Go Back   Matt-Hughes.com Official Forums > General Discussions > Politics

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 02-27-2014, 06:44 PM
rearnakedchoke rearnakedchoke is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 1,587
Default Jan Brewer veto's AZ "anti-gay" bill

http://us.cnn.com/2014/02/26/politic...html?hpt=hp_t1

Arizona's anti-gay bill veto unlikely to end 'religious freedom' movement

(CNN) -- To Arizona's governor, a bill that would have allowed businesses to close their doors to gays and lesbians out of religious conviction was wrong for the state. So, she vetoed it.

The buck may have stopped with Gov. Jan Brewer in Arizona on Wednesday, but the fight to pass such laws bannered as religious freedom issues is still on in quite a few other states.

"Right behind it are Missouri and Georgia," said Jay Michaelson, a fellow at Political Research Associates, a progressive political think tank.

Brewer felt Senate Bill 1062 did not address specific dangers to religious freedom.

"It could divide Arizona in ways we cannot even imagine," said Brewer, who said she tuned out public pressure and made the decision she felt was right.

Attention now turns to the following states:

Georgia

The Preservation of Religious Freedom Act has been introduced into Georgia's legislature, and it is similar to the one vetoed in Arizona.

The measure, which is moving through the state House of Representatives, allows a private company to ignore state law that "directly or indirectly constrains, inhibits, curtails or denies" a person's religious beliefs.

An almost identical bill has been introduced in the state Senate.

Much like the Arizona measure, neither Georgia's House nor Senate bills specifically spell out gays or lesbians as the target of the bill.

Idaho

There are two bills being considered. HB 426 would protect people making decisions out of religious convictions -- including denying service to someone. HB 427 gives people protection against legal claims made against them in cases involving religious convictions.

If passed into law, the first bill probably would be vulnerable to constitutional legal challenges. Both bills could cause many disruptions to everyday life in the state, a state attorney general said in an article in the The Spokesman Review.

HB 427 has been sent back to committee.

Mississippi

A bill is being considered to legally protect people against being compelled to take any action against their religion. SB 2681 does not explicitly mention gays, lesbians or same-sex marriage. It has passed the Senate and was referred to House, where it is in a judiciary committee.

Missouri

A bill that requires the government to show a compelling interest in any attempt to restrict a person's right to practice religion was introduced this week by Republican state Sen. Wayne Wallingford.

SB 916 provides for additional civil protections to the state's existing "Religious Freedom Restoration Act," according to the senator.

But critics of the law say it's a way to discriminate against gays.

Ohio

The House introduced HB 376 in December. It also does not single out same-sex relations for discrimination but gives legal protection to individuals acting or making decisions out of religious conviction. It's currently in judiciary committee. Critics say it's aimed at discrimination against same-sex couples, knoxnews.com reported.

Oregon

The conservative Oregon Family Council is sponsoring a ballot measure -- the "Protect Religious Freedoms Initiative" -- that would allow private businesses to deny services that would support same-sex marriage.

The group, which previously supported the effort to ban same-sex marriage in the state, is pushing to get the measure on the November ballot.

South Dakota

Conservative senators introduced one bill that would allow businesses or people to deny "certain wedding services or goods due to the free exercise of religion." But its main sponsor withdrew it.

But there's a second one protecting "speech pertaining to views on sexual orientation." It has been deferred to a late legislative day.

There are also states where proposed bills have already hit a legislative wall:

Colorado

A bill that would have allowed people to defend against discrimination allegations on the basis of religious convictions was killed in committee, The Denver Post reported.

Kansas

State representatives introduced a bill in January that would have explicitly permitted religious business people and government workers to refuse serving same-sex couples. It passed the House, with a vote of 72 to 49, but failed in the Republican-dominated Senate.

Maine

A conservative senator introduced a religious freedom bill that would have protected people making decisions out of religious convictions that other legislators felt interfered with other people's civil rights. The state Senate and House both voted it down, the Bangor Daily News reported.

Tennessee

Tennessee legislators introduced a bill in early February that proponents said would protect businesses if they refused services to gays and lesbians. Critics called it the "Turn the Gays Away" bill.

The measure has been withdrawn from committee, CNN affiliate WSMV reported.

Utah

Conservative state Sen. Stuart Reid introduced a bill similar to the Arizona bill that was vetoed, but it has since been shelved, The Salt Lake Tribune reported.
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 02-28-2014, 10:46 PM
Bonnie Bonnie is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Where the bluebonnets bloom
Posts: 6,668
Default

No big surprise that a lot of news outlets used "anti-gay" to describe the bill instead of "exercise of religion". The bill seems to stipulate that the person(s) claiming "exercise of religion" would have to prove themselves before a court so what's the problem? Once again, the very ones always decrying intolerance are the ones most guilty of it.

http://www.azcentral.com/ic/pdf/SB-1062-bill.pdf

Quote:
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES


SB 1062 / HB 2153

exercise of religion; state action.

Sponsors: Senators Yarbrough: Barto, Worsley


W/D Committee on Judiciary

DPA Committee on Government

DPA Caucus and COW

X As Transmitted to Governor

OVERVIEW
HB 2153 revises the definition of exercise of religion and person and extends the prohibition on substantially burdening a person’s exercise of religion to applications of the law by nongovernmental persons.

HISTORY
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 person’s 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 person’s 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).

PROVISIONS
• Expands the definition of exercise of religion by including the practice and observance of religion.

• Expands the definition of person to include any individual, association, partnership, corporation, church, or other business entity.

• Modifies, from government to state action, the prohibition on burdening a person’s exercise of religion, except under certain circumstances.

• Clarifies that the government or a nongovernmental person enforcing state action must demonstrate that the application of the burden to the person’s exercise of religion is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest and is the least restrictive means of furthering the compelling governmental interest.

• Maintains that a person whose religious exercise is burdened in violation of this Act may assert that violation as a claim or defense in a judicial proceeding and specifies that this applies regardless of whether the government is a party to the proceeding.

• Stipulates that a person that asserts a violation of this Act must establish the following:
 The person’s action or refusal to act is motivated by a religious belief;
 The person’s religious belief is sincerely held; and
 The state action substantially burdens the exercise of the person’s religious beliefs.

• Allows a person asserting a claim or defense in a judicial proceeding, whose religious exercise is burdened, to receive injunctive and declaratory relief.

• Prescribes the definition of state action to include government action and the application of any law by a nongovernmental person and specifies that the requirements in statute relating to professional or occupational licenses and appointments to government offices are not included in the definition of state action.

• Makes technical and conforming changes.

Fifty-first Legislature
Second Regular Session 2
February 24, 2014
__________________

Last edited by Bonnie; 03-01-2014 at 12:46 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 03-01-2014, 02:37 PM
NateR's Avatar
NateR NateR is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 5,742
Default

Owners of private businesses should have the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason at any time. The government should have no say in that at all.

Calling the protection of religious liberties "anti-gay" is like calling Liberalism "anti-freedom". Except in the case of Liberalism it's actually true.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 03-01-2014, 07:27 PM
Bonnie Bonnie is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Where the bluebonnets bloom
Posts: 6,668
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by NateR View Post
Owners of private businesses should have the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason at any time. The government should have no say in that at all.

Calling the protection of religious liberties "anti-gay" is like calling Liberalism "anti-freedom". Except in the case of Liberalism it's actually true.
Article explaining how this bill came about (use link to see full article):

Quote:
http://blog.constitutioncenter.org/2...ebate-defined/

...Republican lawmakers in Arizona decided to pursue SB 1062 after a court in neighboring New Mexico last year decided that a photographer who refused to document a same-sex couple’s commitment ceremony had violated New Mexico’s public accommodations laws.

...The Arizona lawmakers saw the New Mexico case as a call to action to propose Arizona’s own expanded version of a Religious Freedom Restoration Act, also known as RFRA. If the acronym RFRA seems familiar, it is at the heart of two high-profile cases in front of the Supreme Court in March about the contraception mandate and the Affordable Care Act (also known as Obamacare).
And here's a link to an article talking about the New Mexico case mentioned above. I quoted the very end of the article (link for full article):

Quote:
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/19/us...-ceremony.html

The court agreed, to a point. “If Elane Photography took photographs on its own time and sold them at a gallery,” it said, then it could say what it liked, but a business open to the public must take all comers.

Justice Richard C. Bosson concurred with the majority opinion, but uneasily.

“The Huguenins are not trying to prohibit anyone from marrying,” he wrote. “They only want to be left alone to conduct their photography business in a manner consistent with their moral convictions.” Instead, they “are compelled by law to compromise the very religious beliefs that inspire their lives.”

“Though the rule of law requires it,” Justice Bosson wrote, “the result is sobering.”
__________________

Last edited by Bonnie; 03-02-2014 at 01:03 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 03-07-2014, 01:09 PM
rearnakedchoke rearnakedchoke is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 1,587
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by NateR View Post
Owners of private businesses should have the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason at any time. The government should have no say in that at all.

Calling the protection of religious liberties "anti-gay" is like calling Liberalism "anti-freedom". Except in the case of Liberalism it's actually true.
that would be fun!!!!! the discrimination would be a beautiful thing to watch!


all in all, i don't see an issue with this ... i think if the bills state more that "religious institutes" have a right to express religious freedom, that is one thing, but businesses should be left out of the bill imo
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 03-08-2014, 10:52 PM
NateR's Avatar
NateR NateR is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 5,742
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rearnakedchoke View Post
that would be fun!!!!! the discrimination would be a beautiful thing to watch!


all in all, i don't see an issue with this ... i think if the bills state more that "religious institutes" have a right to express religious freedom, that is one thing, but businesses should be left out of the bill imo
So, you assume that all Americans are racist bigots and just looking for any excuse to discriminate against somebody? That's pretty narrow-minded of you and insulting to anyone who is an American.

Right now it's the militant Gay Rights activists that are being the most intolerant and discriminatory in this situation. They are the ones that are saying that you are only allowed to have an opinion that they personally agree with and if you disagree with them, then you should be treated like a criminal. Those are not the values that America was founded on. They may be the values that Canada was founded on, though, I don't really know anything about your country.

Ideally in America, privately owned businesses should be able to enjoy all of the rights and freedoms of private citizens, since it is private citizens who start up and run those privately owned businesses. The government has no right to force those citizens to violate their own conscience just because their views might be unpopular. If a business owner is seen as discriminating against somebody and people in that area want to peacefully protest or boycott that business, that's completely within their rights as private citizens. But the government should never step in and threaten somebody just because they don't want to serve a specific customer. Basically, it's none of the government's business.

This notion that you need to be a religious organization to operate based on religious principles is absolute stupidity and is not one of the principles that America was founded upon.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 03-10-2014, 01:27 PM
rearnakedchoke rearnakedchoke is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 1,587
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by NateR View Post
So, you assume that all Americans are racist bigots and just looking for any excuse to discriminate against somebody? That's pretty narrow-minded of you and insulting to anyone who is an American.
Right now it's the militant Gay Rights activists that are being the most intolerant and discriminatory in this situation. They are the ones that are saying that you are only allowed to have an opinion that they personally agree with and if you disagree with them, then you should be treated like a criminal. Those are not the values that America was founded on. They may be the values that Canada was founded on, though, I don't really know anything about your country.

Ideally in America, privately owned businesses should be able to enjoy all of the rights and freedoms of private citizens, since it is private citizens who start up and run those privately owned businesses. The government has no right to force those citizens to violate their own conscience just because their views might be unpopular. If a business owner is seen as discriminating against somebody and people in that area want to peacefully protest or boycott that business, that's completely within their rights as private citizens. But the government should never step in and threaten somebody just because they don't want to serve a specific customer. Basically, it's none of the government's business.

This notion that you need to be a religious organization to operate based on religious principles is absolute stupidity and is not one of the principles that America was founded upon.
the games you play on here are hilarious .. really .. when did i say that all amercans are bigots??? and if you don't think if business owners had the right to refuse businness to anyone for any reason there wouldn't be a rise in "discrimination" claims? if you don't think there would be, than you have either lived a sheltered life (but, you were in the military and have been to many countries ..lol, i know, i know) or are just blind .. most places would have a rise in discrimination if their bigotry was free to run wild ...

and you keep talking about the principles the country was founded on and the founding fathers .. i honestly think you deify them more than the bible itself.. like what they said is infallible ... times change and countries adapt to these changes ... i can understand your stance on the bible being absolute truth, but the US constitution is not a document without fault .. it was put together by people who were not perfect

so now you can reply and say how my post is so stupid, and i don't know what im talking about ..
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 09:40 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.