dakota44

Interesting. Basically, I support using religion to beat people over the head and discriminate against them, but you were not specific enough with this bill. Give it another try. I am so ****ing sick of these Christians that want to impose their beliefs on others and then cry that they are being discriminated against. It's sickening. They have no respect for the religious freedom of others.

sir_eccles

Yup, it reeks of try again and be more sneaky about it next time. The Christian persecution complex is just maddening.

Uncle_Bob

+1

Psyman

Wow that was pretty mind blowing. How do these people get in positions of power? Elected by equally stupid people, I suppose. Not much different here in Idaho - we pretty much had the same bill start to go through the legislature, but it ain't happening anymore. Plenty of other insane legislation from the Regressives in this extremely red state though.

CelticRover

Note that the guy being interviewed feels that he has a pretty good chance of becoming governor next time around.

Sadly, after being here a while, I am pretty well used to the way politics are conducted in Arizona.

Psyman

A friend I sent that link to said he also saw a democratic legislator being interviewed who voted for the bill (didn't get his name). When asked why he voted for it, he apparently said nobody told him it was a bad bill.

Michael

There were no democrats that voted for the bill. It was one of three republicans that had changed their minds after pressure from the CC and businesses and he was trying to weasel out of why he changed his mind.

Steve_

What I would say on SB1062 is that you need to be careful to not get too caught up in the media BS about it because legally it's quite complex.

First there's RFRA, which is a similar federal law that has been ruled unconstitutional on various occasions, so these religious groups decided to try getting it enacted at the State level, which is where this legislation came from and then also there are various Federal civil rights laws which also make various forms of discrimination illegal.

So basically the interpretation is that this State bill would allow someone to discriminate on religious grounds where it is not otherwise forbidden by Federal law. So as there is no federal law (yet) prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, theoretically a person could discriminate on that basis, but as was shown in New Mexico, courts don't take kindly to people discriminating. Hence a State law to specifically protect such behaviour.

Maybe. My reading is that it would probably be held to be unconstitutional like RFRA, what the press is saying it would allow is far from certain.

I reckon the ruling would be exactly the same in Arizona if this law was on the books, the court would rule as in New Mexico and declare the State law unconstitutional as with RFRA if it were used as a defence.

CelticRover

Something that is scarcely mentioned is the fact that Governor Brewer vetoed the same bill last session, ostensibly for other reasons and so it was not exactly new to her. The bill preparation had already been done and so it was pushed through quite rapidly this session.

Steerpike

I think this post best answers the philosophical 'why' asked by Pulaski; if you allowed businesses to 'refuse service to whoever they want', then blacks would still be blocked from many establishments in the south.

AZ_Alba

So now they are pushing a bill which would allow preachers, judges, and anyone else who performs marriage services to refuse to conduct a marriage ceremony based on their religious beliefs even though gay marriages are not legal under Arizona law.

House Bill 2481, which has advanced on mostly party-line committee votes and is awaiting a debate by the full House of Representatives, would prevent government from requiring ordained clergy and judges to “solemnize a marriage that is inconsistent with the minister’s sincerely held religious beliefs.”

dakota44

I don't know if they will get far with the 'Judges and anyone else' part. A judge and a civil servant in a position to perform such services are supposed to provide those services to anyone without discriminating. As for ministers etc., I have no problem when it comes to churches providing services in line with that particular religions doctrine. A minister certainly has deeply held religious beliefs consistent with his churches doctrines. A Catholic Priest will not perform a marriage for someone he knows to be divorced, as the Catholic church does not condone or recognize divorce. The exception to that would be if the individual had not been married in the Catholic church, which would mean the church would not recognize the previous marriage anyway. But that is certainly open to debate. There are more enlightened churches that will happily provide those services. Bottom line, a church can do what it wants when it comes to religious beliefs.

AZ_Alba

It is the inclusion of judges that make me wonder about the so called separation of church and state.

dakota44

That is why I don't think that would stand up to being remotely constitutional.

Hotscot

Additionally...those who claim the obligation to discriminate based on the requirements of their chosen "religion" seem to do quite a bit of cherry picking in order to support their specific prejudice, without actually living completely by the precepts of said "religion".

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/0...n_1327701.html