Arizona Senate: Business owners can cite religion to refuse service to gays

The Arizona Daily Star ^ | February 19, 2014 | Howard Fischer

[2ndDivisionVet]

PHOENIX — State senators voted Wednesday to let businesses refuse to serve gays based on owners' "sincerely held" religious beliefs.

The 17-13 vote along party lines, with Republicans in the majority, came after supporters defeated an attempt to extend existing employment laws that bar discrimination based on religion and race to also include sexual orientation. Sen. Steve Yarbrough, R-Chandler, said that's a separate issue from what he is trying to do.

But Sen. Steve Gallardo, D-Phoenix, said that's precisely the issue.

"The bill opens the door for discrimination against gays and lesbians," he said.

Yarbrough, however, said foes of SB 1062 are twisting what his legislation says.

"This bill is not about discrimination," he said. "It's about preventing discrimination against people who are clearly living out their faith."

A similar measure is awaiting a vote in the House, probably later today.

Arizona already has laws which protect individuals and businesses from any state action which substantially interferes with their right to exercise their religion. This bill extends that protection to cover what essentially are private transactions.

The push follows a decision by the New Mexico Supreme Court which said a gay couple could sue a photographer who refused on religious grounds to take pictures of their nuptials. Yarbrough's legislation would preclude such a ruling here.

But Gallardo said this legislation makes one person's religious freedom an attack on others.

"We all have the right to our religious beliefs," he said.

"But I do not agree that we have the right to discriminate because of our religious beliefs," Gallardo continued. "I do not believe we have to throw our religious beliefs to others that don't share our same beliefs."

Sen. Lynne Pancrazi, D-Yuma, said that, issues of discrimination aside, the legislation is bad for business. She feared Arizona state would face the same boycotts it did when former Gov. Evan Mecham rescinded a state holiday honoring slain civil rights leader Martin Luther King Jr. in the 1980s and after Arizona enacted SB 1070 in 2010, a measure aimed at dealing with illegal immigration which some saw as an attack on Hispanics.

But Yarbrough said foes are missing the point of why the Founding Fathers crafted religious protections in the First Amendment.

"One's faith, at least in America, extended to the workplace, to the public square and to all aspects of our lives," he said. And Yarbrough said SB 1062 is "aimed at preventing the rising attempts at discriminating against folks because they are sincere and serious about the free exercise of their religious faith."

Sen. Kelli Ward, R-Lake Havasu, agreed.

"A person does not lose their First Amendment freedoms when they start a business," she said. "In America, people are free to live and work according to their faith."

Foes, however, sought to concentrate on what they said would be more concrete effects of such a law.

Sen. Robert Meza, D-Phoenix, said the measure would allow a hotel operator who believes Mormonism is a cult to refuse to provide rooms to a family who walked in wearing Brigham Young T-shirts, indicating their religion.

Yarbrough did not specifically dispute that. But he said the question of whether such an action would be allowed would be based on whether the government has a "compelling interest" in forbidding such discrimination and whether any laws were the least restrictive necessary.

Sen. Steve Farley, D-Tucson, wondered openly whether SB 1062 would provide new license for people like Warren Jeffs, head of the polygamous Fundamentalist Church of Latter-Day Saints, to act against those who refuse to follow his edicts.

And Sen. Ed Ableser, D-Tempe, said the wording of the measure even would allow those who worship Satan to use their beliefs as a legal shield.

Yarbrough, however, said the First Amendment is broadly crafted for a reason.

"I understand that the freedom of religion can be inconvenient," he said. "But this is what our Constitution contemplates.''

Unable to block the measure, Gallardo tried what he called a notice requirement for those businesses that want to assert their religious freedom to refuse to serve gays.

"If there is an organization or a business out there that wants to use the defense of religious freedom, I believe that consumers have a right to know," he said. Yarbrough, however, got the GOP majority to reject the amendment.

Gallardo said opposition to consumer notice is no surprise. Any firm which openly advertises such discrimination would be boycotted and go out of business, he said.

[2ndDivisionVet]

Comments?

[MeganC]

The Republicans should phrase this as ‘protecting the rights of devout Muslims’ and then sit back and watch as liberal heads explode.

[Secret Agent Man]

people have the ability to discriminate, the govern,ent is the one forbidden to.

freedom of association. freedom to enter into a contract voluntarily. freedom to refuse service for not agreeing to terms and conditions.

swanky restaurants refuse service to people who don’t meet their dress codes. most businesses require shoes and shirts or no service and leave.

conversely it’d be like the store demanding every person who walks in, must then buy something or use one of their services. just for walking in. they can’t leave the store without frst buying a good or service. this is exactly what is going on, on the other side of the counter.

[Prince of Space]

I love my adopted state!

[lavaroise]

It is a sad day now that we have to legislate that sexual and political harassment by gays is a valid complaint.

[lavaroise]

It is a sad day now that we have to legislate that sexual and political harassment by gays is a valid complaint... welcome to Federal encroachment on the State.

Now they have a provocation.

[CharlesWayneCT]

Sen. Robert Meza, D-Phoenix, said the measure would allow a hotel operator who believes Mormonism is a cult to refuse to provide rooms to a family who walked in wearing Brigham Young T-shirts, indicating their religion.

If the law is worded properly, it would not do this. We don't want laws that allow us to discriminate against other people for what they ARE. We want laws that allow us to NOT participate in sinful actions of other people.

So, for example, the law may allow a hotel operator who believes in the 10 commandments to refuse to rent a room with a single bed to a non-married couple, based on the presumption that the non-married couple wants the room to have sex.

But the gay marriage thing is the clearest and easiest of all to understand -- we KNOW they are getting married, because that is the point, so if a person has a religious objection to gay marriage, they should not be forced to provide services that support a wedding they do not agree with.

I would note that if you actually run a hotel, you probably would not be allowed to discriminate against people who are not married, or discriminate against gay couples, because there are generally laws specifically about that.

I would be happy to photograph a gay person, even if they were getting married, so long as they were not having a gay marriage. So it would not be discrimination because they were gay (what they are), it would be about what they were DOING.

[CharlesWayneCT]

When the musical performers cancelled their acts and refused to perform for the boy scouts because of what they were — why did all these liberals not scream about how those performers were discriminating? Because that is what America is about — the right of people to offer their services as they see fit, to associate with whom they wish to associate.

[RightOnTheBorder]

Why do I have to site my religion, and why do I need a law. A better approach would be to repeal the “civil rights” laws that created this slippery slope which has led to persecution of Christians.

[tuffydoodle]

We’re going about this the wrong way. We need to get those nutjobs from Westboro Baptist Church to find a gay owned bakery and ask them for a cake celebrating something really offensive to gays. Then sit back and watch the fun!

[tuffydoodle]

I heard on the radio just today that the bakery who refused to bake the gay wedding cake had made lots of bakery items for gay people they were friends with, just refused the wedding cake based on their religious beliefs. Doesn’t seem unreasonable to me.

[1010RD]

Discrimination is human nature. We’re always judging. It’s also Constitutional. We have the right to free association. Why wouldn’t that extend to your business? At the time of the Founding there were still religious colonies. You have freedom of thought.

We need to end the “discrimination is bad” meme. Only dummies don’t discriminate.

[1010RD]

Note that the article spends 3/4s of the time on the “harm” as opposed to the principle embedded in individual liberty - freedom of thought and association.

[MikeyB806]

The issue is behavior, not orientation. We should be allowed to discriminate against sexual behavior, which could include, e.g., a straight guy who engages in homosexual sodomy:

“...[W]e discriminate, both in public and private, against sexually immoral behavior all the time.

We discriminate against people who engage in prostitution. (You can ask the Secret Service about that.) Private companies discriminate against those whose sexual conduct make them poor representatives of company values. (You can ask Tiger Woods all about that, too.) Private companies discriminate against executives who sexually harass employees. (You can ask Mark Hurd, former CEO of Hewlett-Packard, all about that.)

We discriminate against adults, even priests, who have sex with children. We discriminate against teachers who have affairs with students. We discriminate against teachers who moonlight in the porn industry. We discriminate against students who engage in sexting. We discriminate against rapists. We discriminate against those who expose sexual partners unknowingly to the AIDS virus. We discriminate against those adults who commit statutory rape against minors. We discriminate against homosexuals and prostitutes by refusing to allow them to give blood.

The point is this: we discriminate against sexually immoral and inappropriate behavior all the time, and homosexual behavior is sexually immoral and inappropriate.”

From http://www.afa.net/Blogs/BlogPost.aspx?id=2147522138

[CedarDave]

NM list PING!

I may not PING for all New Mexico articles. To see New Mexico articles by topic click here: New Mexico Topics

To see NM articles by keyword, click here: New Mexico Keywords

To see the NM Message Page, click here: New Mexico Messages

(The NM list is available on my FR homepage for anyone to use. Let me know if you wish to be added or removed from the list.)
(For ABQ Journal articles requiring a subscription, scroll down to the bottom of the page to view the article for free after answering a question or watching a short video commercial.)

[DoodleDawg]

The Republicans should phrase this as ‘protecting the rights of devout Muslims’...

Well won't it? In Canada Muslim cab drivers have refused to pick up a blind person with a seeing eye dog on religious grounds. In the U.S. they've refused to pick up people with liquor for the same reason. Wouldn't this law protect their right to do so?

[Ruy Dias de Bivar]

WE RESERVE THE RIGHT TO REFUSE SERVICE TO ANYONE!

I still remember these signs in stores years ago.

[Cyber Liberty]

It’s sitting on Brewer’s desk. She’s in DeeCee right now, and says she’ll decide by next Friday, which is the deadline. Apparently she only just now heard about the bill, on the internet. Sort of like how Obastard is perpetually surprised by stories in the papers.

I’m betting she’ll Veto it. I don’t think there are enough votes to override.

[USAF80]

If a Muslim cab driver owned the cab then yea he can refuse to pick you up. I think its a different story if he is working for a cab company that is not Muslim.

I have lived in Muslim countries and they pick you up if you have alcohol. I never saw a blind person with a seeing eye dog so I don’t know about that one.