What do you think will happen with Arizona's "religious freedom" bill?

Like a church?

Is there such a state law? I’d be surprised if Arizona had one.

If so, I wonder why they don’t got even further an just repeal it?

That’s why I used a sex discrimination claim as my example. And noted that race and religion wouldn’t be a state law cause of action.

But, while race and religion are actionable under federal law, they are also (I think) typically actionable under state law. This bill wouldn’t give you a defense in a federal proceeding, but how much of the enforcement takes palce at the state level.

Sure.

They do have such a state law, it’s here. I checked before using my example. I also used the example becuase, I’m fairly sure, that federal law does not prohibit sex-based discrimination in public accomodation.

Why don’t they go further? I imagine it’s becuase they don’t want to dismantle the public accomodations laws. They just want to carve out an exception for religious motivations. Why would they go further?

Because they’re Arizona?

I suspect that is reversing cause and effect. Most enforcement takes place at the state level because it is faster and cheaper to litigate such things at the state level. Where a state has adopted discrimination laws that mirror federal ones, there’s no need to take things to the federal courts.

Here’s where I have a problem with the law. For the intended purpose - protecting bigots - I have no problems with the position of the state protecting someone from being sued for what is a legal act. Of course I think sexual identity and orientation should be protected classes so that I can’t be fired if I decide I want to wear dresses and be Miss Cad.

Here’s the problem specifically for the whole practice of religion angle. Let’s say I believe homosexuals are sinners and will burn in the ever-lasting pits of Hell for their faggery. How does two men or women having sex effect MY practice of my religion? I am still free to practice straight sex all I want. I’ve never understood the idea that what other people do affects the relationship between me and my God.

Oh and does this apply to all sinners like adulterers and children that disobey their parents? Can I discriminate against women on their period or men who eat shellfish since they are unclean?

I would love this to pass and in the first lawsuit the judge narrowly defines your practice of religion as what YOU do not actions based on what OTHERS do.

I’m not intending to suggest a cause or effect. I’m just trying to think through the application of the bill. Obviously, it’s going to apply only in state proceedings. As a practical matter, then, it’s only going to protect religious objectors who are objecting on a basis that is not covered by federal law.

While I don’t read the bill to permit the hysteria that this thread has suggested, I’m particularly interested in the series of claims that it’s guaranteed to be struck down by some level of federal court. But I cannot identify why. Since it’s clearly a facially neutral bill (unless you take the view that religious exemptions are themeleves establishment clause violations, which has picked up some steam in the academy), I’m trying to figure out if it’s going to have some sort of impermissible application.

One of the legislators who voted for the bill now wants Brewer to veto it.

Heh, even the Flake is recommending Brewer to Veto it.

John McCain tweeted (or had his social media staffer tweet) that he hopes Brewer vetoes it, too.

Up to three now.

It’s all somebody else’s fault. They *made *us do it. :rolleyes:

Since it looks like gay marriage is going to happen throughout the U.S., there needs to be a fine-tuned response to remedy actual threats to freedom of religion, conscience, & association- something simple such as “No person shall be compelled to officiate, participate, or service a homosexual marriage against their religious or moral convictions.” The Arizona bill is so broad & hamhanded it almost looks like it was created as a parody of a religious liberty bill.

How does being “forced” to service a homosexual marriage differ from being forced to service an interracial one?

That doesn’t make sense to me at all. If we’re going to force businesses to serve certain customers, naturally we need to make a policy decision on which types of discrimination are going to be unacceptable. That’s fine. But if we’re then going to make an exception to that compulsion for religiously-motivated believers it makes no sense to pick which religious beliefs qualify. That’s rather contrary to the whole approach.

I agree that the Arizona bill could be better written (not an uncommon observation about legislation). And I disagree that it could produce many of the awful results that people claim. But if you’re going to adopt a conscience exception, it needs to be broad, doesn’t it?

Does anyone get forced to officiate at a marriage? Catholic priests have no obligation to marry non-Catholics, do they? Presumably there are religious leaders who won’t marry interracial couples as well. I can’t imagine any lawsuits succeeding to force religious organizations to perform any ritual.

The way that issue would play out, I think, isn’t “religious leaders,” it’s secular officiants who have personal religious beliefs. So, imagine that I was a judge who duly authorized to perform marriages in my state, I think that a number of states would plausibly extend either the public accomodation laws to conclude that I was forced to perform same-sex marriages. (Obviously, I could draw the line somewhere else: friends and family only or not do marriages at all).

That’s the most plausible scenario in which you would have an officiant permissibly forced to perform a same-sex marriage. Whether they should have some sort of conscience protection is a different issue.

In that case, too bad for the judge, justice of the peace, or whatever. I don’t think a secular official can any more refuse to marry same sex couples as he could refuse multi-racial couples. Don’t want to serve all the public? Then don’t become a public servant.

I’m not taking a position on that, I’m just pointing out the situation in which people would be forced to officiate a same-sex wedding.

And, for that matter, it’s not going to just be judges or justices of the peace. Or even public servants. Some places (Florida, at least, I think) notaries public can solemnize marriages, but no one would consider them public servants.

Maine and South Carolina too. That’s kind of the thing, though - a notary’s commission is a gubernatorial appointment. They might be in it to make money, but they are vested with authority by the state. So, if they don’t want to offer services to the public, they shouldn’t be notaries.

Maybe the source of the authority matters, I don’t know (I need to think about it). But otherwise, it just echoes the broader “religious exemption” debate. Your argument is that if some manner of doing a thing violates your religious beliefs, you need to either violate them or not do that thing at all. That doesn’t change whether it’s abortofacient-opposing pharmacists, anti-same-sex marriage notaries, or steelworking pacifists.

Sure it does. Pharmacists and steelworkers are in wholly private enterprises. Notaries are officers of the state (at least in Florida). It’s the difference between a police officer refusing to arrest a gay-basher on conscience grounds and a baker refusing to make a gay wedding cake. I assume you agree the former is unsupportable while the latter may be.