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?