Arizona lawmakers pass controversial anti-gay bill

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Dreadclaw69**

http://www.cnn.com/2014/02/21/us/arizona-anti-gay-bill/index.html?hpt=hp_t2

(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.

The bill, which the state House of Representatives passed by a 33-27 vote Thursday, now goes to Gov. Jan Brewer, a Republican and onetime small business owner who vetoed similar legislation last year but has expressed the right of business owners to deny service.

"I think anybody that owns a business can choose who they work with or who they don't work with," Brewer told CNN in Washington on Friday. "But I don't know that it needs to be statutory. In my life and in my businesses, if I don't want to do business or if I don't want to deal with a particular company or person or whatever, I'm not interested. That's America. That's freedom."

As expected, the measure has drawn criticism from Democrats and business groups who said it would sanction discrimination and open the state to the risk of damaging litigation.

On Friday, the LGBT group Wingspan staged a protest march to the governor's office that drew about 200 people. Some carried signs with messages "God created us all equal" and "Shame on Arizona."

Tucson-based Rocco's Little Chicago Pizzeria posted a photo on its Facebook page of a sign with a message for state lawmakers: "We reserve the right to refuse service to Arizona legislators."

"It's a ridiculous bill," pizzeria manager Evan Stevens told CNN on Friday. "Arizona has much bigger problems than allowing businesses to discriminate against people."

In a statement, Anna Tovar, the state senate Democratic minority leader, said: "With the express consent of Republicans in this Legislature, many Arizonans will find themselves members of a separate and unequal class under this law because of their sexual orientation. This bill may also open the door to discriminate based on race, familial status, religion, sex, national origin, age or disability."

The Greater Phoenix Economic Council, in a letter to Brewer on Friday, urged the governor to veto Senate Bill 1062, saying the "legislation will likely have profound, negative effects on our business community for years to come."

"The legislation places businesses currently in Arizona, as well as those looking to locate here, in potentially damaging risk of litigation, and costly, needless legal disputes," council President Barry Broome wrote, adding that four unidentified companies have vowed to locate elsewhere if the legislation is signed.

He added, "With major events approaching in the coming year, including Super Bowl XLIX, Arizona will be the center of the world's stage. This legislation has the potential of subjecting the Super Bowl, and major events surrounding it, to the threats of boycotts."

On CNN's "The Lead with Jake Tapper," Arizona state Rep. John Kavanagh, a Republican, said the bill would not allow hotel clerks or waiters, for instance, to turn away customers, unless there was a "substantial burden on their sincerely held religious beliefs."

The bill is being pushed by the Center for Arizona Policy, a conservative group opposed to abortion and same-sex marriage. The group has justified the measure on grounds that the proposal protects people against increasingly activist federal courts.
"As we witness hostility towards people of faith grow like never before, we must take this opportunity to speak up for religious liberty," the group said on its website, asking people to contact Brewer and urge her to sign the bill. "The great news is that SB 1062 protects your right to live and work according to your faith."

Cathi Herrod, the center's president, told CNN on Friday, "The Arizona bill has a very simple premise, that Americans should be free to live and work according to their religious faith. It's simply about protecting religious liberty and nothing else."

Herrod said the bill's opponents are "showing unbelievable hostility toward religious beliefs."
"America still stands for the principle that religious beliefs matter (for) something in this country, that we have the right to freely exercise our religious beliefs," she said.

But Robert Boston, a spokesman for the Washington-based Americans United for Separation of Church and State, told CNN the legislation would "fling the door wide open to discrimination, not just against gay people, but basically to any class of individuals that a religious fundamentalist decides he or she doesn't want to deal with."

He added, "A woman who is pregnant out of wedlock, for example, 'Well, out the door, you don't get served in my business.' "

The Arizona legislation was passed as conservative states work to counter laws legalizing same-sex marriage. Arizona voters approved a ban on same-sex marriage as a state constitutional amendment in 2008.

The American Civil Liberties Union of Arizona called the bill "unnecessary and discriminatory."

"What today's bill does is allow private individuals and businesses to use religion to discriminate, sending a message that Arizona is intolerant and unwelcoming," the group said in a statement.

Some Republican legislators have defended the bill as a First Amendment issue. Democrats dismissed it as an attack on gays and lesbians.

"It's a very bad day for Arizona," Rep. Chad Campbell, a Phoenix Democrat who voted against the legislation, told CNN Friday.

He added, "Let there be no doubt about what this bill does. It's going to allow people to discriminate against the gay community in Arizona. It goes after unprotected classes of people and we all know that the biggest unprotected class of people in the state is the LBGT community. If we were
having this conversation in regard to African-Americans or women, there would be outrage across the country right now."

**motyak**

I'm really surprised that it's legal and allowed to come into law.

**iproxtaco**

I don't know what to say, really. This is wrong in so many ways.

**d-usa**

So Arizona is our Russia now?

**Polonius**

Legally, I don't think there's much wrong with this. Until LGBT status is seen as a protected class, there is no federal civil rights for gays/lesbians. Where states have mandated that businesses serve homosexuals, its been because of state level civil rights acts.

That said, Arizona is in the Ninth Circuit, and a law explicitly allowing discrimination against a class is absolute catnip for them. This could be the case that leads to homosexuality becoming a protected class, which, IMHO, it should be.

In terms of policy, I think I can actually see the argument. Not for "common carrier" type businesses, but the flashpoint case for this was a florist that didn't want to do flowers for a gay wedding. She was sanctioned under state law, and I think it was correctly decided, but I think it undervalued an entrepreneurs right to select his or her clients. So, while I'm not exactly applauding this, I can see the rationale beyond hating homosexuals.

Practically, I'm not sure how much impact it will have.

Morally... well, religion or not, it seems very mean spirited.

**agnosto**

d-usa wrote:
So Arizona is our Russia now?

Naw, more like Afghanistan. Instead of the Taliban, you have Southern Baptists.

**Krellnus**

motyak wrote:
I'm really surprised that it's legal and allowed to come into law.

Considering that here you can refuse service to anyone for anything, even if it is just a whim, you shouldn't be too surprised.

**Furyou Miko**

Isn't a law specifically allowing discrimination against basic human rights?

I mean, you may as well say "You can refuse to serve women" or "you can refuse to serve blacks".

**agnosto**

Polonius wrote:
Legally, I don't think there's much wrong with this. Until LGBT status is seen as a protected class, there is no federal civil rights for gays/lesbians. Where states have mandated that businesses serve homosexuals, its been because of state level civil rights acts.

That said, Arizona is in the Ninth Circuit, and a law explicitly allowing discrimination against a class is absolute catnip for them. This could be the case that leads to homosexuality becoming a protected class, which, IMHO, it should be.

In terms of policy, I think I can actually see the argument. Not for "common carrier" type businesses, but the flashpoint case for this was a florist that didn't want to do flowers for a gay wedding. She was sanctioned under state law, and I think it was correctly decided, but I think it undervalued an entrepreneurs right to select his or her clients. So, while I'm not exactly applauding this, I can see the rationale beyond hating homosexuals.

Practically, I'm not sure how much impact it will have.

Morally... well, religion or not, it seems very mean spirited.

They already are to an extent. Extrapolate this out to hiring practices. You cannot discriminate hiring based upon sexual orientation but you can turn customers away?

Edit: Never mind the CSRA only applies to public employment.

**Ahtman**

If one can already turn customers away, why would you need a specific law to reiterate not serving specific types of customers?

**Polonius**

Furyou Miko wrote:
Isn't a law specifically allowing discrimination against basic human rights?

I mean, you may as well say "You can refuse to serve women" or "you can refuse to serve blacks".

There are federal laws that prohibit that sort of thing in nearly all public accomodations.

Basically, Federal law prohibits state laws that discriminate against what it considers to be "protected classes," which originally was race based, but also includes ethinicity and national origin. Genderare considered a "quasi protected class," because there are some times when you can discriminate against men or women, but not a lot (bathrooms, gyms, etc.)

If it sounds, complicated, it is. There are lot of different laws that prohibit discrimination, and not all apply to the same groups, or in the same areas of life. So one law might protect homosexuals from discrimination in a federal workplace, but not a private one. Another might protect asian people from discrimination in nearly all areas, but not a disabled person.

**agnosto**

Polonius wrote:

Basically, Federal law prohibits state laws that discriminate against what it considers to be "protected classes," which originally was race based, but also includes ethinicity and national origin. Genderare considered a "quasi protected class," because there are some times when you can discriminate against men or women, but not a lot (bathrooms, gyms, etc.)

If it sounds, complicated, it is. There are lot of different laws that prohibit discrimination, and not all apply to the same groups, or in the same areas of life. So one law might protect homosexuals from discrimination in a federal workplace, but not a private one. Another might protect asian people from discrimination in nearly all areas, but not a disabled person.

Take even $1 of federal money and those CSRA rules apply and the federal OPM has determined that anti-discrimination applies to sexual orientation as well. I work for a school district and our written district hiring policy includes no discrimination based upon sexual orientation.

My concern is that if you are able to legislate discrimination based upon one group of the population, you're creating a precedent for all forms of discrimination. Also, I know the lawmakers in question are attempting to do this as a dog and pony show to give everyone in the world a view of how strongly they hold "core, religious, wholesome family values" but like many of these asinine attempts to legislate their morality onto the entire population, all it will do is show how small-minded and exclusionary they are. It's really saddening that there is a large enough population in the US that is willing to go along with this crap and people keep voting these yahoos into office. The reality is that I might have lunch with a hetero-same sex friend and the wait staff may think my patting him on the shoulder constituted something "homosexual" in nature and kick us out; that business would lose quite a bit of custom and be on the 6pm news. I don't know of any business owner whose values are strong enough to lose their livelihood over (they're probably out there though).

I respect everyone's right to an opinion but in public, the golden rule applies. If stores start posting "Homosexuals not welcome" signs on their fronts, what happens if people post "Christians not welcome"?

I already lived through this kind of crap when I lived in Korea back around 2001 with the anti-American hysteria. I actually saw this sign, walking by the shop in question:

This was on BBC but was a coffee shop in a heavy traffic area where a lot of foreigners, including tourists, went.

**H.B.M.C.**

Once again America proves its world-shattering ability to focus on tiny matters when larger problems should be taking its attention.

On the bright side, any court in the land will overturn this so-called law due to it being discriminatory.

**Captain Fantastic**

Aren't we passed this? Homophobia is so twentieth century.

I wonder how many businesses have lost money because they allowed a homosexual into their establishment? I'd bet zero. I'd be interested how they determine who is and who isn't homosexual, also.

**Seaward**

Captain Fantastic wrote:
Aren't we passed this? Homophobia is so twentieth century.

I wonder how many businesses have lost money because they allowed a homosexual into their establishment? I'd bet zero. I'd be interested how they determine who is and who isn't homosexual, also.

It's primarily to cover florists and caterers and the like who don't want to handle gay weddings.

**Mr.Church13**

Wow what exactly wont religion try to destroy?

**Polonius**

Seaward wrote:
Captain Fantastic wrote:
Aren't we passed this? Homophobia is so twentieth century.

I wonder how many businesses have lost money because they allowed a homosexual into their establishment? I'd bet zero. I'd be interested how they determine who is and who isn't homosexual, also.

It's primarily to cover florists and caterers and the like who don't want to handle gay weddings.

And to be honest, I'd actually be okay with a pretty narrow law like that. But that's not how it's written. As written, it allows a waiter to refuse to serve a gay person due to his beliefs. Which would get interesting in a hurry, I'd imagine.

I think that expecting a creative professional to work on a project that they have sincere moral objections to is wrong. But I'm a professional, and I don't like the idea of what clients I have to take.

What's interesting is that the Arizona business community is actually lobbying against this bill, citing the PR negatives and the inevitable cost of litigation.

**Chongara**

Oh, America.

So glad I live in a sane state.

**Dreadclaw69**

Polonius wrote:
And to be honest, I'd actually be okay with a pretty narrow law like that. But that's not how it's written. As written, it allows a waiter to refuse to serve a gay person due to his beliefs. Which would get interesting in a hurry, I'd imagine.

I think that expecting a creative professional to work on a project that they have sincere moral objections to is wrong. But I'm a professional, and I don't like the idea of what clients I have to take.

What's interesting is that the Arizona business community is actually lobbying against this bill, citing the PR negatives and the inevitable cost of litigation.

As noted in the OP it must be a "substantial burden on their sincerely held religious beliefs." before the waiter may do so. So it appears that steps have been taken to narrow the law's effect.

**agnosto**

Dreadclaw69 wrote:

As noted in the OP it must be a "substantial burden on their sincerely held religious beliefs." before the waiter may do so. So it appears that steps have been taken to narrow the law's effect.

You don't know many evangelical christians do you?

**Johnnytorrance**

agnosto wrote:
d-usa wrote:
So Arizona is our Russia now?

Naw, more like Afghanistan. Instead of the Taliban, you have Southern Baptists.

You're comparing southern baptist to the Taliban?

Souther baptist shoot women Ian's children in public? Southern baptist marry 8 year old children? Southern baptist torture and burn alive non Christians?

**agnosto**

Johnnytorrance wrote:

Souther baptist shoot women Ian's children in public? Southern baptist marry 8 year old children? Southern baptist torture and burn alive non Christians?

Historically, yes to all of those; ever heard of the KKK?

**Polonius**

Dreadclaw69 wrote:
Polonius wrote:
And to be honest, I'd actually be okay with a pretty narrow law like that. But that's not how it's written. As written, it allows a waiter to refuse to serve a gay person due to his beliefs. Which would get interesting in a hurry, I'd imagine.

I think that expecting a creative professional to work on a project that they have sincere moral objections to is wrong. But I'm a professional, and I don't like the idea of what clients I have to take.

What's interesting is that the Arizona business community is actually lobbying against this bill, citing the PR negatives and the inevitable cost of litigation.

As noted in the OP it must be a "substantial burden on their sincerely held religious beliefs." before the waiter may do so. So it appears that steps have been taken to narrow the law's effect.

That's not what narrowly tailored means. Generally, it means that the law could only possibly apply to a relatively small aspect. There's a difference between what a law covers, and what would be successful under the law. That a waiter or cashier could even claim such a burden seems unlikey, so why make it a question of fact?

Words like "substantial" and "sincere" are the opposite of tailored. They are highly fact specific.

**Dreadclaw69**

Polonius wrote:
Dreadclaw69 wrote:
Polonius wrote:
And to be honest, I'd actually be okay with a pretty narrow law like that. But that's not how it's written. As written, it allows a waiter to refuse to serve a gay person due to his beliefs. Which would get interesting in a hurry, I'd imagine.

I think that expecting a creative professional to work on a project that they have sincere moral objections to is wrong. But I'm a professional, and I don't like the idea of what clients I have to take.

What's interesting is that the Arizona business community is actually lobbying against this bill, citing the PR negatives and the inevitable cost of litigation.

As noted in the OP it must be a "substantial burden on their sincerely held religious beliefs." before the waiter may do so. So it appears that steps have been taken to narrow the law's effect.

That's not what narrowly tailored means. Generally, it means that the law could only possibly apply to a relatively small aspect. There's a difference between what a law covers, and what would be successful under the law. That a waiter or cashier could even claim such a burden seems unlikey, so why make it a question of fact?

Words like "substantial" and "sincere" are the opposite of tailored. They are highly fact specific.

Highly specific, but with a very strict application. To successfully use this legislation the server must show that it was not merely against their religious beliefs. They must show that it is a "substantial burden". That is a heavy threshold to cross. So it could be said that this provision has been written in a very narrow manner.

**Johnnytorrance**

agnosto wrote:
Johnnytorrance wrote:

Souther baptist shoot women Ian's children in public? Southern baptist marry 8 year old children? Southern baptist torture and burn alive non Christians?

Historically, yes to all of those; ever heard of the KKK?

Ah yes, the KKK, you mean the 1880's terrorist organization of the democrat party?

**agnosto**

Johnnytorrance wrote:
agnosto wrote:
Johnnytorrance wrote:

Souther baptist shoot women Ian's children in public? Southern baptist marry 8 year old children? Southern baptist torture and burn alive non Christians?

Historically, yes to all of those; ever heard of the KKK?

Ah yes, the KKK, you mean the 1880's terrorist organization of the democrat party?

You do realize that in the time frame that you are speaking of, the democratic party was the conservative party in the US, right?

Short summary and probably the source of current conservative nuttery on the topic: http://www.politifact.com/virginia/statements/2013/jun/10/stephen-martin/state-sen-stephen-martin-says-democratic-party-cre/

**Kilkrazy**

Perhaps this will have the perverse effect that a lot of businesses will sack their religious staff in order to avoid having to not serve homosexuals.

**Soladrin**

Oh religion, y you so dumb.

**Kilkrazy**

Well, people.

You are still wearing a Christmas hat.

**Jihadin**

Floral Shop in Oregan getting nailed by the state and sued by the male "couple" for they refused service due to their religous belief. As owners they have a "right to refuse service to anyone" or something silly. Floral shop lost so regardless of religous conviction you cannot refuse service.