Personally, I think that even if the governor signs it (which she may or may not, despite her veto before — the circumstances are different now), I don’t see any way this survives the courts. And on the off-chance it does, the loss to the economy and the inevitable applications in ways that will plainly outrage even the conservatives who support it will kill it dead.
IOW, I can’t imagine this thing surviving long term. What it’ll do in the short, however, is another thing entirely.
The religious right is pressuring Brewer to sign it and the business community is pressuring her to veto it. A True Republican always praises the former and obeys the latter.
I don’t see it being signed unless maybe it’s signed in a way that the courts can kill it before it goes into effect, thereby allowing the executive and legislative branches to wring their hands over activist judges.
I’m offended that it’s being called a religious freedom bill. What next, maybe protection of the religious freedom to burn witches at the stake?
Please fill in the blanks if I’m missing something.
Homosexuality is not a protected class in either the US or Arizona so this bill protects people from being sued for something they can legally do. What am I missing?
But yes it’s a lot of outrage about a new law as if it changes what’s already legal for businesses to do. In polling most people do not realize it is perfectly legal for businesses to fire and refuse service to gay people in their state. They seem to believe gay people are treated just fine and we are asking for special rights.
It’s apparently also written generally enough that it doesn’t just apply to homosexuals, but any class whatsoever to whom there might be a religious objection: women, atheists, single parents, etc etc.
The problem I see with the bill is not that it allows people to do what is already legal, but that it gives preferential treatment to defend someone who claims they are discriminating based on religious beliefs over those who do so for personal reasons. That, it seems to me, is unconstitutional.
The main problem with the bill is it’s just nasty, but that isn’t legal grounds to object.
I think what your are missing is that it is effectively a bill to protect the rights of right-wing Conservatives to act like bigots. It’s always amusing to me that when the right speaks of “freedom”, what they typically mean is the freedom to not have their narrow, myopic world view challenged by reality.