Arizona at it again

[DisAsTerBot]

Arizona passes controversial anti-gay bill

(CNN) -- Arizona's Legislature has passed a controversial bill that would allow business owners, as long as they assert their religious beliefs, to deny service to gay and lesbian customers.
The bill, which the state House of Representatives passed by a 33-27 vote Thursday, now goes to Gov. Jan Brewer, a Republican and onetime small business owner who vetoed similar legislation last year but has expressed the right of business owners to deny service.
The measure has drawn criticism from Democrats and business groups who said it would sanction discrimination and open the state to the risk of damaging litigation.
"With the express consent of Republicans in this Legislature, many Arizonans will find themselves members of a separate and unequal class under this law because of their sexual orientation," Anna Tovar, the state senate Democratic minority leader, said in a statement. "This bill may also open the door to discriminate based on race, familial status, religion, sex, national origin, age or disability."

rest of article:
http://www.cnn.com/2014/02/21/us/arizona-anti-gay-bill/index.html?hpt=hp_c2

[boutons_deux]

Repugs, incorrigible assholes, christian haters

[Nbadan]

as long as they assert their religious beliefs, to deny service to gay and lesbian customers.

Commies...

[ElNono]

I thought federal courts struck this down twice already... not sure why they think it's gonna be different now?

[Nbadan]

https://scontent-a-iad.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/t1/s552x414/1920523_677513622312805_1304862216_n.jpg


An Arizona pizzeria served up a piping-hot plate of payback in response to a discriminatory bill that threatens the rights of the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender community.

This week, both houses of the state legislature passed Senate Bill 1062, which gives Arizona business owners the right to deny service to gays and others on the basis of religious freedom. While conservatives contend the legislation is meant to prevent discrimination against the faithful, Arizona Democrats say it is plain old discrimination.

<<<<snip>>>>

On Thursday, Tucson-based restaurant Rocco's Little Chicago Pizzeria displayed a window sign directed at the very legislators who back the regulation. A photo of the sign was posted to Facebook, along with this message: "Funny how just being decent is starting to seem radical these says ."


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/02/21/roccos-little-chicago-pizzeria-arizona-anti-gay_n_4830936.html

[Jacob1983]

What about country clubs? Don't country clubs discriminate against poor people? Where is the outrage?

[TDMVPDPOY]

isnt arizona the only true state in america that still has blondes, blue eyes?

[russellgoat]

What is the fucking problem? Everybody should have the right to discriminate

[DeadlyDynasty]

If it's your business you have every right to deny the undesirables service

[TDMVPDPOY]

so now gays are below blacks? lmao america

[boutons_deux]

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/borowitzreport/Jan%20Brewer-290.jpg

ARIZONA GOVERNOR FEARS GOVERNMENT REGULATION COULD RUIN BIGOTRY AND HATRED


PHOENIX — Arizona Governor Jan Brewer said today that she was reluctant to sign an anti-gay “religious freedom” bill passed by the Arizona state legislature this week, telling reporters, “I believe that bigotry and hatred should be free of government regulation.”

She said that while many Arizona business owners currently enjoy employing hateful practices, “I worry that if big government gets involved, that’ll ruin everything.”

“Don’t get me wrong—I think the anti-gay bill that the legislature passed was well-meaning,” she said. “All I’m saying is, let’s leave it to the private sector.”

Offering an example, she added, “Look at how Obamacare has messed up health care. I’d hate to pass a new law that results in government wrecking bigotry.”

But Governor Brewer got some pushback today from Republican legislator Harland Dorrinson, who told reporters, "I’m as opposed to big government as anyone. But promoting hate-based bias is one area where I believe government has an important role to play.”

For her part, Governor Brewer remains unconvinced by that argument. Noting that the current system of hatred and bigotry in place in Arizona has worked well for decades, she said, “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.”

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/borowitzreport/2014/02/arizona-governor-fears-government-regulation-could-ruin-bigotry-and-hatred.html

[DisAsTerBot]

What about country clubs? Don't country clubs discriminate against poor people? Where is the outrage?

could you be any dumber?

[George Gervin's Afro]

What about country clubs? Don't country clubs discriminate against poor people? Where is the outrage?

you're an outrage

[DarrinS]

you're an outrage

I thought he was an anger

[Jacob1983]

My wrath awaits you.

[ElNono]

Apple Urges Arizona Governor To Veto Anti-Gay Legislation

"According to NBC, Apple has confirmed that it urged Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer to veto a bill (http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/big-business-arizona-gay-discrimination-bill-bad-economy-n37711) that would allow business owners with strongly held religious beliefs to deny service to gays and lesbians. Last November Tim Cook announced that Apple was building a sapphire glass plant in Mesa, AZ, that would bring 2,000 new jobs to the state (http://tech.fortune.cnn.com/2013/11/05/apple-arizona-sapphire-factory/). 'Apple is indisputably one of the world's most innovative companies and I'm thrilled to welcome them to Arizona,' said Gov. Brewer at the time. 'Apple will have an incredibly positive economic impact for Arizona and its decision to locate here speaks volumes about the friendly, pro-business climate we have been creating these past four years.' According to Philip Elmer-DeWitt, it sounds like Tim Cook may be having second thoughts about how 'friendly' and 'pro-business' the climate in Arizona (http://tech.fortune.cnn.com/2014/02/25/apple-arizona-gay-discrimination/) really is."

[boutons_deux]

I bet JB vetoes the bill but for all the wrong reasons, none of which will be equal rights and non-descrimination.

Fucking "persecuted" "Christians" persecuting everybody else by wanting their fucked up morality to trump everybody else's rights.

[2centsworth]

Embarrassing for Arizona. A disgraceful law that should be vetoed. Saddens me that a "Christian" would think this is a good idea.

[Jacob1983]

What if the business is funded 100 percent privately? I think businesses should be allowed to do what they want. Besides, don't a lot of places already reserve the right to refuse service at their discretion? People need to stop propping up homosexuals as martyrs and heroes. Who gives a shit if you are a guy and like cock? Do you think you deserve a medal or something? Shut the fuck up.

[Nbadan]

What if the business is funded 100 percent privately?

most businesses are privately funded....so you just want to tear up the Equal rights laws.....figures...

[2centsworth]

What if the business is funded 100 percent privately? I think businesses should be allowed to do what they want. Besides, don't a lot of places already reserve the right to refuse service at their discretion? People need to stop propping up homosexuals as martyrs and heroes. Who gives a shit if you are a guy and like cock? Do you think you deserve a medal or something? Shut the fuck up.

To hell with bigotry. No room for discrimination in the workplace.

[Jacob1983]

Are we talking equality or equality plus special treatment? I think the mentality that American society has about giving equality plus special treatment for minority groups makes people resent those groups. If you want to be equal, then fine. However, if you want to be equal plus special treatment then fuck you. That's not equality. That's inequality. America is fucked. Lmao giving gold stars for diversity.

[Nbadan]

Are we talking equality or equality plus special treatment? I think the mentality that American society has about giving equality plus special treatment for minority groups makes people resent those groups

We have a winner...

[2centsworth]

Are we talking equality or equality plus special treatment? I think the mentality that American society has about giving equality plus special treatment for minority groups makes people resent those groups. If you want to be equal, then fine. However, if you want to be equal plus special treatment then fuck you. That's not equality. That's inequality. America is fucked. Lmao giving gold stars for diversity.

I believe the thread is about a law that allows businesses to discriminate against a customer because of their sexual preference. For instance, a cake shop refuses to make a cake for a gay man celebrating his child's birthday or a bakery refuses service to two women who are holding hands.

Not quite sure what you're talking about.

[Jacob1983]

Just calling it how I see it. I think it's annoying as hell for a person of said group to act like they should be given a medal because they are "different" yet they want to be treated like everyone else. Make up your damn mind. If you want to be equal, then fine but don't act like a victim or martyr. Do gay people really want equality? I don't get it. They want the same rights as straight people but they want people to celebrate their gayness. That's annoying to me. My backbone is crooked but I don't ask anyone to give me special treatment because of my crooked backbone.

[2centsworth]

Just calling it how I see it. I think it's annoying as hell for a person of said group to act like they should be given a medal because they are "different" yet they want to be treated like everyone else. Make up your damn mind. If you want to be equal, then fine but don't act like a victim or martyr. Do gay people really want equality? I don't get it. They want the same rights as straight people but they want people to celebrate their gayness. That's annoying to me. My backbone is crooked but I don't ask anyone to give me special treatment because of my crooked backbone.

So requiring the law to protect them against discrimination is asking for special treatment? Should I be allowed to refuse service to you at my place of business because your backbone is crooked? Is serving you like everyone else special treatment?

I'm having a real hard time following your line of thinking. Quick question: Are you for or against the Arizona Law?

[Jacob1983]

I'd say I'd be against the law but I think the issue should be open to interpretation. Do I think a flaming gay guy shouldn't be allowed to get a Whopper at Burger King or Chilis' baby back ribs? No. Do I think a preacher/minister/priest should have the right to refuse to marry a gay couple due to religious reasons? Yes.



A flaming gay guy should be allowed to get a Whopper. Also, preacher/minister/priest should be allowed to bow out of marrying a gay couple.

[ChumpDumper]

Are ministers forced to marry anyone who asks?

[Jacob1983]

In Russia, they are.

[ChumpDumper]

In Russia, they are.No, they aren't.

[Jacob1983]

Yes they are according to my sources.

[TDMVPDPOY]

so what h appens with tourism in that state? wont serve them?

[ChumpDumper]

Yes they are according to my sources.You're simply lying for no reason. Do you do this in real life conversations too?

[DisAsTerBot]

What if the business is funded 100 percent privately? I think businesses should be allowed to do what they want. Besides, don't a lot of places already reserve the right to refuse service at their discretion? People need to stop propping up homosexuals as martyrs and heroes. Who gives a shit if you are a guy and like cock? Do you think you deserve a medal or something? Shut the fuck up.

your comprehension is amazing

[DisAsTerBot]

jacob will be stuck at target forever if this is him "calling it like i see it". That is until they hire a new batch of 16 year olds who can easily replace him tbh

[boutons_deux]

I'd say I'd be against the law but I think the issue should be open to interpretation. Do I think a flaming gay guy shouldn't be allowed to get a Whopper at Burger King or Chilis' baby back ribs?

restaurants are able to post dress codes, "no shoes, no shirt, or gun, no service" but that is non-discriminatory.

how about fat chicks with skimpy shorts, bare midriff, and cleavage exposing 80% of their tits? Would "Walmart People" be allowed in your family restaurant?

what's your dress code?

[Jacob1983]

I don't think gay people should be praised and celebrated when they admit they have been lying to everyone about what turns them on their whole lives. You shouldn't be called a hero for that shit. If you want to be normal then I'm okay with that but I think it's annoying when you want me to drop everything because you belong to a minority group. Go fuck yourself is my attitude toward the whole thing.

[ElNono]

I don't think gay people should be praised and celebrated when they admit they have been lying to everyone about what turns them on their whole lives. You shouldn't be called a hero for that shit. If you want to be normal then I'm okay with that but I think it's annoying when you want me to drop everything because you belong to a minority group. Go fuck yourself is my attitude toward the whole thing.

Nobody is asking you to drop anything, Jacob... chill :lol

[ChumpDumper]

I don't think gay people should be praised and celebrated when they admit they have been lying to everyone about what turns them on their whole lives. You shouldn't be called a hero for that shit. If you want to be normal then I'm okay with that but I think it's annoying when you want me to drop everything because you belong to a minority group. Go fuck yourself is my attitude toward the whole thing.Who has ever asked you to drop anything or give anyone a medal?

Seriously, get a better job. It will get you on your way from envying teh gheys.

[Jacob1983]

Ben from Lost. He said he would let me borrow a boat if I gave boone a medal. Tried to do it but damn Locke killed Boone before I could give him the medal.

[ChumpDumper]

That's a fictional TV show.

You might have bigger problems than just a job.

[Jacob1983]

I am tonight's entertainment.

[Blake]

Hard to believe there is actually a worse governor than Perry.

[Blake]

My wrath awaits you.

I don't think I shop at the Target you work at.

[boutons_deux]

Mississippi Scraps Discriminatory ‘Religious Freedom’ Provisions Following Backlash In Arizona

COOPER: You say it’s all about protecting people of faith in Arizona. Can you give me a specific example of someone in Arizona who’s been forced to do something against their religious belief or [been] successfully sued because of their faith?

MELVIN: Again, I think if anything, this bill is preemptive: to protect priests —

COOPER: You can’t give me one example of this actually happening?

MELVIN: No I can’t, but we’ve seen it in other states and we don’t want it to happen here. [...]

COOPER: You can’t cite one example of where religious freedom is under attack in Arizona.

MELVIN: Not now, no, but how about tomorrow?

http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2014/02/27/3337961/mississippi-scraps-discriminatory-religious-freedom-provisions-backlash-arizona/ (http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2014/02/27/3337961/mississippi-scraps-discriminatory-religious-freedom-provisions-backlash-arizona/)

[Winehole23]

a group of law professors say that media critics have misrepresented SB 1062, that it is very different from the Kansas legislation, and that it clears up ambiguities in the RFRA that have led to litigation in the past:

http://www.azpolicy.org/media-uploads/pdfs/Letter_to_Gov_Brewer_re_Arizona_RFRA.pdf

(I'm unfamiliar with the undersigned except for Mr. Laycock, who does not seem the right winger or homophobe whatsoever in what I have read. )

ST legal eagles, weigh in?

[Winehole23]

the foregoing appears to be academic. Brewer will veto: http://www.cnn.com/2014/02/25/politics/brewer-arizona-religious-freedom/

[Clipper Nation]

I don't think gay people should be praised and celebrated when they admit they have been lying to everyone about what turns them on their whole lives. You shouldn't be called a hero for that shit. If you want to be normal then I'm okay with that but I think it's annoying when you want me to drop everything because you belong to a minority group. Go fuck yourself is my attitude toward the whole thing.
Gaycob angry about :madrun TEH GAYZ :madrun while denying it per the usual :lol

[Blake]

a group of law professors say that media critics have misrepresented SB 1062, that it is very different from the Kansas legislation, and that it clears up ambiguities in the RFRA that have led to litigation in the past:

http://www.azpolicy.org/media-uploads/pdfs/Letter_to_Gov_Brewer_re_Arizona_RFRA.pdf

(I'm unfamiliar with the undersigned except for Mr. Laycock, who does not seem the right winger or homophobe whatsoever in what I have read. )

ST legal eagles, weigh in?

Seems to me that even if it doesn't directly address discrimination that if it can be included, it is still ambiguous and needs more cleaning.

Fwiw, I think that letter written by the "top legal experts" is a bit ambiguous itself. It wouldn't surprise me at all to learn later it's a phony.

[Winehole23]

I got it through an uber-liberal lawyer friend. she might have been duped, but I doubt it.

[Winehole23]

To confess my biases, as a general matter I like the idea of affording wider religious-liberty defenses in most anti-discrimination statutes applying to private actors. At the same time, doing it this way – by pushing out the boundaries of RFRA to change the playing field of private litigation at one stroke, rather than pause for a debate about how best to address multiple areas and situations – strikes me as fairly sure to generate unintended consequences and unexpected results. When advocates warn Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer she will be sailing the ship of state into uncharted waters if she signs the bill, this is the provision that most makes me think they’re on to something.
http://www.cato.org/blog/further-thoughts-arizonas-religious-freedom-bill

[Blake]

I got it through an uber-liberal lawyer friend. she might have been duped, but I doubt it.

It's easy to find the letter on the internet, but the sites pouncing on this aren't exactly big time news outlets.....which also makes me suspicious.

If it's real, I'm less than impressed with it.

[Winehole23]

why? mini-RFRAs are not all alike. how they are drafted makes a difference. different states do it differently.

shouldn't laws be judged on their own merits, rather than all kicked into the same ditch because they are similarly styled?

[Blake]

why? mini-RFRAs are not all alike. how they are drafted makes a difference. different states do it differently.

shouldn't laws be judged on their own merits, rather than all kicked into the same ditch because they are similarly styled?

I'm less than impressed with the letter to Brewer. It's rather ambiguous, imo.

[Winehole23]

the legal reasoning isn't easy to follow. might be due to being written badly, might be due to my own ignorance of legal stuff, which is why I hope FromWayDowntown, TheProfessor, el bamba -- or some other lawyer on the board -- will chime in.

[TSA]

restaurants are able to post dress codes, "no shoes, no shirt, or gun, no service" but that is non-discriminatory.



I'll laugh my ass off when this back fires on the left and gun owners claim discrimination, being that they are protected under the 2nd amendment. If you can't refuse gays, you can't refuse gun carriers.

[Blake]

I'll laugh my ass off when this back fires on the left and gun owners claim discrimination, being that they are protected under the 2nd amendment. If you can't refuse gays, you can't refuse gun carriers.

Lol wut lol

[FromWayDowntown]

I have not studied the bill and have paid only passing attention to the public debate about it. As I understand Professor Laycock's argument, he and his colleagues are basically hypothesizing a lawsuit in which a person has been denied services by a business and has sued to compel the business to provide the sought services. In that circumstance, if the basis for the denial of services is a claim of sincere religious conscience, the state RFRA would provide a defense to that discriminatory choice. Laycock's argument is basically to compare the Arizona law with the Kansas law to show that the Arizona bill, while permitting the business to prevail in some circumstances, does not dictate that all discriminatory actions based upon religious beliefs will be upheld; this makes it different from the Kansas law, which (according to Laycock) compels the conclusion that any claim of religious belief in support of a discriminatory act must be credited and cannot be overcome.

Functionally, Laycock is saying (I think -- again, I have not studied either the bill or this letter in any depth) that the Arizona bill would have worked like this:


1. Leslie Lesbian brings suit against Boutons the Baptist for discrimination in refusing to provide her services because she's homosexual.

2. Boutons the Baptist may assert the Arizona RFRA as a defense to that claim; Boutons the Baptist can prevail on that defense in that case upon showing that: (1) he has a sincerely-held religious belief that supports the discriminatory action; and (2) requiring him to provide the requested services would impose a substantial burden upon the exercise of that religious belief.

3. Assuming that Boutons the Baptist could make those showings -- and Laycock basically argues that the bigger Boutons' business is, the harder it would be to make that showing (See Laycock Letter at 2: "As a business gets bigger and more impersonal, courts will become more skeptical about claims of substantial burden on the owner's exercise of religion."; one wonders how that reasoning would fit with the arguments in the Hobby Lobby/ACA contraception case) -- Leslie Lesbian (or the State of Arizona) would still be able to overcome that proof by showing that requiring Boutons the Baptist to comply with the law would carry out a compelling governmental interest. That is, if the claimant could show that requiring the provision of services in a particular instance was of substantial interest to the government, even the most sincerely-held religious beliefs would not support the discriminatory act in question.

Laycock argues that these are idiosyncratic issues that are better resolved by courts on a case-by-case basis than by legislative attempts to create broad rules of general application about what will and won't be allowed. Of course, the counter to that would be to preclude discrimination based upon sexual orientation across the board, but I'll assume for present purposes that religious objections to homosexuality in this generation are more sincerely held beliefs than religious objections to racial integration a few generations ago. Laycock contends as well that courts more phlegmatic decision-makers when faced unpopular conduct. Laycock also claims that the bill, despite allowing a defense to the religious objector, would not have discouraged lawsuits because it didn't impose draconian countermeasures (like fee-shifting, in particular) against a losing plaintiff; thus, the aggrieved will at least not face significant economic disincentives for challenging particular discriminatory acts.

I don't agree with Laycock that the bill somehow doesn't endorse discrimination; that may be overtly true in some sense, but it certainly seems to provide a justification for discrimination by providing the discriminator with a defense if his conduct is ever subjected to the scrutiny of a lawsuit. I tend to think that by providing a formal defense like this, the bill would actually encourage more discrimination insofar as those who would be inclined to do so will now do it and await the lawsuit that may or may not come, knowing that if it does come, they have a more certain defense of their actions than existed previously. If Boutons the Baptist wants to deny services to Leslie Lesbian, he might have been slightly concerned for potential liability before but now has a statutory defense that (as I understand it) didn't exist previously.

My suspicion is that in most one-on-one transactions, if a business owner denies service there is a confrontation and perhaps some public shaming but little else that becomes of it. I heard over and over again about the hypothetical cake maker who refuses to make a cake for a same-sex couple's wedding; while particularly belligerent folks might chose to pursue litigation concerning that, in truth, I suspect that most people denied that service would go somewhere else and would relay a feeling of ill-will towards the baker who refused. Ultimately, the bill would seem to have been mostly aimed at very localized issues of governmental rule-making in that state and violations of those rules by religious objectors -- a local ordinance prohibiting discrimination or something of that sort.

[boutons_deux]

I'll laugh my ass off when this back fires on the left and gun owners claim discrimination, being that they are protected under the 2nd amendment. If you can't refuse gays, you can't refuse gun carriers.

an establishment owner would not allow a customer carrying a public health hazard like TB or SARS into his establishment.

Guns are a public health hazard, with 1.4 M+ Americans dead from gun violence since 1968.

[Blake]

State Sen. Al Melvin, a hopeful to succeed Brewer, told CNN's Anderson Cooper that Arizona was a "people friendly" state and that SB1062 was merely a "pre-emptive" measure that would prevent attacks on religion in the future."All of the pillars of society are under attack in the United States: the family, the traditional family, traditional marriage, mainline churches, the Boy Scouts, you name it," he said.

Asked if he could cite specific examples of attacks on Arizonans' freedom of religion, Melvin replied, "Not now, no, but what about tomorrow?"

http://www.cnn.com/2014/02/25/us/arizona-brewer-sb1062/?c=&page=3

:lol god damn fucking religious nutjobs.

[FromWayDowntown]

The race to the right seems so counterintuitive to any plan to succeed in electoral politics.

[TSA]

Lol wut lol
Like I said, I'll laugh my ass off. I guarantee some ridiculous gun owners will claim the same discrimination soon and we'll see it in court.

[Blake]

I don't agree with Laycock that the bill somehow doesn't endorse discrimination; that may be overtly true in some sense, but it certainly seems to provide a justification for discrimination by providing the discriminator with a defense if his conduct is ever subjected to the scrutiny of a lawsuit.

I think it's clear it does. To suggest otherwise is saying we're all just gullible fools falling for MSM's (purposeful?) misrepresentation of facts.

Lol boutons the baptist.

[Blake]

Like I said, I'll laugh my ass off. I guarantee some ridiculous gun owners will claim the same discrimination soon and we'll see it in court.

I'll go ahead and laugh my ass off now at you.

[TSA]

Having lived in Tempe/Scottsdale for a few years its things like this that remind me how much different those places were from the rest of that crazy state.

[TSA]

I'll go ahead and laugh my ass off now at you.

Did you really do it or did you just type it?

[Blake]

Did you really do it or did you just type it?

yeah, you busted me. I'm really shaking my head at how stupid a notion it is.

[Winehole23]

I have not studied the bill and have paid only passing attention to the public debate about it. As I understand Professor Laycock's argument, he and his colleagues are basically hypothesizing a lawsuit in which a person has been denied services by a business and has sued to compel the business to provide the sought services. In that circumstance, if the basis for the denial of services is a claim of sincere religious conscience, the state RFRA would provide a defense to that discriminatory choice. Laycock's argument is basically to compare the Arizona law with the Kansas law to show that the Arizona bill, while permitting the business to prevail in some circumstances, does not dictate that all discriminatory actions based upon religious beliefs will be upheld; this makes it different from the Kansas law, which (according to Laycock) compels the conclusion that any claim of religious belief in support of a discriminatory act must be credited and cannot be overcome.

Functionally, Laycock is saying (I think -- again, I have not studied either the bill or this letter in any depth) that the Arizona bill would have worked like this:

1. Leslie Lesbian brings suit against Boutons the Baptist for discrimination in refusing to provide her services because she's homosexual.

2. Boutons the Baptist may assert the Arizona RFRA as a defense to that claim; Boutons the Baptist can prevail on that defense in that case upon showing that: (1) he has a sincerely-held religious belief that supports the discriminatory action; and (2) requiring him to provide the requested services would impose a substantial burden upon the exercise of that religious belief.

3. Assuming that Boutons the Baptist could make those showings -- and Laycock basically argues that the bigger Boutons' business is, the harder it would be to make that showing (See Laycock Letter at 2: "As a business gets bigger and more impersonal, courts will become more skeptical about claims of substantial burden on the owner's exercise of religion."; one wonders how that reasoning would fit with the arguments in the Hobby Lobby/ACA contraception case) -- Leslie Lesbian (or the State of Arizona) would still be able to overcome that proof by showing that requiring Boutons the Baptist to comply with the law would carry out a compelling governmental interest. That is, if the claimant could show that requiring the provision of services in a particular instance was of substantial interest to the government, even the most sincerely-held religious beliefs would not support the discriminatory act in question.

Laycock argues that these are idiosyncratic issues that are better resolved by courts on a case-by-case basis than by legislative attempts to create broad rules of general application about what will and won't be allowed. Of course, the counter to that would be to preclude discrimination based upon sexual orientation across the board, but I'll assume for present purposes that religious objections to homosexuality in this generation are more sincerely held beliefs than religious objections to racial integration a few generations ago. Laycock contends as well that courts more phlegmatic decision-makers when faced unpopular conduct. Laycock also claims that the bill, despite allowing a defense to the religious objector, would not have discouraged lawsuits because it didn't impose draconian countermeasures (like fee-shifting, in particular) against a losing plaintiff; thus, the aggrieved will at least not face significant economic disincentives for challenging particular discriminatory acts.

I don't agree with Laycock that the bill somehow doesn't endorse discrimination; that may be overtly true in some sense, but it certainly seems to provide a justification for discrimination by providing the discriminator with a defense if his conduct is ever subjected to the scrutiny of a lawsuit. I tend to think that by providing a formal defense like this, the bill would actually encourage more discrimination insofar as those who would be inclined to do so will now do it and await the lawsuit that may or may not come, knowing that if it does come, they have a more certain defense of their actions than existed previously. If Boutons the Baptist wants to deny services to Leslie Lesbian, he might have been slightly concerned for potential liability before but now has a statutory defense that (as I understand it) didn't exist previously.

My suspicion is that in most one-on-one transactions, if a business owner denies service there is a confrontation and perhaps some public shaming but little else that becomes of it. I heard over and over again about the hypothetical cake maker who refuses to make a cake for a same-sex couple's wedding; while particularly belligerent folks might chose to pursue litigation concerning that, in truth, I suspect that most people denied that service would go somewhere else and would relay a feeling of ill-will towards the baker who refused. Ultimately, the bill would seem to have been mostly aimed at very localized issues of governmental rule-making in that state and violations of those rules by religious objectors -- a local ordinance prohibiting discrimination or something of that sort.Thanks for the thoughtful and detailed reply. You made that a lot clearer for me. While it might be a mistake to conflate the substance of the two proposed laws (those of Kansas and Arizona,) the political will behind both bear more than a passing resemblance. And if, as you have suggested, the main difference between the two consists in the strength of the shield offered to those discriminating on the basis of religious beliefs, the media's oversimplification of the issues may not be so extreme.

[ElNono]

Thanks FWD! :tu

[FromWayDowntown]

Thanks for the thoughtful and detailed reply. You made that a lot clearer for me. While it might be a mistake to conflate the substance of the two proposed laws (those of Kansas and Arizona,) the political will behind both bear more than a passing resemblance. And if, as you have suggested, the main difference between the two consists in the strength of the shield offered to those discriminating on the basis of religious beliefs, the media's oversimplification of the issues may not be so extreme.

Well, clearly the Kansas law would essentially provide an absolute defense to a religious objector (according to Laycock, at least; again, I've not read that bill) while the Arizona law would only provide, in theory, a conditional defense that could be overcome either by the lack of proof supporting the defense or evidence rebutting even an established defense. That's a true legal distinction, but I agree that the political impetus behind each appears to be largely the same backlash against the unwelcome encroachment of gay rights upon those who would prefer that such things not happen.

Though I'm sure that there are nuances (particularly to those who subscribe to the idea that race is immutable and sexual orientation is not), I have a difficult time distinguishing these efforts from those that suggested legalized segregation and other racially discriminatory laws were supportable as acts of religious conscience.

[boutons_deux]

The State of Arizona

Arizona. Wow. How often do you find yourself saying, “Go, entrenched interests of the business community!” Yet here we are.

Responding to howls from the state’s economic interests, Gov. Jan Brewer vetoed a bill that would have allowed businesses to discriminate against gay people on the grounds of religious conviction. Brewer is an erratic politician, but she’s not crazy. After all, she did once refer to the State Capitol as “that hell hole.”

It would have been hard to ignore the pressure. American Airlines and Apple said the bill was a terrible idea. So did the Arizona Chamber of Commerce. The list went on and on. “The entire business community is galvanized in a way that I’ve never seen against this legislation,” said Senator John McCain. Several of the state senators who had voted for the bill, including one of the co-sponsors, were so terrified that they begged Brewer to use her veto pen to save them from themselves.

What do you think this whole scene means? True, Arizona is a rather strange state. But you don’t generally see a Legislature go out of its way to tick off its own moneyed power structure. And you hardly ever see a business establishment howling this loud about something that doesn’t involve tax hikes.

This has been building up for a long time. The old order in Arizona has been fuming because it’s been elbowed out of political control by people who are less interested in economic development than arresting illegal immigrants, exposing Barack Obama as a Kenyan and combating the scourge of same-sex marriage.

“I remember having a meeting with some folks I’d call country-club Republicans, and listening to them bemoan the fact that they have no more influence because of the Clean Elections law,” said Rodolfo Espino, a professor at Arizona State University.

We will come to a screeching halt here and re-examine that thought.

Yes! Part of the super-weirdness of Arizona politics appears to be the result of the state’s 1998 public financing law, which provided tons of matching funds to unwealthy-but-energetic candidates from the social right at the expense of the pragmatic upper class. The Supreme Court took the teeth out of the law in 2011, but, by then, the traditional Republican elite had lost its place at the head of the political table.

I know, I know. Many of us would like to empower the grass-roots with public campaign financing. Don’t give up. Just remember to make sure that the roots in your neighborhood have a more expansive vision than the ones that popped up in the Grand Canyon State.

Meanwhile, the business community has both practicality and righteousness on its side. The bill really is bad for business. Plus, it’s narrow and mean. It was written in response to incidents in New Mexico and Colorado in which gay couples successfully sued commercial establishments whose owners refused to take their wedding photographs or make them a wedding cake.

Fear of being forced to bake for homosexuals is apparently so deep-seated that the Arizona lawmakers were able to ignore the fact that unlike New Mexico and Colorado, their state has no law barring discrimination against gays in public accommodations. It’s already possible for a business to refuse to even sell them a Valentine.

“Can you give me a specific example of someone in Arizona who’s been forced to do something against their religious belief, or (was) successfully sued because of their faith?” Anderson Cooper asked State Senator Al Melvin.

“Again, I think if anything, you — this bill is pre-emptive to protect priests,” said Melvin.

This was on CNN, and I really recommend watching it as a gold-standard example of the perils of putting state senators on national television. At one point, Cooper asked whether under the proposed law, a bank officer could refuse to lend money to a divorced woman because of religious convictions about the sanctity of marriage.

“I don’t know of anybody in Arizona that would discriminate against a fellow human being ... no Christian or no Jew that I know of,” said Melvin. :lol

Have I mentioned that he is running for governor?

And Arizona businesses aren’t the only ones recoiling from the scene. This week Delta, which is headquartered in Atlanta, urged rejection of both the Arizona bill and another religious-rights measure that’s pending in the Georgia Legislature. The sponsor acknowledged the Arizona backlash would probably kill its chances anytime soon. Meanwhile, in Ohio, sponsors of a right-to-refuse bill announced they were pulling the plug.

Maybe we have reached a critical historical juncture. Struggles for human rights always begin with brave men and women who stand up, isolated, against the forces of oppression. But, in the United States, victory really arrives on the glorious day when the people with money decide discrimination is bad for business.

Thanks, Arizona.

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2014/02/27/opinion/collins-the-state-of-arizona.html

great point.

The primary, if not only, expression of value in the U$A is $$$, not principles, not rights, not religion, Nothing But The Benjamins.

discrimination is a USA problem only when it causes loss of $$$. Screwing people by discrimination is OK as long as no busine$$ is lost.

[Blake]

Yeah, it seems like the only reason Brewer vetoed was because of pressure from businesses.......including the NFL and MLB.

[boutons_deux]

Penis cakes and gay orgies: Tea Partier frets about wedding ‘tyranny’ in Arizona

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/Frosted-penis-cake-via-Flickr-Creative-Commons-615x345.jpg

Tea Party Nation president Judson Phillips said that Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer (R)’s veto on the state’s “Turn Away the Gays” law means Christian workers will be forced into “slavery” for same-sex couples because they dare not refuse to work for them.


Right Wing Watch reported that Phillips published a column on Tea Party Nation’s website on Thursday in which he fretted that Christian bakers will be forced to make penis-shaped cakes and that religious wedding photographers will be forced to stand by and helplessly take pictures of naked revelers performing lewd acts.

“The left and the homosexual lobby are both pushing slavery using the Orwellian concepts of ‘tolerance’ and ‘inclusiveness,’” wrote Phillips.

Brewer’s veto of SB 1062, he said, will have hellish consequences that will shock and horrify the righteous people of that state.

“Should a devote [sic] baker be required to create a cake for a homosexual wedding that has a giant phallic symbol on it or should a baker be required to create pastries for a homosexual wedding in the shape of genitallia [sic]?” he fumed.

“Or should a photographer be required to photograph a homosexual wedding where the participants decide they want to be nude or engage in sexual behavior?” he asked. “Would they force a Jewish photographer to work a Klan or Nazi event? How about forcing a Muslim caterer to work a pork barbecue dinner?”

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/02/27/cakes-and-gay-tea-partier-frets-about-wedding-tyranny-in-arizona/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+TheRawStory+%28The+Raw+Story% 29

[Jacob1983]

Why would a gay couple go to a cake place in which it is widely known that the owners are Bible thumpers? Shouldn't the gay couple adapt to the situation and go some place else to get a shitty cake? And why the fuck do you have to have cake at a wedding anyway? Isn't a wedding just about getting some piece of paper that says you and someone else get extra benefits and privileges from Uncle Sam? Own up is what I say.

[TSA]

a wedding sets in stone all dibs on the anus jacob.

[ChumpDumper]

Jacob really just needs to find a nice man and get married already.

[pgardn]

Why would a gay couple go to a cake place in which it is widely known that the owners are Bible thumpers? Shouldn't the gay couple adapt to the situation and go some place else to get a shitty cake? And why the fuck do you have to have cake at a wedding anyway? Isn't a wedding just about getting some piece of paper that says you and someone else get extra benefits and privileges from Uncle Sam? Own up is what I say.

To order a penus cake or vagina muffins in order to violate the owner's religious piety.

It's obvious.
Hell, next we might see abortion clinic operators order fetus pie.
A complete breakdown in all societal norms ensues...

[Jacob1983]

How old are you, dumper? You act like a high school pecker but oh well. Whatever. You're a piece of shit in my opinion but whatever floats your boat.

[Spurs da champs]

Jacob really just needs to find a nice man and get married already.

Seriously, that dude dedicates most of his posts (always in a negative light) to threads about gays, it screams closet case.

[Jacob1983]

If you saw what I masturbated to, it would end the discussion of "hahahaha, he's a fag". However, you will not be seeing that shit so that's that, ass fucks.

[Blake]

If you saw what I masturbated to, it would end the discussion of "hahahaha, he's a fag". However, you will not be seeing that shit so that's that, ass fucks.


http://www.target-catalogue.com/catalogue/images/take-a-walk-on-the-bright-side/p1.jpg

[Jacob1983]

I could masturbate to that.

[ChumpDumper]

Jacob wants men to watch him masturbate.

That's extremely gay.

[baseline bum]

The race to the right seems so counterintuitive to any plan to succeed in electoral politics.

Who cares? It works for state offices and for gerrymandered congressional districts.

[Jacob1983]

Dumper, why are you talking about my masturbation experiences? Desperate.

[2centsworth]

Does chump troll every thread? It's like having unwanted ads popup while trying to read quality posts by fwdt and winehole. Annoying

[Trainwreck2100]

http://www.target-catalogue.com/catalogue/images/take-a-walk-on-the-bright-side/p1.jpg

Wow those are awful

[Jacob1983]

Not enough meat on that booty.

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

Does chump troll every thread? It's like having unwanted ads popup while trying to read quality posts by fwdt and winehole. Annoying

lol Christfags butthurt at Chumpdumper

[boutons_deux]

Why would a gay couple go to a cake place in which it is widely known that the owners are Bible thumpers? Shouldn't the gay couple adapt to the situation and go some place else to get a shitty cake? And why the fuck do you have to have cake at a wedding anyway? Isn't a wedding just about getting some piece of paper that says you and someone else get extra benefits and privileges from Uncle Sam? Own up is what I say.

yep, that's exactly why Repug/Christian haters' bills are so blatantly, transparently hate-driven.

Groups tend to patronize their own members' services.

AZ, etc bills ignore this fact to PRE-EMPT the Bible-thumping Christian hater baker from from every being forced to make a penis cake.

Again, as always in venal America, $$$ trumps principles, ethics, rights.

[Blake]

Does chump troll every thread? It's like having unwanted ads popup while trying to read quality posts by fwdt and winehole. Annoying

What a quality post.

[2centsworth]

lol Christfags butthurt at Chumpdumper

I'd punk you so bad it would be hilarious. Nevertheless, obviously you haven't read this thread.

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

I'd punk you so bad it would be hilarious. Nevertheless, obviously you haven't read this thread.

Is punking someone a Christ-like thing to do?

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

IMO, priests should get to decide who they marry the day they stop getting tax breaks they don't need. When Churches have to pay taxes like every other for-profit establishment does in this country, they we'll talk about religious freedom.

[Blake]

I'd punk you so bad it would be hilarious. Nevertheless, obviously you haven't read this thread.

Another quality Christian post.

[Chewbacca]

How old are you, dumper? You act like a high school pecker but oh well. Whatever. You're a piece of shit in my opinion but whatever floats your boat.


Does chump troll every thread? It's like having unwanted ads popup while trying to read quality posts by fwdt and winehole. Annoying



Seriously, that dude dedicates most of his posts (always in a negative light) to threads about gays, it screams closet case.


:lmao :lmao :lmao

[2centsworth]

Is punking someone a Christ-like thing to do?

You would go calling to Christ, so yes.

[Blake]

You would go calling to Christ, so yes.

That's three quality posts. Nice work.

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

You would go calling to Christ, so yes.

You didn't answer the question but instead made a threat.

Doesn't seem very Christ-like.

[Spurs da champs]

:lmao :lmao :lmao

Lol I was talking about Jacob.

[Jacob1983]

You rang?

[Winehole23]

David Gans replies to Laycock:


Professor Laycock derides as a “shell game” the government’s argument that secular, for-profit corporations and their corporate owners are not entitled to invoke RFRA to claim a religious exemption from neutral, generally-applicable business regulations. But Professor Laycock ignores the basic fact that business corporations and their owners have always been treated differently from individuals when it comes to fundamental rights, such as the free exercise right, that protect freedom of conscience and human dignity. Surely if Congress were doing something so revolutionary as recognizing for the very first time in our nation’s history that secular, for-profit corporations can exercise religion, the legislative history would have been crystal clear. But speculation and bits of post-hoc legislative history are all that Professor Laycock offers. For all his labors, Professor Laycock has failed to point to any convincing evidence in the RFRA legislative record that Congress intended to grant free exercise rights to secular businesses. http://www.balkin.blogspot.com/

[boutons_deux]

The key issue is whether Religionists' or other freaky orgs', morals and ethics trump, supercede civil law.

The key fear is that right-wing extremist SCOTUS will decide for the Hobby Lobby Corporate-American to dictate "his" morals to "his" Human-American employees.

iow, you work for me and I can therefore judge, dictate your private behavior. aka, the (Christian) Taleban.

[Winehole23]

Eugene Volokh in WaPo. Relevant to the upcoming Hobby Lobby case before SCOTUS as well:


The Hobby Lobby case (http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/high-court-with-vocally-devout-justices-set-to-hear-religious-objections-to-health-care-law/2014/03/23/ff54147a-af97-11e3-9627-c65021d6d572_story.html?hpid=z4) is about to be argued this week (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2014/03/24/heres-what-you-need-to-know-about-the-hobby-lobby-case/), so talk of religious exemptions is in the air. But what exactly is the law here, even beyond the particular details of Hobby Lobby? When can religious objectors go to court to get exemptions from generally applicable laws (whether drug laws, employment regulations, driver’s license photograph requirements, or whatever else)?

Glad you asked! There’s no simple answer, but here are a few commonly asked specific questions, with answers that can help you navigate the complexity.


1. What’s with religious people getting exemptions? I thought the Supreme Court said that wasn’t required. For most of American history, courts generally didn’t see the Free Exercise Clause as requiring exemptions for religious objectors. But in Sherbert v. Verner (1963) (http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=17526177081953259048), the Supreme Court said that such exemptions were presumptively required, unless the government could show that denying the exemption was necessary to serve a compelling government interest.


Then, in Employment Division v. Smith (1990) (http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=10098593029363815472), the Supreme Court changed its mind, by a 5-to-4 vote. The Free Exercise Clause, the court held, basically just banned intentional discrimination against a particular religion or religious people generally. With a few exceptions (such as for churches’ decisions about choosing their clergy), religious objectors had to follow the same laws as everyone else, at least unless the legislature specifically created a religious exemption.


The lineup in that ruling, by the way, was interesting: conservative Justice Antonin Scalia joined by conservative Justice William Rehnquist, moderate conservative Justice Anthony Kennedy, moderate Justice Byron White, and moderate liberal Justice John Paul Stevens voted for the nondiscrimination rule. Moderate conservative Justice Sandra Day O’Connor — joined by liberal Justices William Brennan, Thurgood Marshall and Harry Blackmun — disagreed, and wanted to preserve the Sherbert constitutional exemption regime.


But wait. Congress didn’t agree with Smith, and so it enacted — by a nearly unanimous vote — the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993, which gave religious objectors a statutory right to exemptions (again, unless the government could show that denying the exemption was necessary to serve a compelling government interest). In City of Boerne v. Flores (1997) (http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=8746804851760570747), the court said this exceeded congressional power over the states, but RFRA — pronounced “riffra” — remains in effect for the federal government.


Moreover, since 1990, 17 states enacted similar “state RFRAs” that government state and local governments. One state (Alabama) enacted a constitutional amendment that did the same. Eleven states’ courts interpreted their state constitutions’ religious freedom clauses as following the 1963-1990 Sherbert model. And one state’s high court (in New York) interpreted the state constitution as applying a less protective religious exemption regime, somewhere between the old Sherbert approach and the Smith approach.http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/03/24/religious-exemptions-a-guide-for-the-confused/

[boutons_deux]

Justice Scalia's Past Comes Back To Haunt Him On Birth Control

When the Supreme Court hears two landmark cases about birth control (http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/supreme-court-birth-control-mandate-hobby-lobby) on Tuesday, few observers doubt that Justice Antonin Scalia's sympathies will be the Christian business owners who charge that the mandate violates their religious liberties.

The Reagan-appointed jurist is a devout Catholic who has extolled "traditional Christian virtues" and insists the devil is "a real person." He even has a son who's a Catholic priest. He voted in 2012 to wipe out Obamacare in its entirety and has been President Barack Obama's most outspoken foe on the Supreme Court.

And yet, Scalia's past jurisprudence stands contradictory to the argument for striking down the Obamacare rule in question, which requires for-profit employers' insurance plans to cover contraceptives (like Plan B, Ella and intrauterine devices) for female employees without co-pays.

In 1990, Scalia wrote the majority opinion in Employment Division v. Smith (http://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/494/872), concluding that the First Amendment "does not require" the government to grant "religious exemptions" from generally applicable laws or civic obligations. The case was brought by two men in Oregon who sued the state for denying them unemployment benefits after they were fired from their jobs for ingesting peyote, which they said they did because of their Native American religious beliefs.

"[T]he right of free exercise does not relieve an individual of the obligation to comply with a valid and neutral law of general applicability," Scalia wrote in the 6-3 majority decision, going on to aggressively argue that such exemptions could be a slippery slope to lawlessness and that "[a]ny society adopting such a system would be courting anarchy."

"The rule respondents favor would open the prospect of constitutionally required religious exemptions from civic obligations of almost every conceivable kind," he wrote, "ranging from compulsory military service, to the payment of taxes, to health and safety regulation such as manslaughter and child neglect laws, compulsory vaccination laws, drug laws, and traffic laws; to social welfare legislation such as minimum wage laws, child labor laws, animal cruelty laws, environmental protection laws, and laws providing for equality of opportunity for the races."

That opinion could haunt the jurist if he seeks to invalidate the birth control rule.

"Scalia will have to reckon with his own concern in Smith about the lawlessness and chaos created by liberal exemptions to generally applicable law," said Adam Winkler, a constitutional law professor at UCLA. "For him to uphold an exemption now is to invite more of the lawlessness that he warned about."

Michael C. Dorf, a law professor at Cornell, also addressed the tension.

"Justice Scalia's opinion in the Smith case offered a number of grounds for the conclusion that the Free Exercise Clause does not entitle religious objectors to exceptions from neutral laws of general application," Dorf wrote in SCOTUSblog (http://www.scotusblog.com/2014/02/symposium-why-is-rfra-still-valid-against-the-federal-government/), observing that Scalia also posited that judges weren't "competent" to decide which religions were deserving of exemptions.

In response to Scalia's decision, Congress passed the Religious Freedom Restoration Act in 1993, which says any law that "substantially burden[s]" a person's exercise of religion must demonstrate a "compelling governmental interest" and employ the "least restrictive means" of furthering that interest. That's the basis under which Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood, two businesses with religious owners, are suing for relief from the birth control rule.

And that might offer Scalia an escape hatch. Experts say he could conceivably decide that the First Amendment doesn't permit a religious entity to be exempt from the law but that RFRA suffices to let Hobby Lobby and certain others off the hook from the birth control rule. But even then, the RFRA argument isn't clear-cut. Nineteen Democratic senators who voted for the law in 1993 have filed an amicus brief (http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/democratic-senators-supreme-court-birth-control-amicus-brief) insisting that it doesn't -- and was never intended to -- give for-profit companies a pass on the law.

It's up to Scalia and the other justices to parse that question. If he axes the mandate on the basis of RFRA, he still has to contend with his earlier argument that such an outcome carries grave dangers for the rule of law.

"To permit this," he wrote in Smith, quoting from an old court decision, "would be to make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land, and in effect to permit every citizen to become a law unto himself."


http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/antonin-scalia-past-haunt-him-on-birth-control

the extreme right-wing SCOTUS has destroyed lots of stare decisis, so I don't see any obstacle to Scalia destroying his previous decision.

[boutons_deux]

"On the key issue in the case, it was unclear during a 90-minute oral argument whether the court would say that the companies could have an exemption that would allow them to avoid providing the coverage. On a threshold question, a majority of justices appeared likely to rule for-profit corporations do have a right to make religious claims."

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/03/25/us-usa-court-contraception-idUSBREA2O11W20140325?feedType=RSS&feedName=topNews