"So-called" Freedom Bill (wedding, restaurant, legally)

[DetroitN8V]

Originally Posted by LBTRS

Business owners would not have to do business with homosexuals if it was against their religious beliefs. Would make it easier to defend themselves in a law suit.

Incorrect. There is no mention of homosexuals in the bill. It would give a business owner the right to refuse service to ANYONE if they claim doing so burdens their exercise of religion. This would allow people to discriminate against anyone, including straight Christians.

[LBTRS]

Originally Posted by observer53

There's quite a bit more to it than that, although that's the most publicized effect (it's just a bad bill).

Specifically, the legislation proposes to:
-- Expand the state’s definition of the exercise of religion to include both the practice and observance of religion.
-- Allow someone to assert a legal claim of free exercise of religion regardless of whether the government is a party to the proceedings.
-- Expand those protected under the state’s free-exercise-of-religion law to “any individual, association, partnership, corporation, church, religious assembly or institution or other business organization.”
-- Establish wording that says that in order to assert a free-exercise-of-religion defense, the individual, business or church must establish that its action is motivated by a religious belief, that the belief is sincerely held and that the belief is substantially burdened.

http://www.azcentral.com/news/politi...html#protected

I was summarizing the ramifications of the bill that has caused such and uproar to bring the person that asked the question up to speed on the discussion being conducted here. It wasn't meant as a post of the full text of the bill nor was it making a distinction if it was a "good bill or a bad bill".

I do appreciate your pointing out that I didn't post the full legal text of the bill and there is "more to it" as I'm sure it wasn't clear to everyone that my one sentence didn't cover the entire context of the bill.

[goodlife36]

Originally Posted by LBTRS

Business owners would not have to do business with homosexuals if it was against their religious beliefs. Would make it easier to defend themselves in a law suit.

What a strange bill. Will this allow businesses to put a sign up saying no gay people are allowed? That is scary but I am not entirely surprised.

[LBTRS]

Originally Posted by DetroitN8V

Incorrect. There is no mention of homosexuals in the bill. It would give a business owner the right to refuse service to ANYONE if they claim doing so burdens their exercise of religion. This would allow people to discriminate against anyone, including straight Christians.

Quit already...the homosexual ramifications are what everyone is up in arms about and what the OP of this thread is up in arms about. I was simply getting the person that asked the question up to speed on why the OP is upset by the bill.

[DetroitN8V]

Originally Posted by LBTRS

Quit already...the homosexual part is what everyone is up in arms about and what the OP of this thread is up in arms about. I was simply getting the person that asked the question up to speed on why the OP is upset by the bill.

That's one implication of the bill but certainly not the only one. If you want to simplify it, the bill legalizes discrimination if your religion allows it. It's important to provide accurate information.

[aboveordinary]

Originally Posted by LBTRS

Uh, I'm not trying to make it into anything. Again you're twisting my post into something it is not.

It passed on straight party line vote with every senator in the "conservative" party voting for it and every house member in the "conservative" party (except 2) voting for it. It is definitely being advanced as a conservative bill from the religious right.

So was it a "conservative" move or a "liberal/progressive" move?

I know what you mean! Arizona is being run by social conservatives. There have already been bills in the last few years that social conservatives have passed. In 2010 it started with the immigration bill and then followed with abortion restriction bills. So really, it is not a surprise that a bill like this was passed. Ever since that immigration bill was signed into law, Arizona has been looked at as an extreme right wing state filled with bigotry. Not everybody there is like that obviously, but there has to be enough people like that in the state because these people keep getting voted in! I think Jan Brewer is a terrible governor to allow these bills to go through.

[LBTRS]

Originally Posted by aboveordinary

I know what you mean! Arizona is being run by social conservatives. There have already been bills in the last few years that social conservatives have passed. In 2010 it started with the immigration bill and then followed with abortion restriction bills. So really, it is not surprise that a bill like this was passed. Ever since that immigration bill was signed into law, Arizona has been looked at like an extreme right wing state filled with bigotry. Not everybody there is like that obviously, but there has to be enough people like that in the state because these people keep getting voted in! I think Jan Brewer is a terrible governor to allow these bills to go through.

Exactly my point, good to see someone in this thread can read.

[LBTRS]

Originally Posted by DetroitN8V

That's one implication of the bill but certainly not the only one. If you want to simplify it, the bill legalizes discrimination if your religion allows it. It's important to provide accurate information.

It is the ONLY implication that is causing all the fuss.

Accurate information huh? The bill can't "legalize discrimination if your religion allows it" because certain groups are protected by federal law which would protect those people and prevent discrimination against them. Homosexuals are not protected by federal law so that is why this bill has caused so much fuss among the LGBT community.

[DetroitN8V]

Originally Posted by LBTRS

It is the ONLY implication that is causing all the fuss.

Accurate information huh? The bill can't "legalize discrimination if your religion allows it" because certain groups are protected by federal law which would protect those people and prevent discrimination against them. Homosexuals are not protected by federal law so that is why this bill has caused so much fuss among the LGBT community.

It's my understanding that this bill supersedes protected class laws IF the business owner can show the burden to their religious "values". I may be wrong but that's what I thought I read.

[LBTRS]

Originally Posted by DetroitN8V

It's my understanding that this bill supersedes protected class laws IF the business owner can show the burden to their religious "values". I may be wrong but that's what I thought I read.

Lol, it's an Arizona bill...it can't "supersede" federal law. It can only have ramifications against groups that are not protected under federal law.

So much for accuracy...