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

[jasg]

@BrainGlutton

And Ohio Pubs respond by withdrawing their own similar bill.

Are these ALEC bills?

[Snowboarder_Bo]

@jasg

Are these ALEC bills?

No, dozens of states’ legislators all just happened to come up with nearly the exact same wording for proposed bills that have nearly-identical names at the exact same time. It happens.

[elucidator]

Great minds think alike. No reason that wouldn’t work for twisted minds as well.

[Tastes_of_Chocolate]

In a twisted way, I’d welcome a law that lets people and businesses discriminate based on religious beliefs, as long as they are required to post, in plain view, who they refuse to serve, and what their religious affiliation is.

As a customer, let me decide if I want to frequent a restaurant that won’t serve black, or if I want to use a photographer that won’t take gay clients.

If their religious convictions are strong enough to lead them to make choices like this, then it should be strong enough to be shared openly.

We’ll see how long an accountant that won’t serve unwed mothers will stay in business. At minimum, I get to have the right to not give my money to bigots.

[DMark]

The fact that Jan had to spend some time to think this over before giving her veto speaks volumes.

I did enjoy the fact that even the NFL thought this was batshit crazy.

[boytyperanma]

@Tastes_of_Chocolate

In a twisted way, I’d welcome a law that lets people and businesses discriminate based on religious beliefs, as long as they are required to post, in plain view, who they refuse to serve, and what their religious affiliation is.

As a customer, let me decide if I want to frequent a restaurant that won’t serve black, or if I want to use a photographer that won’t take gay clients.

If their religious convictions are strong enough to lead them to make choices like this, then it should be strong enough to be shared openly.

We’ll see how long an accountant that won’t serve unwed mothers will stay in business. At minimum, I get to have the right to not give my money to bigots.

Works great until you stop at the only gas station in a hundred miles to find out they won’t serve your kind… Not every area of the country has the economy to support multiple businesses of the same kind, so while it might be great to claim a repressed minority could just shop elsewhere the history and reality does not support a free market solution. The free market also enables wealthy bigots to buy up the available resources for the purpose of excluding people from their town.

[Lord_Feldon]

@DMark

I did enjoy the fact that even the NFL thought this was batshit crazy.

I guess I’m glad that they thought this was too much, it’s better than thinking it was a good idea, but I don’t understand why it was suddenly too much. Arizona is a crappy place for gay rights and it was when they gave Arizona the Super Bowl in the first place. In fact, due to the weather, Super Bowls are almost always held in states that are racing to the bottom in that respect. I don’t think SB1062 was good policy or good politics, but it was a relatively minor bill and the locations of recent Super Bowls show that the NFL never cared even a little bit about gay rights when picking locations.

The last ten Super Bowls were held in New Jersey, Louisiana, Indiana, Texas, Florida (four times), Arizona, and Michigan. Zero of them had marriage equality when they were selected (the New Jersey ruling was after the selection). Only one of them had protection from discrimination in private-sector employment. Only one of them had protection from discrimination in public accommodations.

[lance_strongarm]

@Tastes_of_Chocolate

In a twisted way, I’d welcome a law that lets people and businesses discriminate based on religious beliefs, as long as they are required to post, in plain view, who they refuse to serve, and what their religious affiliation is.

As a customer, let me decide if I want to frequent a restaurant that won’t serve black, or if I want to use a photographer that won’t take gay clients.

If their religious convictions are strong enough to lead them to make choices like this, then it should be strong enough to be shared openly.

We’ll see how long an accountant that won’t serve unwed mothers will stay in business. At minimum, I get to have the right to not give my money to bigots.

That’s a good sentiment, but will it actually work?

Remember Chik-Fil-A? Some people boycotted it, but lots of people rushed in to buy chicken sandwiches, and even staged a “Chik-Fil-A Appreciation Day” to SUPPORT it for the anti-gay sentiment the company’s owners had expressed.

[lance_strongarm]

@Snowboarder_Bo

No, dozens of states’ legislators all just happened to come up with nearly the exact same wording for proposed bills that have nearly-identical names at the exact same time. It happens.

Lots of groups have model state legislation that state legislators use, not just ALEC.

Also, state legislators look to other state’s existing laws for models.

[JRDelirious]

Well, yes. It’s just that ALEC is the most visible gathering where conservative groups pitch model legislation to kindred pols. SYG, laws to bring your gun into places of business, voter ID, etc. have tended to flourish at their conventions. To be fair in recent years they had started moving away from social/cultural issues.

They used to be a relatively decent conservative meeting-of-minds but they’ve grown too astroturfy and opaque.

[DoctorJ]

@lance_strongarm

Lots of groups have model state legislation that state legislators use, not just ALEC.

Also, state legislators look to other state’s existing laws for models.

Maddow had an activist on the other night who is working against these laws, and she said that the laws all appear to be emanating from some central group but they’re not sure which one.

[Human_Action]

@DoctorJ

The big reason behind these laws is that fairness ordinances are becoming reasonably common at the municipal level.

For instance, Kentucky has no laws against discrimination based on sexual orientation, but Louisville, Lexington, Covington, and Vicco* do. (I think also Frankfort now.) But the state passed one of these ridiculous laws last year, even overriding the Governor’s veto**. That makes the city ordinances pretty much impossible to enforce.

On the plus side, since you are no longer responsible in our state for following laws that violate your “sincerely held religious beliefs”, my denomination that stands strongly against marijuana prohibition and speed limits is doing a booming business.

• Johnny cuts my hair, and usually grabs my ass when he sees me in public.
  ** Which makes me wonder: where the hell was the national outrage then?

Frankfort does, indeed, have an anti-discrimination ordnance. It passed last fall.

As for the lack of national outrage, it could be a product of the Kentucky bill being introduced by a Democrat, it passing the Democrat-controlled House (both chambers of the Arizona legislature are Republican-majority), and its connection with the Amish safety-triangle case from 2012.

[lance_strongarm]

@DoctorJ

Maddow had an activist on the other night who is working against these laws, and she said that the laws all appear to be emanating from some central group but they’re not sure which one.

Yeah, it’s possible. I was just noting that it isn’t necessarily ALEC. It could be anyone. Or just states stealing from other states.

[BrainGlutton]

Four still pending:

Georgia: The state has a pair of bills, one in each state house, that use almost identical language to Arizona’s. While it a House Bill 1023 looks dead, Senate Bill 377 has moved through committee. The senate bill’s sponsor said critics of the bill simply "want the government to be a tool to promote militant atheism.” Mother Jones’s Dana Liebelson has a good report on this one.

Mississippi: Senate unanimously passed Senate Bill 2681, also known as the “Mississippi Religious Freedom Restoration Act,” on January 31. The bill, also similar to Arizona’s, currently sits in a state House committee. It also includes an amendment that would add “In God We Trust” to the state seal.

Missouri: State Senator Wayne Wallingford (R-Cape Girardeau) just introduced his state’s version, SB 916, on Monday. It is, again, also nearly identical to Arizona’s bill and currently awaits assignment to a Senate committee.

Oklahoma: Lawmakers are reworking a “religious freedom” bill and indicated that its current incarnation is not likely to make it to the floor this legislative session. “We’re still in favor of running a bill like that, but we’re just trying to get the language tightened up to prevent there from being any fiascos like there have been elsewhere,” sponsor Representative Tom Newell (R-Seminole) told the Associated Press.

[Balance]

@BrainGlutton

Four still pending:

Five, though I doubt this one will get far.

@DailyKos

Asm. Shannon Grove, a republican from Bakersfield Ca, introduced just last week AB 2237 which provides an “exception” to the Unruh Civil Rights Act “to protect the free exercise of religion”.