So we know what is being discussed (and it is no more than a mild statement of what our God-given rights protected by the First Amendment already demand), I am posting the actual, full text bill http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/51leg/2r/bills/sb1062s.pdf as approved by the legislature and now vetoed by the RINO in the Governor’s Mansion.
- i -
Senate Engrossed
State of Arizona
Senate
Fifty-first Legislature
Second Regular Session
2014
SENATE BILL 1062
AN ACT
AMENDING SECTIONS 41-1493 AND 41-1493.01, ARIZONA REVISED STATUTES; RELATING
TO THE FREE EXERCISE OF RELIGION.
(TEXT OF BILL BEGINS ON NEXT PAGE)
S.B. 1062
- 1 -
1 Be it enacted by the Legislature of the State of Arizona:
2 Section 1. Section 41-1493, Arizona Revised Statutes, is amended to
3 read:
4 41-1493. Definitions
5 In this article, unless the context otherwise requires:
6 1. “Demonstrates” means meets the burdens of going forward with the
7 evidence and of persuasion.
8 2. “Exercise of religion” means the PRACTICE OR OBSERVANCE OF
9 RELIGION, INCLUDING THE ability to act or refusal to act in a manner
10 substantially motivated by a religious belief, whether or not the exercise is
11 compulsory or central to a larger system of religious belief.
12 3. “Government” includes this state and any agency or political
13 subdivision of this state.
14 4. “Nonreligious assembly or institution” includes all membership
15 organizations, theaters, cultural centers, dance halls, fraternal orders,
16 amphitheaters and places of public assembly regardless of size that a
17 government or political subdivision allows to meet in a zoning district by
18 code or ordinance or by practice.
19 5. “Person” includes a religious assembly or institution ANY
20 INDIVIDUAL, ASSOCIATION, PARTNERSHIP, CORPORATION, CHURCH, RELIGIOUS ASSEMBLY
21 OR INSTITUTION OR OTHER BUSINESS ORGANIZATION.
22 6. “Political subdivision” includes any county, city, including a
23 charter city, town, school district, municipal corporation or special
24 district, any board, commission or agency of a county, city, including a
25 charter city, town, school district, municipal corporation or special
26 district or any other local public agency.
27 7. “Religion-neutral zoning standards”:
28 (a) Means numerically definable standards such as maximum occupancy
29 codes, height restrictions, setbacks, fire codes, parking space requirements,
30 sewer capacity limitations and traffic congestion limitations.
31 (b) Does not include:
32 (i) Synergy with uses that a government holds as more desirable.
33 (ii) The ability to raise tax revenues.
34 8. “Suitable alternate property” means a financially feasible property
35 considering the person’s revenue sources and other financial obligations with
36 respect to the person’s exercise of religion and with relation to spending
37 that is in the same zoning district or in a contiguous area that the person
38 finds acceptable for conducting the person’s religious mission and that is
39 large enough to fully accommodate the current and projected seating capacity
40 requirements of the person in a manner that the person deems suitable for the
41 person’s religious mission.
42 9. “Unreasonable burden” means that a person is prevented from using
43 the person’s property in a manner that the person finds satisfactory to
44 fulfill the person’s religious mission.
S.B. 1062
- 2 -
1 Sec. 2. Section 41-1493.01, Arizona Revised Statutes, is amended to
2 read:
3 41-1493.01. Free exercise of religion protected; definition
4 A. Free exercise of religion is a fundamental right that applies in
5 this state even if laws, rules or other government actions are facially
6 neutral.
7 B. Except as provided in subsection C, government OF THIS SECTION,
8 STATE ACTION shall not substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion
9 even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability.
10 C. Government STATE ACTION may substantially burden a person’s
11 exercise of religion only if it THE GOVERNMENT OR NONGOVERNMENTAL PERSON
12 SEEKING THE ENFORCEMENT OF STATE ACTION demonstrates that application of the
13 burden to the person PERSON’S EXERCISE OF RELIGION IN THIS PARTICULAR
14 INSTANCE is both:
15 1. In furtherance of a compelling governmental interest.
16 2. The least restrictive means of furthering that compelling
17 governmental interest.
18 D. A person whose religious exercise is burdened in violation of this
19 section may assert that violation as a claim or defense in a judicial
20 proceeding, and obtain appropriate relief against a government REGARDLESS OF
21 WHETHER THE GOVERNMENT IS A PARTY TO THE PROCEEDING.
22 E. A PERSON THAT ASSERTS A VIOLATION OF THIS SECTION MUST ESTABLISH
23 ALL OF THE FOLLOWING:
24 1. THAT THE PERSON’S ACTION OR REFUSAL TO ACT IS MOTIVATED BY A
25 RELIGIOUS BELIEF.
26 2. THAT THE PERSON’S RELIGIOUS BELIEF IS SINCERELY HELD.
27 3. THAT THE STATE ACTION SUBSTANTIALLY BURDENS THE EXERCISE OF THE
28 PERSON’S RELIGIOUS BELIEFS.
29 F. THE PERSON ASSERTING A CLAIM OR DEFENSE UNDER SUBSECTION D OF THIS
30 SECTION MAY OBTAIN INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF. A party who prevails
31 in any action to enforce this article against a government shall recover
32 attorney fees and costs.
33 E. G. In FOR THE PURPOSES OF this section, the term substantially
34 burden is intended solely to ensure that this article is not triggered by
35 trivial, technical or de minimis infractions.
36 H. FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS SECTION, “STATE ACTION” MEANS ANY ACTION,
37 EXCEPT FOR THE REQUIREMENTS PRESCRIBED BY SECTION 41-1493.04, BY THE
38 GOVERNMENT OR THE IMPLEMENTATION OR APPLICATION OF ANY LAW, INCLUDING STATE
39 AND LOCAL LAWS, ORDINANCES, RULES, REGULATIONS AND POLICIES, WHETHER
40 STATUTORY OR OTHERWISE, AND WHETHER THE IMPLEMENTATION OR APPLICATION IS MADE
41 BY THE GOVERNMENT OR NONGOVERNMENTAL PERSONS.
I want to thank you personally for posting the bill in its entirety.
I tried for 30 minutes to find a copy of the actual bill and only found, “commentaries” or reactions to Brewer axing the bill.
Whenever that occurs, I know they don’t want the bill to be read by people who can assess its subsance on their own.
Thank you,
EODGUY
Too turgid legalese for a LIV to parse, to be sure. It appears a dishwater-dull procedural safeguard, to actually read the text.
So it’s been “translated” for them as a gay-bash bill.
I do not know whether to laugh, or to cry!