Jump to content

Arizona State Bill 1062, WOW...


Kevbo_Jones

Recommended Posts

http://www.azleg.gov/FormatDocument.asp?inDoc=/legtext/51leg/2r/summary/s.1062ge.doc.htm&Session_ID=112

 

Purpose

 

           Modifies the definition of exercise of religion and allows a person to assert a free exercise claim or defense in a judicial proceeding regardless of whether the government is a party to the proceeding.

 

Background

 

The First Amendment to the United States Constitution provides in relevant part that 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).

 

There is no anticipated fiscal impact to the state General Fund associated with this legislation.

 

 

 

So now Arizona business owners are protected from civil and legal action when singling out specific groups(particularly gays) and granted the right to refuse service under freedom of religion's guise. This is a complicated issue imo. Businesses have always had the ability to refuse service, but it was generally reserved for patrons causing a scene, dressing crazy(nudity), and being intoxicated. With this bill, businesses can in essence put a "no gays allowed" sign on the front door.

 

On one side, I believe in a business' ability to function however they want. On another, I believe people should all be afforded the same rights and opportunities regardless of sexual orientation. The last side, I'm completely opposed to leftwing liberals forcing people to accept their values through legislation. Why would a gay person want to patronize a business that discriminates against them anyway? Why not just take their money elsewhere? The problem with all of this is that Arizona government and conservatives counter-legislated their morality on to others. Both groups are wrong and this legislation isn't a solution. It serves as a huge step backwards.

 

In conclusion, welcome to Arizona. Where it's always 1950. Congratluations, you're now more prejudice than Alabama and Mississippi...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"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)."

 

 

im too stupid to understand what any of that is supposed to mean, but does this mean that i won't be able to go to church in arizona and start fapping anymore?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"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)."

 

 

im too stupid to understand what any of that is supposed to mean, but does this mean that i won't be able to go to church in arizona and start fapping anymore?

 

Probably so bro. Probably so...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From what I understand a business can not refuse service to whomever they see fit. They couldn't say no blacks, no asians, no etc. for example.

 

Now with religion both sides use the first amendment to try and offend the other side. Its a perfect example of how state power complicates the **** out of liberty. Even when theres something as basic as a bill of rights, when you give a group of people guns to enforce it, its no longer basic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...