The Arizona Legislature has passed a controversial religion bill that is again thrusting Arizona into the national spotlight in a debate over discrimination.
House Bill 2153/Senate Bill 1062, written by the conservative advocacy group Center for Arizona Policy and the Christian legal organization Alliance Defending Freedom, would allow individuals to use religious beliefs as a defense against a lawsuit.
...
Proponents say the bill would, for example, protect a wedding photographer who declined to take photos of a same-sex couple’s commitment ceremony due to the photographer’s religious beliefs.
“We are trying to protect people’s religious liberties,” said Rep. Steve Montenegro, R-Litchfield Park. “We don’t want the government coming in and forcing somebody to act against their religious sacred faith beliefs or having to sell out if you are a small-business owner.”
36 comments
At least Jan Brewer, in a temporary bout of sanity, killed it.
[edit function doesn't work]
Ms. Brewer dropped the bill because a number of companies and sports teams said they don 't do business that way and they might have to move out of AZ.
Power of the boycott, baby.
More fundies who think that freedom of religion means that believers, that is themselves and everyone who share their beliefs, can do stuff like refuse to perform professional duties or even break the law and get away scot free as long as they can say: "It was either that or acting against my religion!"
Despite the fact I'm a gay man, I'd be in favour of letting that law pass if it gave that out to everyone who practiced ALL the tenets of their religion.
Telling the bigots they can claim Christianity as an excuse if they have already followed JC's instruction to sell all their goods and give the money to the poor- priceless.
We don’t want the government coming in and forcing somebody to act against their religious sacred faith beliefs
So if your "sacred faith beliefs" include human sacrifice or sex with five year olds, the government should have no right to interfere? Besides, what religion says you can't photograph a same-sex wedding? The Bible only condemns performing the gay sex act itself, not mere homosexual attraction; so unless the photographer is asked to photograph the couple actually having sex, there's no legitimate religious objection. If the photographer was consistent, he'd refuse to photograph any weddings that aren't the first for both people. That actually is condemned by Jesus (Mat. 5:32).
Luckily the bill was vetoed by the governor. They tried to pass the same thing here in Kansas but luckily it died in the Senate. Leave it to right-wing conservatives to protect bigotry by law.
There really ought to be repercussions for lawmakers who draft and vote for obviously unconstitutional legislation.
It isn't against your religion to refrain from actively spiting other people for merely existing in your line of sight. Matthew 5:39 says not to make life miserable for people who intentionally wrong you. 5:42-48 say to show love and respect to people you consider your enemies. People who come in to your business for a photo aren't your enemies, they're your customers. They didn't come to your shop to wrong you, they don't hate you, and I sincerely doubt they have it out for God either. So really, do the (supposedly) Christian thing and your job: Show a little common decency and take the fucking picture.
(^ Should read 'Anon-e-moose '; damn this keyboard! XP )
“We are trying to protect people’s religious liberties,”
Well then. You've just opened an infinitely worse -than Pandora's Box world of shit upon yourselves, right-wingers.
As you lot are soooo eager to promote, that 'Atheism is a religion', the fact you lot have untold billions to pay in back-tax rebates to we Atheists being the least of your problems. And not just the notion of we Atheists having more than every right in the world to beat the shit out of Fred Phelps, Shirley Phelps-Roper et al.
You've just admitted that, as you lot claim that 'Persecution' of anyone not exactly like you lot is a 'religious liberty', we - as religious Atheists - can do whatever the fuck we like to you right-wing Fundamental ist Christains, and you don't even have the right to so much as think of protesting against such. Take your own 'Persecution', and fucking like it, you whiny inferior subhumans, just as you lot would expect those you 'Persecute' to equally take their 'licks'.
...and that 'Persecution' by we religious Atheists starts by our forcing you Christains - via legislation, which you must obey; Romans 13:1-5 - to not Persecute those not exactly like you . Like I say: Take your Persecution by we Atheists - our religious liberty - and fucking well like it.
If you actually read the text of the bill, you'll see that there is nothing to protect Christians from discrimination, which is why it was vetoed. Muslims, Buddhists, and every other religion could have had a lot of fun with this bill. No headscarf? No service! Wearing fur? No service! Arizona is home to many Native Americans, practitioners of Santeria, UFO cultists, and all sorts of New Agers; the possibilities for righteous indignation are endless.
Would have been so easy to take advantage of.
"My made up religion states that regularly ingesting psychedelic drugs is one of the holiest practices. Such drugs are used in many sacred rituals and include but aren't limited to; LSD, DMT, psilocybin, cannabis, ketamine, and MDMA."
“We don’t want the government coming in and forcing somebody to act against their religious sacred faith beliefs..."
Good... so you agree that any Muslim in the US cannot be denied if they wish to cut your head off because you are not a Muslim? Even better, if they did do that, they couldn't be prosecuted as that would be violating their Religious Liberties.
Makes you wonder if they bothered thinking this through before vomiting out into the world. (not really... we know they didn't think it through)
I'm not sure this issue is as clean-cut as we might prefer. If, as an owner, I choose to do business only with red-headed, cross-eyed Presbyterians, do I have that right or not? (For purposes of the hypothesis, say I'm not in conflict with interstate commerce laws.)
Still, it would be terrific fun if this had passed and "Christians Not Served" signs started popping up.
The bible can be used for the prosecution's case just as easily. " As you would that one would do unto you, do you likewise unto him"
Slippery slope. Could go Federal on constitutional grounds, and the Constitution of the United States trumps those of the individual states.
If that hadn't been vetoed, it could have gone totally haywire. Despite how disgusting the law is, it would have been possible to have fun with it and make up ad hoc religious beliefs. For instance, refuse to serve christian males over 35 cream with their coffee on Tuesdays after 2.46 p.m.
The Arizona Legislature has passed a controversial religion bill that is again thrusting Arizona into the national spotlight in a debate over discrimination.
House Bill 2153/Senate Bill 1062, written by the conservative advocacy group Center for Arizona Policy and the Christian legal organization Alliance Defending Freedom, would allow individuals to use religious beliefs as a defense against a lawsuit.
...
Proponents say the bill would, for example, protect a wedding photographer who declined to take photos of an interracial couple’s commitment ceremony due to the photographer’s religious beliefs.
“We are trying to protect people’s personal liberties,” said Rep. Steve Montenegro, R-Litchfield Park. “We don’t want the government coming in and forcing somebody to act against their personal beliefs or having to sell out if you are a small-business owner.”
Fixed. Oh wait, never mind, that's just what Ron Paul believes.
As much as I'd like to believe Brewer's veto represented a brief moment of sanity, I think it was because the business community realized that it was such an ambiguously worded bill that it would allow a worker to refuse to do anything as long as he claimed it was a sincerely held religious belief. One could have, for example, stated that it was against their religious beliefs to pull a double shift or work more than 40 hours a week without getting paid for it and that would not stand with the corporate overlords. This illustrates the pitfalls of attempting to write a law intended to favor a specific religious group (conservative christians) in a vague manner that pretends to have no such bias.
The problem is that this bill would effectively establish religion, any religion.
I seem to recall this statement from Amendment 1 of the USA Constitution:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"
The bill wouldn't've actually made you lawsuit-proof if you used your religious belief as a defense.
If it had, that would be VERY interesting.
"My pushing you off that cliff and breaking your bones was part of my worship service. Pity you can't sue me now!"
@ OhJohnNo
In all fairness, it probably wasn't old news when it was submitted. Submitted quotes can wait in the queue for weeks before they're finally posted.
I'm glad to hear it was shot down.
I suspect most are not familiar with the ins and outs of this proposed law, and how it would work. Now.....the Westboro baptist church can hire a gay photographer to cover a religious event condemning homosexuality. And if that gay photographer declines for personal religious reasons....then Westboro can sue that photographer. The law was to protect individuals from doing something they had religious concerns about..... To prevent them from being sued. As outrageous as it sounds.....if the KKK in Arizona wants Al Sharpton to be a keynote speaker, and he declines.....well....he can be sued for not performing his profession as a speaker. The law was written to cut both ways. People only assumed it would go one way.
@Grogs: That's certainly a new take on Gov. Brewer's veto. From what I heard, it was the specter of several key businesses leaving the state that got her to quash the bill. That said, it would almost have been worth it to have the bill stand if it meant one of your hypothetical scenarios came to pass.
@DFM: Establishment of religion does not work that way! As far as I can tell, the Establishment Clause only means that the government cannot take any religion and name it the state's favorite. With all the other problems that SB1072 has, why harp on this bizarre legal theory?
@moose: That is indeed the problem with much of anti-discrimination law: it tends not to be written with proofing against unintended consequences in mind. Myself, I would favor a narrow exemption for private businesses whose work has expressive qualities such that accepting a job from a certain group could be argued to constitute endorsement (e.g., wedding photographers, made-to-order bakeries and the like). I doubt even such a narrow exemption would pass judicial muster, but if it somehow did, it would defuse most of the more commonly raised issues concerning anti-discrimination laws.
@Knight of Liberty:
You're wrong about the Establishment Clause. As ruled by the SCOTUS (and mentioned by Thomas Jefferson himself), the Establishment Clause prevents the government from making laws promoting, favouring or establishing any religion or belief system. Basically, short of offeringa generalized protection of the religious, government stays out of religion & vice versa (at least, that's how it's supposed to be).
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.
