Please someone copy and paste the text of the bill that some are labeling “Jim Crow laws for gays”. I’m not seeing it. Words struck out is wording being removed from the original bill, and the all capitalized words is newly inserted language.
1 Be it enacted by the Legislature of the State of Arizona:
2 Section 1. Section 41-1493, Arizona Revised Statutes, is amended to
3 read:
4 41-1493. Definitions
5 In this article, unless the context otherwise requires:
6 1. “Demonstrates” means meets the burdens of going forward with the
7 evidence and of persuasion.
8 2. “Exercise of religion” means the PRACTICE OR OBSERVANCE OF
9 RELIGION, INCLUDING THE ability to act or refusal to act in a manner
10 substantially motivated by a religious belief, whether or not the exercise is
11 compulsory or central to a larger system of religious belief.
12 3. “Government” includes this state and any agency or political
13 subdivision of this state.
14 4. “Nonreligious assembly or institution” includes all membership
15 organizations, theaters, cultural centers, dance halls, fraternal orders,
16 amphitheaters and places of public assembly regardless of size that a
17 government or political subdivision allows to meet in a zoning district by
18 code or ordinance or by practice.
19 5. “Person” includesa religious assembly orinstitutionANY
20 INDIVIDUAL, ASSOCIATION, PARTNERSHIP, CORPORATION, CHURCH, RELIGIOUS ASSEMBLY
21 OR INSTITUTION, ESTATE, TRUST, FOUNDATION OR OTHER LEGAL ENTITY.
22 6. “Political subdivision” includes any county, city, including a
23 charter city, town, school district, municipal corporation or special
24 district, any board, commission or agency of a county, city, including a
25 charter city, town, school district, municipal corporation or special
26 district or any other local public agency.
27 7. “Religion-neutral zoning standards”:
28 (a) Means numerically definable standards such as maximum occupancy
29 codes, height restrictions, setbacks, fire codes, parking space requirements,
30 sewer capacity limitations and traffic congestion limitations.
31 (b) Does not include:
32 (i) Synergy with uses that a government holds as more desirable.
33 (ii) The ability to raise tax revenues.
34 8. “Suitable alternate property” means a financially feasible property
35 considering the person’s revenue sources and other financial obligations with
36 respect to the person’s exercise of religion and with relation to spending
37 that is in the same zoning district or in a contiguous area that the person
38 finds acceptable for conducting the person’s religious mission and that is
39 large enough to fully accommodate the current and projected seating capacity
40 requirements of the person in a manner that the person deems suitable for the
41 person’s religious mission.
42 9. “Unreasonable burden” means that a person is prevented from using
43 the person’s property in a manner that the person finds satisfactory to
44 fulfill the person’s religious mission. SB 1062– 2 –
1 Sec. 2. Section 41-1493.01, Arizona Revised Statutes, is amended to
2 read:
3 41-1493.01. Free exercise of religion protected; definition
4 A. Free exercise of religion is a fundamental right that applies in
5 this state even if laws, rules or other government actions are facially
6 neutral.
7 B. Except as provided in subsection C, governmentOF THIS SECTION,
8 STATE ACTION shall not substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion
9 even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability.
10 C.GovernmentSTATE ACTION may substantially burden a person’s
11 exercise of religion only ifitTHE OPPOSING PARTY demonstrates that
12 application of the burden to thepersonPERSON’S EXERCISE OF RELIGION IN THIS
13 PARTICULAR INSTANCE is both:
14 1. In furtherance of a compelling governmental interest.
15 2. The least restrictive means of furthering that compelling
16 governmental interest.
17 D. A person whose religious exercise is burdened in violation of this
18 section may assert that violation as a claim or defense in a judicial
19 proceeding,and obtain appropriate relief against a governmentREGARDLESS OF
20 WHETHER THE GOVERNMENT IS A PARTY TO THE PROCEEDING. THE PERSON ASSERTING
21 SUCH A CLAIM OR DEFENSE MAY OBTAIN APPROPRIATE RELIEF. A party who prevails
22 in any action to enforce this article against a government shall recover
23 attorney fees and costs.
24 E.InFOR THE PURPOSES OF this section, the term substantially burden
25 is intended solely to ensure that this article is not triggered by trivial,
26 technical or de minimis infractions.
27 F. FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS SECTION, “STATE ACTION” MEANS ANY ACTION
28 BY THE GOVERNMENT OR THE IMPLEMENTATION OR APPLICATION OF ANY LAW, INCLUDING
29 STATE AND LOCAL LAWS, ORDINANCES, RULES, REGULATIONS AND POLICIES, WHETHER
30 STATUTORY OR OTHERWISE, AND WHETHER THE IMPLEMENTATION OR APPLICATION IS MADE
31 OR ATTEMPTED TO BE MADE BY THE GOVERNMENT OR NONGOVERNMENTAL PERSONS.
Sifting Reality 
Coincidentally, I had just read the bill before visiting here. I don’t see a problem with the bill except for two possibilities.
1. The types of lawsuits this is meant to prevent are those we have seen involving the photographer, the florist and the baker, all of whom did not want to provide their product or service to help celebrate what they believe is a sinful lifestyle. But those happened in states with preposterous “protected class” laws that AZ does not have. Thus, the bill is seen as superfluous by some (and politically awkward for others).
2. With the signing of this bill, homosexuals will not be able to target businesses they believe would not wish to participate in homosexual weddings for harassment for daring to disagree with their point of view. This makes the agenda of forcing the nation to accept their immoral and behavior as morally neutral much harder to accomplish.
Other than those two points, there really isn’t any problem with this bill for those who understand what the 1st Amendment was meant to protect.
Frankly, I don’t understand all the hype. It’s already legal to refuse service to homosexuals in Arizona, since they aren’t a protected class. I don’t know. Just a bunch of manufactured outrage, it seems to me.
I own a photography business in Michigan. And I say without hesitation that government will never compel me to photograph a homosexual wedding, ceremony, or whatever other name they wish to give it. I won’t do it, period. I don’t care if they put me in jail, sue me, whatever. It won’t happen.
Arizona Governor Jan Brewer vetoed this stupid bill, thereby saving the state of Arizona from the stupidity of the Christian Taliban. It is about time for the United States of America to deny the Christians the right to impose their own brand of Shariah law upon the sane, educated, tolerant citizens of this country.
Christianity is a religion in decline. There aren’t enough old white people to sustain the bigotry of the past. So you might as well accept the reality that you are living in the 21st century, in a secular post-Christian nation, and that your racism, bigotry and xenophobia are relics of America’s dismal past.
The Christian god doesn’t exist. The Bible’s morality is abhorrent. Thank God for atheism!
David
Nothing of substance to offer?
Hello John,
You ask, “Nothing of substance to offer? ” That’s an ironic question coming from a person such as yourself.
Jan Brewer vetoed the stupid bill. Christians who are unhappy because they cannot discriminate against gays can go straight to hell.
What sort of substantial discussion of *any* matter do you offer, John? I’ve already wasted some time attempting to engage in a discussion with you and you revealed yourself to be a dishonest and dishonorable person.
I’d just as soon waste my time attempting to reason with the Jehovah’s Witnesses rather than you.
Funny, youre ok degrading Christians and calling them names all while complaining about them being intolerant.
Stop your whining, John. In degrading Christians I am only following your own scriptures:
“Our dedication to Christ makes us look like fools … ” http://biblehub.com/1_corinthians/4-10.htm
Christians have felt perpetually persecuted for nearly 2000 years, which is (like) only 1800 years longer than Christians have been actually persecuted. It was rough there for Christians for a century or two but then Constantine came along an gay-married religion and politics and at that point Christians began beating their crosses into swords and killing all sorts of minorities beginning first with the Jews, then the so-called heretics, then the pagans, then Catholics began killing Protestants and Protestants began killing Catholics, then those two united in committing genocide against all the nations that they collectively colonized, and so forth.
After all these millennia of perpetual warfare, violence, oppression and genocide it turns out that God must have been distracted by all the gay sex and that’s why he never bothered telling the Christians to obey the commandment, “Thou Shalt Not Kill!”
Of course, a non-existent god cannot help but remain a silent god.
Now I remember you David. You were the one who cant have a civil discussion. Take care.
You cannot engage in a civil discussion, John Barron, because you aren’t honest enough to refrain from editing or deleting responses. Have you forgotten?
Oh well, another glorious day in the history of Christianity. Christians have spent 2000 years waiting in vain for Jesus to return. He hasn’t returned because he isn’t coming back. Jesus died and ceased existing a long time ago.
I think every business owner should be able refuse service for any reason. Eventually, if the reasons are repugnant enough to the broader public, the business will either have to change policy or pack up.
My view is more tolerant than yours. Your view would require a Jewish, black, or gay business owner to service a KKK event. It would require a gay business owner to service the Westboro Baptist Church. I think they shouldnt have to if they dont wamt to. Not you. You tgink the gay owner should have to do it. The AZ bill would have prevented that.
I havent forgotten your rudeness and hostility. It doesnt help foster productive discussion. Thats why your ability to comment here is limited and wholly at my discression.
Heard a great analogy today.
Let’s say a young couple ventures into a florist shop (owned by a homosexual, who identifies as a Christian) in east central Kansas and begins to contract for flowers for a wedding. At one point the (homosexual) florist asks “So, where is the service?”. The bride answers “At the Westboro Baptist Church.”.
Who is willing to force the florist to service that wedding?
“Christians have felt perpetually persecuted for nearly 2000 years,”
I’m sure the relatives of the 59 Christian students murdered by Boko Haran terrorists will find great comfort in the lack of persecution of Christians.
Then I see that you preempted the great analogy I heard today. Darn you, John Barron.
Hello John Barron,
You said, “I think every business owner should be able refuse service for any reason. Eventually, if the reasons are repugnant enough to the broader public, the business will either have to change policy or pack up. ”
Too bad that the country doesn’t agree with your opinion regarding the right of business owners to refuse service to anyone based upon the business owner’s racism, bigotry and/or prejudice. You are on the wrong side of history on this issue (as on all other issues, by the way).
You whine, ” Your view would require a Jewish, black, or gay business owner to service a KKK event. It would require a gay business owner to service the Westboro Baptist Church. ”
Do the KKK and Westboro Baptist Church actually do business with Jewish, black or gay business owners? You might have some insider information regarding these organizations and their business dealings since your views are so similar to their own.
David,
I’m willing to bet the majority of Americans support religious freedom. It all depends on the way the issue is styled. Sure, claim it’s a matter of bigotry rather than religious freedom and you’re probably right. But define it correctly and see what people say. It’s not bigotry; it’s religious freedom.
It doesn’t matter if the KKK or Westboro Baptist Church does business with Jews, blacks, or gays. It’s the whole point. We wouldn’t force a gay florist to cater to Westboro Baptists! Similarly, we shouldn’t force a Christian to cater to homosexuals. By definition, this is equality. I thought that’s what you liberals wanted? Equality.
Hello Terrance,
You claim, “It’s not bigotry; it’s religious freedom.” Religious freedom and bigotry are often indistinguishable. Isn’t this the reason why the lunatic Christian conservative states have enacted laws forbidding Shariah Law?
Business owners who are religiously forbidden from honoring the constitutional rights of American citizens ought to get out of business because they aren’t equipping to handle their business. Christians must accept the reality that they live in a multicultural country which is populated by numerous people who happen to live in the 21st century rather than living 2000 years ago according to the ignorance and prejudice of the Bible.
You say, “We wouldn’t force a gay florist to cater to Westboro Baptists! Similarly, we shouldn’t force a Christian to cater to homosexuals. ” You are seriously confused about the actual behavior of the KKK and Westboro Baptist Church and Christian bigots such as yourself against the civil rights of minorities, including the persecution of business owners because of their sexual orientation, religious beliefs, race, culture and so forth.
But I will point out the obvious: John Barron brought up the KKK and Westboro baptists because his bigotry, prejudice and religiously motivated hatred are shared with these groups. Christians really do rank among the most evil people to ever afflict this planet with their behaviors, words, thoughts and existence.
You end by asking, “By definition, this is equality. I thought that’s what you liberals wanted? Equality.”
You really aren’t educated, are you, Terrance? Get thee to a civics class and learn something about the dismal history of your own nation. Christians have bloody hands. Christians are the persecuted. Christians are upset because they are losing their right to discriminate against another minority, just as the Christians were upset because of desegregation and the end of the anti- miscegenation laws.
Christians cannot seem to exist without hating some group or another. The United States of America is a secular nation for a reason.
As explained by Johan Goldberg (and others)…
Arizona’s religious freedom statute was modeled on a similar federal law signed by Bill Clinton with large bipartisan majorities in both houses. It would have allowed small businesses to decline work that violated their consciences, unless the government could show a compelling reason why such refusal was unreasonable or unjust.
A simple reading of the proposed bill should have made that clear to most people, including Jan Brewer.
Hello David, you poor disturbed person,
” Religious freedom and bigotry are often indistinguishable.”
Only in the fevered imaginings of people like yourself, perhaps, but not in the real world.
“Isn’t this the reason why the lunatic Christian conservative states have enacted laws forbidding Shariah Law?”
No. First of all, there are no “lunatic Christian conservative states” of which I am aware. But the reasons forbidding Sharia Law has as much to do with preserving the secular gov’t as anything any atheist or libertarian could offer. Sharia puts islam above man’s law and would force society to adhere to that religion. What’s more, the dictates of that “faith” promote vicious acts against non-believers and those they would call apostates…acts which conflict with American laws and Constitutional protections. Bigotry, then, has absolutely nothing to do with the reasonable rejection of Sharia in this country. Try again.
“Business owners who are religiously forbidden from honoring the constitutional rights of American citizens ought to get out of business because they aren’t equipping to handle their business.”
Perhaps selling guns to gang-bangers should be defended if the primary objection to doing so by a gun-dealer is based upon his faith? What an idiotic misunderstanding of the 1st Amendment!
“Christians must accept the reality that they live in a multicultural country which is populated by numerous people who happen to live in the 21st century rather than living 2000 years ago according to the ignorance and prejudice of the Bible.”
Find me a Christian that lives under such a fictitious delusion. Rather, Christian business owners who refuse to provide their products or services for use in ceremonies that would make them complicit in the sin of the consumer in question are acting in accordance with their faith and the Constitutional Amendment that protects their decision in the matter.
“You are seriously confused about the actual behavior of the KKK and Westboro Baptist Church and Christian bigots such as yourself against the civil rights of minorities, including the persecution of business owners because of their sexual orientation, religious beliefs, race, culture and so forth.”
Not at all. But you are seriously ignorant of the ramifications of forcing anyone to act against their religious beliefs. WE, on the other hand, would defend the homosexual against being forced to provide his product or service for hateful celebrations by Westboro or the KKK. YOUR idiocy would force them to, basically, cut their own throats.
This next David quote is simply rank stupidity unsupported by anything other than David’s personal hatred for that which he opposes:
“John Barron brought up the KKK and Westboro baptists because his bigotry, prejudice and religiously motivated hatred are shared with these groups.”
Here’s another:
“Christians really do rank among the most evil people to ever afflict this planet with their behaviors, words, thoughts and existence.”
And yet another:
” Christians are upset because they are losing their right to discriminate against another minority”
This last one shows a complete lack of understanding for why anyone, Christian or otherwise, would support SB1062. David apparently is unaware of the large numbers of Americans who disagree with the judgements against the photographer, baker, florits, et al.
“Christians cannot seem to exist without hating some group or another.”
It’s incredible just how idiotic David tries to be. My how he projects!
No, it’s not. Sharia Law simply has no place in the American Justice System. It’s based on the Koran and the teachings of Mohammed, not the U.S. Constitution, English Common Law, or any set of legal principles upon which this country was founded.
I see. So your argument is that business owners must forfeit their First Amendment Rights upon becoming business owners? Stupid.
Fact is, Christian business owners aren’t imposing their beliefs on anyone. It’s quite the opposite, in fact, when these faithful people are treated as criminals for having the courage of their convictions.
Fallacy.
Fallacy.
Far more so than you, it seems. I’m not using fallacies and personal bias to support my arguments. Nor am I preaching tolerance while simultaneously remaining decidedly intolerant of opposing views…
The fact that Sharia is based in the Quran that is objectionable to me. After all, our justice system is bible based. Its the fact that Sharia supercedes all other rules of law that is wrong. Thats why conservative states have banned it
Hello Marshalart,
You say, “But the reasons forbidding Sharia Law has as much to do with preserving the secular gov’t as anything any atheist or libertarian could offer. Sharia puts islam above man’s law and would force society to adhere to that religion.”
This is specifically why we have a secular government in the United States of America. Our nation rejected a Christianity because of all the horrendous things that Christians did to each other in Europe on behalf of their religious governments.
You say, “hat’s more, the dictates of that “faith” promote vicious acts against non-believers and those they would call apostates…acts which conflict with American laws and Constitutional protections. Bigotry, then, has absolutely nothing to do with the reasonable rejection of Sharia in this country. ”
Christians have a history of committing vicious acts against homosexuals and various other minorities throughout the history of Christianity. Hence this is the reason why Arizona is not allowed to legalize the persecution and abuse of homosexuals by business owners even if those business owners happen to adhere to a religion of hatred and intolerance such as Christianity.
You say, “Perhaps selling guns to gang-bangers should be defended if the primary objection to doing so by a gun-dealer is based upon his faith? What an idiotic misunderstanding of the 1st Amendment! ”
I would respond to the above statement if it was at all coherent and comprehensible. Please elucidate.
You say, “ather, Christian business owners who refuse to provide their products or services for use in ceremonies that would make them complicit in the sin of the consumer in question are acting in accordance with their faith and the Constitutional Amendment that protects their decision in the matter. ”
It is not the government’s job to protect business owners from committing sin against the dictates of their own religion. If you adhere to a religion of intolerance and hate and therefore cannot do a particular job you should get into another line of work which would not involve committing said sin.
You say, “This last one shows a complete lack of understanding for why anyone, Christian or otherwise, would support SB1062. ”
Christians who support SB 1062 aren’t at all different from the Christians of the 1950′s who supported segregation and laws against interracial marriage.
Hello Terrance,
You say, “Sharia Law simply has no place in the American Justice System. It’s based on the Koran and the teachings of Mohammed, not the U.S. Constitution, English Common Law, or any set of legal principles upon which this country was founded. ”
In the same way, any laws which are likewise established upon the Bible and the anonymous author(s) of Leviticus has no place in the United States of America. Christians who seek to use the law to impose their morality upon others aren’t at all different from Muslims seeking to do the same according to the dictates of their own religion.
The First Amendment forbids both Sharia Law and Mosaic Law. It doesn’t matter in the least whether Christians find homosexuality morally offensive and sinful. The opinion of Christians and the dictates of the Bible are equally irrelevant according to the Constitution of the United States.
You say, ” So your argument is that business owners must forfeit their First Amendment Rights upon becoming business owners? Stupid. ”
The First Amendment does not serve to protect bigots from suffering the consequences of their bigotry. A business owner isn’t allowed to discriminate. Christians lost this privilege decades ago specifically because of their own sinfulness: racial prejudice, discrimination, “separate but equal” and so forth.
The Christians were quite happy to use their businesses to impose racial discrimination so the Constitution had to be amended to forbid such behavior in the future, as a consequence Christians cannot discriminate against homosexuals today.
You say, “Fact is, Christian business owners aren’t imposing their beliefs on anyone. It’s quite the opposite, in fact, when these faithful people are treated as criminals for having the courage of their convictions.”
Boo hoo hoo! Christians have spent the last fifty years whining and I’m very pleased to see your tears. Keep on crying Christians … you’ve earned it!
You say, “Nor am I preaching tolerance while simultaneously remaining decidedly intolerant of opposing views…”
Why do bigots keep on pleading for tolerance so that they might continue to behave intolerantly? Intolerant people should expect to be handled intolerantly.
Hello John Barron,
You say, “The fact that Sharia is based in the Quran that is objectionable to me. After all, our justice system is bible based. ”
No. Our justice system is not Bible based. The United States of America is a secular nation established by the children of the enlightenment who did not believe the Bible, rejected the deity of Jesus, and doubted the existence of any god, including the monstrous god of the Bible.
The Qur’an and the Bible have equal status under the Constitution. Neither book is allowed to impose itself upon the citizens of the USA. Christians and Muslims are identical under the law. You are allowed to believe whatever silly ideas you wish but you cannot impose those silly ideas upon your neighbors even within the context of owning a business.
The nation was founded by christians who intended christians and christianity to be fully comingled with the government as evidenced by the earliest governing documents requiring it.
https://siftingreality.com/2012/10/09/god-and-christianity-in-early-american-government/
Learn some history.
Hello John Barron,
You say, “he nation was founded by christians who intended christians and christianity to be fully comingled with the government as evidenced by the earliest governing documents requiring it.”
No:
http://www.britannica.com/blogs/2007/02/the-us-founding-fathers-their-religious-beliefs/
The United States of America is not a Christian nation:
“Art. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.”
http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/treaty_tripoli.html
So this issue is settled with objective finality: The United States of America is a secular nation with a Constitution which guarantees that it shall always remain secular.
Ive written on the treaty of tripoli. It was a response to the muslim nations and how they use islam to govern. We are not in any sense a christian nation in the same way a muslim nation is a muslim nation.
Learn some history. Context helps.
The United States’ legal foundation is indeed Judeo-Christian. Regardless, your useless comment doesn’t address the inherent First Amendment problems that comes with forcing Christians to violate their beliefs.
The government cannot force any citizen, Jew, Christian, or Muslim, to violate their religious beliefs, and if you don’t understand that, then you don’t understand the First Amendment or its application.
Fortunately, it’s not bigotry; it’s religious belief. But I know, I know. You lamebrain liberals believe views different from your own are hateful, bigoted, and unworthy of respect.
No reasonable interpretation of Christian theology allows racism, and since it was the Christian Churches fighting for equality among races in that era, your argument fails.
Hello John Barron,
You say, “Ive written on the treaty of tripoli. It was a response to the muslim nations and how they use islam to govern. We are not in any sense a christian nation in the same way a muslim nation is a muslim nation. ”
We agree! The United States of America isn’t a Christian nation at all, our nation is secular, our government is secular, and it is not the government’s job to impose archaic relics of Israel’s barbaric past upon the citizens even if Christians consider the Mosaic law the source of their own morality.
Moses was wrong about a great many things and the Law of Moses isn’t at all compatible with the Constitution. For that reason the opinions of Christians regarding morality is absolutely and eternally irrelevant and shall remain so.
Hello Terrance,
You say, “The government cannot force any citizen, Jew, Christian, or Muslim, to violate their religious beliefs, and if you don’t understand that, then you don’t understand the First Amendment or its application. ”
No one is being forced to do anything. If your religion promotes bigotry, prejudice and hatred you can avoid constitutional problems by simply finding yourself a different career which does not involve the believer in sin.
Since I am opposed to alcoholism I won’t sell alcohol. I need not impose my moral principles upon everyone else by re-enacting Prohibition.
David
I think youve worn out my willingness to countenance your style of expressing yourself. I think its pretty clear that youre not here for discussion. I wont be allowing your comments until they express less vitriol and hostility.
Have a nice day.