Posted on 02/26/2014 4:57:14 PM PST by markomalley
Gov. Jan Brewer on Wednesday vetoed a Republican bill that set off a national debate over gay rights, religion and discrimination and subjected Arizona to blistering criticism from major corporations and political leaders from both parties.
Brewer's decision defused a national furor over gay rights and religious freedom.
The bill backed by Republicans in the Legislature was designed to give added protection from lawsuits to people who assert their religious beliefs in refusing service to gays. But opponents called it an open attack on gays that invited discrimination.
The bill thrust Arizona into the national spotlight last week after both chambers of the state legislature approved it. As the days passed, more and more groups, politicians and average citizens weighed in against Senate Bill 1062. Many took to social media to criticize the bill, calling it an attack on gay and lesbian rights.
(Excerpt) Read more at bigstory.ap.org ...
Well I guess she gets her superbowl.
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.
Also, a wedding cake baked by a person who doesn’t believe in gay marriage (and that is not always a religious person) can contain nasty things that no one will know about - even after they’ve consumed it. Which is why I don’t understand why anyone would order food from someone who doesn’t like them.
so, a merchant MUST bake a wedding cake for two homosexuals. a florist MUST make a flower arrangement for two lesbians. a Christian preacher MUST rent his next door duplex to two transgenders.
Religious freedom? That’s so 2012!
Gutless bitch.
“(Marriott, American Airlines and who else?) “
I’ve heard Apple is on that list; no surprise.
Yeah, pressure from the NFL, what a wuss.
Quite an either-or you’ve fabricated there.
You don’t think there is some way to oppose the deviancy that is becoming mainstream in the country without becoming part of the Taliban crowd?
Being sick and tired of having their perversity and anti-Biblical deviancy shoved down our throats 24/7 is not enough. We must take the fight to them and we must bring Judeo-Christianity back into the public sphere.
After Mark Levin’s 5th Amendment fix to the unconstitutional BS the tyrants in elected office have forced down our throat, we’ll use the same technique to remove the amoral legislation that the left has codified nationally through the federal legislative process.
The majority of the population does not support this decay. The majority will support undoing the subversion of the will of the people performed by black-robed tyrants.
Tough break for you all in Arizona, but the fact of the matter is several much more conservative states than Arizona are taking up the exact same law and it WILL become law in one or more states. Then to see what the courts do with it...I would like to see the Supreme Court wiggle out of this one since they have already ruled that Christian Doctors can not be forced to preform abortions if it conflicts with their religious beliefs. So how can they rule that the religious beliefs of a Doctor matter, but a cake maker or photographer don’t?
Why did the AP have to end the story with this?
“The push in Arizona comes as an increasing number of conservative states grapple with ways to counter the growing legality of gay marriage. Arizona’s voters approved a ban on gay marriage as a state constitutional amendment in 2008. It is one of 29 states with such constitutional prohibitions, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures”
The bill and queer “marriage” had nothing in common.
Gutless coward. Let the persecution of Christians continue.
smoothsailing wrote:
<<
Any chance the Arizona Legislature will over-ride her veto?
>>
**************************************************************
I don’t know... Does it even have the votes to do so?
You’d do more good boycotting the NFL.
AZ is already the nation’s whipping boy.
Wait.
WHAT?
A governor vetoed the Bill of Rights?
Huh. That’s impressive.
Arizona? Oh.
My impression is that it requires a 2/3 majority in both houses. If so, then it’s not likely.
Queer marriages are an abomination to God and you can read that in Leviticus. God is a much higher authority than these perverted politicians.
Arizona already lost one Super Bowl, they could not handle the threats from the NFL and the traitor Republicans who opposed this law (including a few actual conservatives). On top of that the liberal media burned them and Fox was neutral at best. Plus the business community went as far as threatening moving jobs to California.
I am disappointing but I understand, normal hardworking Americans would be unfairly punished if she signed.
The hell it has!
She has caved so many times and got away from conservatism that no one trusts republicans in the state anymore. From closet democrat McCain to that Flake character they are worthless. Brewer can’t run again in November and the last time I checked a democrat was leading the republican. So when the democrat is elected (because Brewer was worthless as conservative), the state will say queer “marriage” is legal. A blind man can see this coming. Just as that sorry George RINO Bush gave us the paperhanging nothing Obama, Brewer’s RINO politics will give Arizona to the democrats.
I looked up same-sex “marriage” in the United States a few minutes ago and the first thing I saw was “George W. Bush and his wife Laura attended same-sex weddings”. With republicans like that queer-loving GW Bush who needs democrats.
miss marmelstein wrote:
<<
Also, a wedding cake baked by a person who doesnt believe in gay marriage (and that is not always a religious person) can contain nasty things that no one will know about - even after theyve consumed it. Which is why I dont understand why anyone would order food from someone who doesnt like them.
>>
**************************************************************
I’ve been thinking the same thing! If the government is going to start forcing bakers to violate their religious conscience and bake wedding cakes for same-sex couples, then I say what a more glorious opportunity to make a sudden on-the-spot “pit stop” while mixing the ingredients!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.