Arizona's SB 1062
 

Although I'm hesitant to start this discussion here for fear of people going off the deep end, I'm hoping to get a better understanding of SB 1062. Is it just me or does there appear to be a great deal of people that don't have an understanding of what it's all about? I've read so many articles saying it would "broadly deny services" based on religious grounds, but I don't see that in the bill. It seems pretty specific that it would only apply in cases where there is "substantial burden" to a person's exercise of religion, which I would think would only apply in very rare cases.

I'm guessing the reason the law came about was to avoid situations like the one in Colorado where a baker was not allowed to refuse making a cake for a gay wedding because he felt it interfered with his exercise of religion. I don't think it's right that this guy is forced to bake that cake or face consequences.

Now the difference between AZ and CO is that CO has a public accommodation law that includes LGBT protection and AZ does not. Therefore, the example I give above shouldn't happen in AZ (i.e. the baker does have the right to say no to the gay couple). I can't really think of an example of where SB 1062 would be useful in AZ, so I understand why Jan Brewer vetoed it. However, wouldn't something like SB 1062 be a good idea for a state like Colorado?

Don't worry Dave.... People only go off the deep end if you have an opinion that differs from the politically correct "everything is ok or you're a hater" crowd....................Oh wait................

Better put your helmet on :D

it's a very slippery slope, isn't it? I can understand not putting the gun to a minister's head to force her to perform a wedding for a gay couple. That's a church issue through and through. But can the power company turn off the power to the gay couple's wedding reception on religious grounds?

IMHO, it's hard to distinguish this from Jim Crow.... Just go to the gay baker for your cake then....

Ultimately SCOTUS is going to have to decide whether sexual orientation is a fundamental right. If it is, then the existing constitutional protections that would prohibit denial of service based on race or religion would apply equally.

Does the “we reserve the right to refuse service to anyone” not hold any weight now-a-days? Or is it because in the case of the baker it was communicated “I don’t want to serve you because I don’t believe in your lifestyle”. Had they just said we reserve the right….. and left it at that is it legally okay?

don't usually recommend legalzoom for any purpose, but here's a decent, if very superficial, discussion of the "right to refuse service" issue: http://www.legalzoom.com/us-law/equa...refuse-service

As far as I understand, "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone" does not hold weight if the reason behind the refusal is based on race, color, religion or national origin in most states. Some states, such as Colorado, also forbid refusal if it is based on sexual orientation.

There is a simple solution if somebody wants to deny service or product to somebody. Just simply say "I'm sorry, we are just too busy right now to take on more jobs, or cakes, or plumbing projects, or what have you." Just shut up about the whole you're gay, black, green, blue, yellow, big nosed, ugly etc. Simple as that. Don't make it a race, religion, or sexual orentation thing. Not sure why these people have to be such vocal biggots about their business practices.

Exactly. I am of the thought, that if you're gonna be vocal about refusing service to someone for a particular reason, all you're doing is hurting your own business. It's dumb. Money is money. Who cares what they do with their cake after you bake it, as long as they pay you.

Bigots are not very smart.

Seemed to help Chick Fil A get more business..

Chick Fil A never refused service... They do not believe in the lifestyle and do not condone it.. What's going to be interesting is when a gay couple marries and files for spousal benefits at Chick Fil A.. I'm curious of how that will play out..

People need to be more tolerant.. discrimination is discrimination regardless of what wrapper you put on it..

The baker should have kept his opinions to himself and used scheduling conflicts for the excuse to refuse service..

Things like this bill are the reason the US is in the shape it is in now. They are proposing a similar bill here in TN. It's a load of BS. While it was primarily aimed at gays, it opens a door for all types of discrimination. What would have stopped some place from refusing to serving a woman if she was pregnant and unmarried?

Dave, you are not looking at this with an unbiased eye if you believe it "would only apply in very rare cases". Religious groups were the one's behind this and they are outraged it didn't pass. If it would have only been used only in "rare cases", why are they upset it was vetoed?

That's what I meant. As long as you don't have an agenda a business owner should be able to accept work as they choose.

I guess I should say communicated agenda

Which is not to say that what you are suggesting is actually legal either, it's just not overtly racist/sexist/anti-semetic and it harder to prove.

If landlords are no longer saying "we don't rent to [INSERT PROTECTED CLASS HERE]," but it can be show that whites and nonwhites are treated differently, it's still illegal discrimination.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/12/bu...inds.html?_r=0

the door for this kind of thing was opened wider with the allowing of the headdress to be worn in schools, but not a Christian symbol....cross, t-shirt....etc..

the courts have started to protect some religious practices, but not others. If a person truly believes that the Bible defines homosexuality as a sin, it shouldn't matter if the courts think that it's a fundamental right or not..

if they are going to protect religious freedoms for one group, they need to do it for all groups......even if that group is a bunch of "wrinkley old white republican men....."

I think that the baker decision was inconsistent

I guess I should say it "should" only apply in rare cases because proving "substantial burden" should be hard to do. I get the slippery slope argument. I guess my question is how to avoid the baker problem in Colorado. I don't think the baker should have to lie about scheduling conflicts to turn away business. If somebody asks him to put the f-word across a cake, he would certainly be within his rights to tell them no, so why can't he do the same if his religious beliefs forbid him from making a cake with two guys on it?

Cliff, the bible also talks about stoning and beating people for certain actions (adultery, blasphemy, etc.). So if a person believes they should be able to stone their child for being disobedient (pretty sure that's in their too), you think that is acceptable?

It goes both ways - if I don't like a business I won't give them my money. So if someone refuses service it will probably spread quickly. Now if we have to have a law preventing someone being sued for not wanting to do business and another party spending time and efforts to do just that then I really need to wonder where common sense has gone ...

It also got vetoed because of the large corporations such as the NFL, Apple and a few others were putting pressure on them.

I think it's high time society gets their head out of their a$$. Otherwise it's no different than Russia or what's happening in Africa right now. Why is it that the religious people always seem to be offended? If I owned a cake shop and someone said they want their cake to be a cross or have Jesus on it or the Quran as a non religious person I couldn't give a crap. Two guys, girls, a dog and a cat. Who care's. Religion as it's foundation is about being good to yourself and one another yet it never seems to be acted out this way. I love you and you love me....as long as you believe in what I do. Otherwise my god is better than yours and you are going to hell. It's not the word of god. It's a bunch of stories based on the worst game of telephone every played out.

Flame on.

Jeremy, I wasn't necessarily defending the bible. we all know that people pick and choose what parts of it fit them. I'm also not defending or bashing gays. but if the courts are going to mandate what religions can do....it needs to be consistent

similar, but a bit off topic.....ridiculous imo

http://shine.yahoo.com/parenting/cou...172900062.html

That article you post suggests that there's a lot more to it than someone repping the flag. More along the line of gang colors, basically. Doesn't sound like kids are banned from wearing american flag t's any other day of the year, are they?

I'm not terribly familiar w/the case of the wedding cake, but for the sake of argument, the proprietor is being made out to be the bad guy (at least in this thread) because he/she refused and COMMUNICATED the reason for their refusal. But how about this angle. Gay activist group is aware of said baker and his/her views. and KNOWS that if they bring to them an order clearly meant to provoke the baker, that he/she will stand by his/her religious principles. With the full intent of creating a case where one could have been avoided if they had just gone to another baker who would/could have provided the service they were asking for. it's like knowing someone has a dog that will bite you if you enter their yard, then entering their yard intending to get bit, and then calling the media to say "their dog bit me". You could have just kept on moving down the street. This kind of thing happens all the time. This is what happened in the chick fil a situation... an activist group tried to stage a protest of Chick Fil A because of the owners stated religious beliefs. when they could have just not done business w/them. Get your chicken from McDonald's if you don't like the owner of Chick Fil A. In the end, it backfired and Chick Fil A had their largest sales month in the companies history.
If you don't like the way someone conducts business, then don't do business w/them. If they're far enough out of line, the free market will take care of the rest. You can't legislate people to like you.