county, city, including a charter city, town, school district, municipal corporation or special district, any board, commission or agency of a county, city, including a charter city, town, school district, municipal corporation or special district or any other local public agency.
7. "Religion‑neutral zoning standards":
(a) Means numerically definable standards such as maximum occupancy codes, height restrictions, setbacks, fire codes, parking space requirements, sewer capacity limitations and traffic congestion limitations.
(b) Does not include:
(i) Synergy with uses that a government holds as more desirable.
(ii) The ability to raise tax revenues.
8. "Suitable alternate property" means a financially feasible property considering the person's revenue sources and other financial obligations with respect to the person's exercise of religion and with relation to spending that is in the same zoning district or in a contiguous area that the person finds acceptable for conducting the person's religious mission and that is large enough to fully accommodate the current and projected seating capacity requirements of the person in a manner that the person deems suitable for the person's religious mission.
9. "Unreasonable burden" means that a person is prevented from using the person's property in a manner that the person finds satisfactory to fulfill the person's religious mission.
Sec. 2. Section 41-1493.01, Arizona Revised Statutes, is amended to read:
41-1493.01. Free exercise of religion protected; definition
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, government 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. Government 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 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, and obtain appropriate relief against a government 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.
E. G. In 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 minims 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.
©2007 Arizona State Legislature.
privacy statement
If you go to the link, the changes to the existing bill is in blue.
saltwind 78 wrote:
I think this is a terrible law. It not only makes gays second class citizens but opens up all kinds of terrible consequences. What if people decided that Jews shouldn't be served in public facilities because they reject Jesus or African Americans shouldn't be allowed in certain churches because of some biblical interpretation. Lets pass laws that are inclusive and reject bigotry on religious grounds!
Feb 26, 2014 13:22:16 #
Boo_Boo
Loc: Jellystone
cant beleve wrote:
A photographer should not be forced to provide services to a polygamous family pictures or wedding either. I know that the pressure put on this Arizona governor will probably be to much pressure for her not to sign but she is courageous waiting this out.
I so agree with you. It is funny, but I do not think that anyone has taken the time to read the contents of this bill. It DOES NOT SINGLE OUT GAY people. In fact, it only broadens and expands a law that is already on the books regarding freedom of religion. In no section does it specify GAY, BLACK, YELLOW, RED....or any other skin tone or sexual preferences. It simply says that to defend your freedom of religion, from law suite a person must meet specific criteria.
I just love some of the other posters that hear or read what the biased media puts out and RUNS their mouth as if they read the bill.
Feb 26, 2014 13:37:28 #
Wolf counselor wrote:
This law I a law created by man. And even if it completely passes it will be only a minor infringement upon you ability to continue your behavior. It is the law of God that you should be concerned with. Now tell us some more jokes.
:P :P :P :P
Feb 26, 2014 13:40:31 #
ginnyt wrote:
(CNN) -- Arizona's Legislature has passed a controversial bill that would allow business owners, as long as they assert their religious beliefs, to deny service to gay and lesbian customers.
http://www.cnn.com/2014/02/21/us/arizona-anti-gay-bill/index.html
It is on the governor's desk for signature.
http://www.cnn.com/2014/02/21/us/arizona-anti-gay-bill/index.html
It is on the governor's desk for signature.
its their property why should their rights be taken away that is pure nazism.
Feb 26, 2014 13:42:07 #
Boo_Boo
Loc: Jellystone
Btfkr wrote:
:P :P :P :P
agree.....
not only do I agree, after reading the bill (posted above) it does not single anyone out. I wish that people would research rather than just falling for what Liberals tell us we must do...................
Feb 26, 2014 13:54:52 #
JimMe wrote:
This is an interesting situation. What Law should apply when a customer requests services or a product from a business, but the business doesn't provide the service or product because of their religious belief?
In essence, can a business turn down a Lawful request of a customer? And can State Legislatures create Laws siding with one side over another?
In essence, can a business turn down a Lawful request of a customer? And can State Legislatures create Laws siding with one side over another?
I think I mentioned this also... to spell it out quickly, there is a huge difference between a coffee shop serving an LGBT person a cup of coffee and a doctor with Christian beliefs being forced to perform an abortion. We need to realize there are degrees of everything.
Feb 26, 2014 13:55:39 #
JimMe wrote:
This is an interesting situation. What Law should apply when a customer requests services or a product from a business, but the business doesn't provide the service or product because of their religious belief?
In essence, can a business turn down a Lawful request of a customer? And can State Legislatures create Laws siding with one side over another?
In essence, can a business turn down a Lawful request of a customer? And can State Legislatures create Laws siding with one side over another?
the govt dosent have the right to tell a business owner who he must do business with ,this is pure nazism ,which brian seems to love.
Feb 26, 2014 13:58:16 #
Wolf counselor wrote:
Have you ever seen the signs posted on the front doors of convenient stores that say, " NO SHIRT NO SHOES NO SERVICE " ? Well in the future they will say " NO SHIRT NO SHOES. NO SODOMITES "
Now that would confuse everybody!! Everybody would be on their smart phones looking up the definition and then they would have to decide whether to use the Websters definition or or the Biblical definition. Might be worth the drive to AZ just to watch the show! OH BOY!! Free entertainment! I must remember to pack the lawn chairs and a parasol for this one!
Feb 26, 2014 14:35:30 #
FOXFIRE
Loc: SW Commonwealth of Virginia
JimMe wrote:
This is an interesting situation. What Law should apply when a customer requests services or a product from a business, but the business doesn't provide the service or product because of their religious belief?
In essence, can a business turn down a Lawful request of a customer? And can State Legislatures create Laws siding with one side over another?
In essence, can a business turn down a Lawful request of a customer? And can State Legislatures create Laws siding with one side over another?
Huh, No ? :hunf:
Feb 26, 2014 15:48:12 #
Boo_Boo
Loc: Jellystone
Folks, I am not sure it you are unable to read or not, I do not care if you have any religion, I do not care the color of your skin. But, it seems that there are some people that are stuck in a rut, they have chased their views for so long that they are unable to read, think for themselves, or do any kind of research. NOWHERE in the 1062 does it say that you CAN NOT serve GAYS...as a matter of fact, sexuality is not even mentioned. It gives an option for legal defense if the STATE or US GOVERNMENT files a discrimination suite against an entity for nonservice. The law was already on the books, this bill expands and clarifies meaning...nothing more. Read the bill, I posted it for you.
Feb 26, 2014 15:54:56 #
ginnyt wrote:
Folks, I am not sure it you are unable to read or ... (show quote)
Hate to disappoint, but getting anyone on here to actually READ something? Highly unlikly :) :)
Feb 26, 2014 16:02:49 #
Boo_Boo
Loc: Jellystone
Btfkr wrote:
Hate to disappoint, but getting anyone on here to actually READ something? Highly unlikly :) :)
I am beginning to think the same thing! I am glad that you took the time to respond. Thank you.
:thumbup: :thumbup:
:idea: :idea: Do you think I would have better luck if I used drawings? I have a 6 year old granddaughter that probably would help out!
Feb 26, 2014 16:08:45 #
Wolf counselor wrote:
Have you ever seen the signs posted on the front doors of convenient stores that say, " NO SHIRT NO SHOES NO SERVICE " ? Well in the future they will say " NO SHIRT NO SHOES. NO SODOMITES "
There is now a sign in a Phoenix pizzeria, that says they do not serve Arizona state legislators!
:mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen:
(Also a Texas federal district court threw out Texas state law, today. prohibiting gay marriage)
When exactly did the far right lose the culture war??????
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.