The Arizona pro discrimination law

20Cent

The republican controlled state legislators in Arizona tried to pass a law which would allow owners with “sincerely held” religious beliefs the legal right to refuse service to anyone if it would conflict with those beliefs. This would mean Christian business owners could refuse service to people just because they are gay.

Senate bill 1062 was vetoed by the governor Jan Brewer.

It throws up an interesting conflict between the rights of business owners and the freedom of citizens not to be discriminated against.

I'm glad the law was vetoed it is obscene that such discrimination would be allowed in 2014. What is going on with theses republicans who claim freedom yet make laws curbing that freedom!! Can't get my head around it.

Manach

Same way I cannot get my head around examples of a state employee being penalised for discussing political matters on social media on their free time as this was deemed contra-policy.
The freedom not be be discriminated against should work both ways?

Black Swan

Arizona Senate passed SB 1062, which would have allowed businesses to reject service to any customer based on the owners' religious beliefs. For example, a Christian business owner could refuse service to persons of different faiths, including Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, and Mormons (if they did not believe they were "true" Christians). Protestants could deny Catholics, Missouri Synod Lutherans could deny ELCA Lutherans, Creationists could deny Evolutionists, theists could deny to serve agnostics and atheists, etc.

This bill got all the way to the Arizona Governor's desk, and if she had signed it, it would have become Arizona law.

This bill shows that the spirit and intent of religious discrimination and prejudice are very much alive in the State of Arizona, as evidenced by the majority of Arizona elected representatives that passed the bill.

20Cent

Manach wrote: »

Same way I cannot get my head around examples of a state employee being penalised for discussing political matters on social media on their free time as this was deemed contra-policy.
The freedom not be be discriminated against should work both ways?

Didn't hear about that, what happened?

Corkfeen

I concur with Black Swan,it's a deeply unsettling law that has come about because they're catering to a horrible portion of people that will vote for them as a result of this. Open game on freedom to discriminate is bloody horrible.

Manach

20Cent wrote: »

Didn't hear about that, what happened?

Came across it when I was looking at general social media studies:
- link:

20Cent

Manach wrote: »

Came across it when I was looking at general social media studies:
- link:

How's that related to the topic in the op?

Manic Moran

The Volokh Conspiracy weighs in. (If you don't know it, it's the most-read law blog in the US written mainly by law professors). How many people have actually checked the text of the bill?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/02/27/guest-post-from-prof-doug-laycock-what-arizona-sb1062-actually-said/

According to the New York Times, and as best I can quickly gather, most other news sources, Arizona Governor Jan Brewer vetoed a bill “that would have given business owners the right to refuse service to gay men, lesbians and other people on religious grounds.”

SB1062, which would have amended Arizona’s Religious Freedom Restoration Act, was been egregiously misrepresented both before and after the veto. The federal government and eighteen states have Religious Freedom Restoration Acts (RFRAs).

That said, I am amused by, and agree with the Governor's comment during her veto speech that "I asked you to help fix the economy, jobs, healthcare... and the first thing I get on my desk is -this-?!" I'd have probably vetoed it just for that.

Brian?

Manic Moran wrote: »

The Volokh Conspiracy weighs in. (If you don't know it, it's the most-read law blog in the US written mainly by law professors). How many people have actually checked the text of the bill?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/02/27/guest-post-from-prof-doug-laycock-what-arizona-sb1062-actually-said/



That said, I am amused by, and agree with the Governor's comment during her veto speech that "I asked you to help fix the economy, jobs, healthcare... and the first thing I get on my desk is -this-?!" I'd have probably vetoed it just for that.

For some strange reason I like Governor Brewer. She has vetoed a couple of laws now that would appeal to the far right base.

Amerika

I agree with Brewer's actions. But has anyone here even read the bill? Where in it is the anti-gay language that the op claims?

http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/51leg/2r/bills/sb1062s.pdf

Corkfeen

Amerika wrote: »

I agree with Brewer's actions. But has anyone here even read the bill? Where in it is the anti-gay language that the op claims?

http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/51leg/2r/bills/sb1062s.pdf

Ireland has a similar piece in our equality laws that allows Catholic schools and hospital to discriminate based on religious ethos.(Due to go for us) While it doesn't specifically specify gay people,the most likely groups to be targeted by such legislation is LGBT people. The same would apply to Arizona's,they're the people who are most vulnerable to this law. Those who want to retain it,wish to do so to discriminate against gay people.

It's a step back to the days where one could ban people from their establishments because of the colour of one's skin tbh.

Brian?

Amerika wrote: »

I agree with Brewer's actions. But has anyone here even read the bill? Where in it is the anti-gay language that the op claims?

http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/51leg/2r/bills/sb1062s.pdf

The OP never claimed it contained anti-gay language, merely that it was the obvious intent of the bill.

Surely you can agree?

Overheal

Black Swan wrote: »

Arizona Senate passed SB 1062, which would have allowed businesses to reject service to any customer based on the owners' religious beliefs. For example, a Christian business owner could refuse service to persons of different faiths, including Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, and Mormons (if they did not believe they were "true" Christians). Protestants could deny Catholics, Missouri Synod Lutherans could deny ELCA Lutherans, Creationists could deny Evolutionists, theists could deny to serve agnostics and atheists, etc.

This bill got all the way to the Arizona Governor's desk, and if she had signed it, it would have become Arizona law.

So?

There are laws on the books in South Carolina that prevent people from holding a public office unless they have a firmly held belief in a Higher Being.

That said, the Constitution overrides the law, and it simply hasn't been taken off the books yet.

FISMA

Black Swan wrote: »

This bill shows that the spirit and intent of religious discrimination and prejudice are very much alive in the State of Arizona

What is the deciding factor when the law of man conflicts with the Law of God?

What about discrimination against religious private business owners?

Have you not, effectively, outlawed their religious belief and the practice thereof? Their freedom of religion? You are arguing that they be forced to support and condone behaviour that clearly contradicts their beliefs, correct?

Suppose later on, the laws against hebephilia are dropped or changed. As an individual and business owner, would you condone hebephiles and provide them support?

Is morality relative or absolute?

20Cent

FISMA wrote: »

What is the deciding factor when the law of man conflicts with the Law of God?

What about discrimination against religious private business owners?

Have you not, effectively, outlawed their religious belief and the practice thereof? Their freedom of religion? You are arguing that they be forced to support and condone behaviour that clearly contradicts their beliefs, correct?

Suppose later on, the laws against hebephilia are dropped or changed. As an individual and business owner, would you condone hebephiles and provide them support?

Is morality relative or absolute?

Freedom of religion requires freedom from religion. You can't worship freely if the laws of the land are designed with a particular religion in mind.

InTheTrees

I believe Mississippi is about to pass a similar law.

InTheTrees

Religious institutions should have to pay taxes, they effectively get a huge subsidy by not having to pay any.

Amerika

InTheTrees wrote: »

Religious institutions should have to pay taxes, they effectively get a huge subsidy by not having to pay any.

Why stop there. How about Educational, Charitable, Scientific, Literary, Testing for Public Safety, Civic Leagues, Social Welfare Organizations, Associations of Employees, Labor Organizations, Agricultural Organizations, Teachers’ Retirement Fund Associations, State Chartered Credit Unions, Cooperative Hospital Service Organizations, etc? They all lobby to have legislation enacted which are beneficial to their causes, values and goals?

InTheTrees

Amerika wrote: »

Why stop there.

Why not stop there?

ChicagoJoe

20Cent wrote: »

The republican controlled state legislators in Arizona tried to pass a law which would allow owners with “sincerely held” religious beliefs the legal right to refuse service to anyone if it would conflict with those beliefs. This would mean Christian business owners could refuse service to people just because they are gay.

Senate bill 1062 was vetoed by the governor Jan Brewer.

It throws up an interesting conflict between the rights of business owners and the freedom of citizens not to be discriminated against.

I'm glad the law was vetoed it is obscene that such discrimination would be allowed in 2014. What is going on with theses republicans who claim freedom yet make laws curbing that freedom!! Can't get my head around it.

Christ that's all America needs, a new version of the Jim Crow laws :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

onemorechance

Surely it's not so simple as a Christian can refuse to serve a Jew simply because of their religion?

I think it must be service dependent, such as the example where a cake shop owner refused to make a cake for a same-sex wedding.

I doubt that a Christian owned 7/11 could refuse a homosexual from buying a Mars bar for example.

Corkfeen

onemorechance wrote: »

Surely it's not so simple as a Christian can refuse to serve a Jew simply because of their religion?

I think it must be service dependent, such as the example where a cake shop owner refused to make a cake for a same-sex wedding.

I doubt that a Christian owned 7/11 could refuse a homosexual from buying a Mars bar for example.

It's pretty broad,if the business considers a person to be offending their religious ethos. Any shop owner can claim serving a gay customer gay infringes upon their beliefs, no matter how absurd.
http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/51leg/2r/bills/sb1062s.pdf

Brian?

Amerika wrote: »

Why stop there. How about Educational, Charitable, Scientific, Literary, Testing for Public Safety, Civic Leagues, Social Welfare Organizations, Associations of Employees, Labor Organizations, Agricultural Organizations, Teachers’ Retirement Fund Associations, State Chartered Credit Unions, Cooperative Hospital Service Organizations, etc? They all lobby to have legislation enacted which are beneficial to their causes, values and goals?

What has any of this got to do with lobbying? Religious societies should pay tax because they earn profit. Simple.

FISMA

Brian? wrote: »

Religious societies should pay tax ... Simple.

If only it were.

Many people argue for more taxes in order to help the: homeless, schools, hospitals, children, food kitchens, and elderly, to name but a few.

That's where the donations are going and at a MUCH higher percentage than my taxes, which are not charity, but forced upon me.

So if you tax those charitable funds, you are in effect running them through the gov't. To save money? Make money? Seriously? Running the money through a government is going to help? Help who?

Points of fact:
The Catholic Church is the most charitable organization on Earth.

The Catholic Church is the most charitable organization in Ireland.

The Catholic Church is the most charitable organization in America.

On a per dollar or per euro basis, the Catholic Church does far more and far better a job than any government organization when it comes to the social services they deliver.

Politicians understand the above, which is a fundamental reason why religious institutions are not taxed on charitable contributions: it is a losing proposition.

Do you believe the gov't is going to do a better job than the churches with that money? Seriously? How did the politicians do over the last few years with your tax euros? Are you happy with their job? Do you really want to reward them with more?

Also, consider Protestant Churches. Their money usually stays local. Localization offers direct oversight as to whom receives the funds. Hence, minimizing fraud.

It is easy to defraud a gov't, since they are far removed from the distribution process. However, defrauding the person in your community, that probably knows you, is far more difficult and a key to the success of Protestant Churches and charities.

By the way, are people still flying in to Ireland to draw the dole from their home country?

In your opinion, in reality, if the Church had to pay taxes, but then pulled all of its services, would the tax payers save money, lose money, or zero sum?

Brian?

FISMA wrote: »

If only it were.

It is. Any charitable donations can be written down against tax.

Many people argue for more taxes in order to help the: homeless, schools, hospitals, children, food kitchens, and elderly, to name but a few.

That's where the donations are going and at a MUCH higher percentage than my taxes, which are not charity, but forced upon me.

So if you tax those charitable funds, you are in effect running them through the gov't. To save money? Make money? Seriously? Running the money through a government is going to help? Help who?

It's not the charitable donations I want taxed. It's the millions brought in by church's which are used to build crystal cathedrals etc.

Points of fact:
The Catholic Church is the most charitable organization on Earth.

The Catholic Church is the most charitable organization in Ireland.

The Catholic Church is the most charitable organization in America.

On a per dollar or per euro basis, the Catholic Church does far more and far better a job than any government organization when it comes to the social services they deliver.

Politicians understand the above, which is a fundamental reason why religious institutions are not taxed on charitable contributions: it is a losing proposition.

No, the reasons religions aren't taxed is because it would be political suicide.

Do you believe the gov't is going to do a better job than the churches with that money? Seriously? How did the politicians do over the last few years with your tax euros? Are you happy with their job? Do you really want to reward them with more?

Also, consider Protestant Churches. Their money usually stays local. Localization offers direct oversight as to whom receives the funds. Hence, minimizing fraud.

It is easy to defraud a gov't, since they are far removed from the distribution process. However, defrauding the person in your community, that probably knows you, is far more difficult and a key to the success of Protestant Churches and charities.

By the way, are people still flying in to Ireland to draw the dole from their home country?

In your opinion, in reality, if the Church had to pay taxes, but then pulled all of its services, would the tax payers save money, lose money, or zero sum?

Nothing to do with the point at hand. This is a discussion forum for US politics.

Amerika

Brian? wrote: »

What has any of this got to do with lobbying? Religious societies should pay tax because they earn profit. Simple.

They reason why lobbying is Important is because the funds are used to get money from politicians, either in the way of obtaining government funding or legislation aimed at advancing their agenda to keep more money in their coffers, and strengthening their membership and influence. "Profit" can easily be made into a shell game... Unions being one of the biggest culprits.

FISMA

Today Chase bank, as reported by News.com.a, closed bank accounts owned by high profile porn star.

Have not heard much about it, far less than the couple that irked the Gaystapo.

Why are huge banks allowed to pick and their customers, but a small cake shop is not?

Banks routinely pick and choose their customers. For example, many banks will not do business with anyone in the firearms industry. Anyone looking for a loan to start such a business are routinely denied.

If you feel the small Christian bakery should be forced to go against their religious beliefs, why should big banks, be afforded the luxury to pick and choose the people with whom they do business?

jill_valentine

FISMA wrote: »

Today Chase bank, as reported by News.com.a, closed bank accounts owned by high profile porn star.

Have not heard much about it, far less than the couple that irked the Gaystapo.

Why are huge banks allowed to pick and their customers, but a small cake shop is not?

Banks routinely pick and choose their customers. For example, many banks will not do business with anyone in the firearms industry. Anyone looking for a loan to start such a business are routinely denied.

If you feel the small Christian bakery should be forced to go against their religious beliefs, why should big banks, be afforded the luxury to pick and choose the people with whom they do business?

Well, the obvious answer is that they shouldn't.

Last I heard about the porn star bank story, however, is that it may not have been the banks themselves instigating the moves. Banks like money, after all.

Also, wtf re: "gaystapo" bit.

Brian?

FISMA wrote: »

Today Chase bank, as reported by News.com.a, closed bank accounts owned by high profile porn star.

Have not heard much about it, far less than the couple that irked the Gaystapo.

Why are huge banks allowed to pick and their customers, but a small cake shop is not?

Banks routinely pick and choose their customers. For example, many banks will not do business with anyone in the firearms industry. Anyone looking for a loan to start such a business are routinely denied.

If you feel the small Christian bakery should be forced to go against their religious beliefs, why should big banks, be afforded the luxury to pick and choose the people with whom they do business?

They shouldn't, it's an absolute disgrace.

No business should be allowed to discriminate like this, period. Do you support the Bakeries right to discriminate?

Corkfeen

Brian? wrote: »

They shouldn't, it's an absolute disgrace.

No business should be allowed to discriminate like this, period. Do you support the Bakeries right to discriminate?

It's weird that a person can see something that has much in common with racism back in the day as acceptable. Of course it's bloody wrong!

Jonny7

Brian? wrote: »

They shouldn't, it's an absolute disgrace.

No business should be allowed to discriminate like this, period. Do you support the Bakeries right to discriminate?

It's very unlikely they are discriminating for the sake of discrimination - it's just down to numbers

Some banks chose not to do business with porn stars, sports stars, politicians because they can be classed as high risk customers and they are simply following risk/compliance/regulatory (and legal) framework

AKA high risk customers can cost the bank more than they are worth

Amerika

So is it big bad business that is at fault in the porn star incident, or big bad government under "Operation Choke Point" in which the Department Of Justice is going after undesirable business ventures by pressuring banks to terminate their bank accounts and refuse their business?

http://reason.com/blog/2014/04/28/doj-operation-chokepoint-and-porn-stars

Jonny7

or

rational explanation too mundane, therefore blog sites begin the hunt for a more exciting conspiracy maligning their favorite targets

Amerika

Jonny7 wrote: »

or

rational explanation too mundane, therefore blog sites begin the hunt for a more exciting conspiracy maligning their favorite targets

Although I’m not familiar with all the UK news sites, I don’t think they all are considered blogs. :pac:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2615301/Porn-industry-fury-Chase-bank-sends-hundreds-account-termination-letters-adult-film-stars-considered-risky.html

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/apr/29/porn-stars-high-risk-bank-accounts

Jonny7

Amerika wrote: »

Although I’m not familiar with all the UK news sites, I don’t think they all are considered blogs. :pac:

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/apr/29/porn-stars-high-risk-bank-accounts

The above just echoes what I said - they clearly appear to be shut down due to risk

The speculated relevance to "Operation Choke Point" in the Guardian is pretty common sense

"As Vice News pointed out, the closure comes at a time when many in the banking industry are complaining about the US government's secretive program Operation Choke Point. The program was launched in 2013 reportedly to crack down on online payday lenders and others industries identified as "high risk" for fraud – which, according to the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, includes the pornography industry."

The blog you posted which tries to correlate with something different

From the blog..
"the DOJ is coercing private businesses in an attempt to centrally engineer the American marketplace based on it's own politically biased moral judgements"

That's the difference, the latter plays more towards a certain agenda

The Daily Mail is a tabloid and just uses the story to post up as many pictures of porn actresses as it can, with some print in between

Amerika

Jonny7 wrote: »

The above just echoes what I said - they clearly appear to be shut down due to risk

The speculated relevance to "Operation Choke Point" in the Guardian is pretty common sense

"As Vice News pointed out, the closure comes at a time when many in the banking industry are complaining about the US government's secretive program Operation Choke Point. The program was launched in 2013 reportedly to crack down on online payday lenders and others industries identified as "high risk" for fraud – which, according to the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, includes the pornography industry."

The blog you posted which tries to correlate with something different

From the blog..
"the DOJ is coercing private businesses in an attempt to centrally engineer the American marketplace based on it's own politically biased moral judgements"

That's the difference, the latter plays more towards a certain agenda

The Daily Mail is a tabloid and just uses the story to post up as many pictures of porn actresses as it can, with some print in between

Where in my question did I mention it had to do with “politically biased moral judgements?”

I only provided the link because it seems I’m always required to provide some type of proof on just about any statement I make. Don’t read into things.

Jonny7

Amerika wrote: »

Where in my question did I mention it had to do with “politically biased moral judgements?”

The blog.. you linked

FISMA

Brian? wrote: »

No business should be allowed to discriminate like this, period.

So when women in America feel more comfortable exercising at a "ladies-only" club, that discriminates based on sex, no men allowed, you say no? Would you say yes to any form of gentlemen only, ladies forbidden establishment?

If I own a building and want to rent apartments solely to seniors and decide to make a distinction on renting against families with children, based solely on age and not actual merit, you would say no?

Brian?

FISMA wrote: »

So when women in America feel more comfortable exercising at a "ladies-only" club, that discriminates based on sex, no men allowed, you say no? Would you say yes to any form of gentlemen only, ladies forbidden establishment?

No and no.

If I own a building and want to rent apartments solely to seniors and decide to make a distinction on renting against families with children, based solely on age and not actual merit, you would say no?

It depends on a number of factors.

What is your position on allowing businesses to discriminate against someone based on their sexual preference?

Overheal

Factor clubs and organizations in your thinking, like sororities, fraternities, knights of columbus etc

Brian?

Overheal wrote: »

Factor clubs and organizations in your thinking, like sororities, fraternities, knights of columbus etc

I'd rather not thanks. Just because gender discrimination is a tradition, it doesn't mean it's a tradition worth keeping.

eire4

InTheTrees wrote: »

Religious institutions should have to pay taxes, they effectively get a huge subsidy by not having to pay any.

I would agree with that.