Actually, the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act - of which this bill is a near-perfect copy - was passed in part due to that exact issue. Just as the use of wine as matter for the confection of the Eucharist was allowed even during Prohibition, the use of peyote is allowed for members of certain Native American religions.Say I want to convert to native american religion, I want to smoke the sacramental peyote. I get drugged tested and go to jail. I cry out freedom of religion…should I be excused from my otherwise criminal activity since it was done in the name of religion?
An article on the bill last week in fact mentioned this exact concern, that a “radical Muslim” could use his interpretation of his faith as a defense to a claim of discrimination against women.The number of Muslims in this country has doubled since 9/11. Not that I am implying that is bad; like most Catholics, most Muslims are not rabid extremists. However, the law in Arizona would have given those who operate at the extremes a license to discriminate. Muslim men who drive cabs could legitimately refuse to transport unaccompanied women. Landlords could refuse to rent to unwed mothers, Christian Scientist employers could refuse to provide health care benefits.
It was poorly written, too broadly based, and was pointless in a state where gay people are not in any way a protected class.
The first thing I think is that the article stinks of overwhelming conservative bias and that there is a thinly-veiled condescension in it towards gay people.Read this LifeSiteNews.com article and let me know what you think.
Actually, that’s the state of things without this bill in place. You don’t even need to cite religious beliefs.The first thing I think is that the article stinks of overwhelming conservative bias and that there is a thinly-veiled condescension in it towards gay people.
This bill didn’t actually do anything (no enforcement clause), but it did say that the State approved of any discrimination, any time, for any reason. I can’t understand why anyone would find that moral, just because “discrimination against same-sex weddings” is included under “discrimination against anything or anyone for any reason, as long as you cite your religious beliefs.”
I wasn’t suggesting that the bill actually did anything to further discrimination against anyone. I was suggesting that the bill did absolutely nothing, and that its entire purpose seemed to be a lash-out effort at gay people. Many Republicans, after passing the bill, came back and said they deeply regretted their vote for the bill. It was an emotional response to a non-issue, and all it did was make the state seem homophobic and full of hatred.In other words, If I refuse to serve a homosexual couple at my (theoretical) restaurant (which is the only one in this theoretical town - nearest one is either 100 miles away or in Mexico), then without this bill, I can just throw them out without explanation or legal reprisal. With this bill, I would have had to show that it is against my religion to serve food to homosexual couples under any circumstances, demonstrate that my refusal is not a violation of their civil rights, and then point out the other venues available to provide the same service without undue burden to the couple.
Not entirely. Some cities in Arizona have local anti-discrimination laws in place. IIRC Phoenix is one of them. This state law would have had an adverse impact on those places with a local law already in place.Actually, that’s the state of things without this bill in place. You don’t even need to cite religious beliefs.