Arizona to legalize discrimination against gays or not

[Greed and Death]

So Arizona has a religious freedom bill and everyone is in a tizzy.

http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2 ... mbill.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the ... ay-rights/
http://www.npr.org/2014/02/25/282523501 ... -era-fears
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/02/2 ... 38214.html


The typical argument is this bill will allow private businesses to discriminate against gay people and government employees to do the same. Now here is the text of the bill. http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/51leg/2r/bills/sb1062p.pdf

Also here is a map of states with LGBT employment protection. Light blue means only for state employers.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:LGBT_ ... States.svg

A map showing LGBT housing discrimination.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:US_LG ... nation.svg (Grey means no protection)


Now in reading the text of the bill keep in mind that the words in black are already law, the words in red that are crossed out are currently law but are proposed to changes. So where the evil comes from will honestly come from the big blue words that are proposed additions to the law.

So in looking at the changes we start with section A. Looking at definition 2 they actually narrow the term exercise of religion. moving to definition section 5 they expand the definition of who can practice the religion. Though arguably they did not because the previous wording was not exhaustive.

Moving to section B they replace the word government with state action.

Looking at section c government is replaced with state action, and it is replaced with person opposing and lastly person who is burdened is clarified since the change from it would make the matter confusing.

Section D This is where the controversy is. A civil cause of action is expanded to mean more than just the government.

F is a clarification.

E is a new section that expands the exemption.


Now I know section D sounds like private employers will not be able to fire religiously objecting employees who do things like refuse to serve gay couples. However you must read the statute as a whole Section d brings a private right of action in regards to section b. Section b only applies to state action.

But what about government employees ? glad you asked. Nothing has changed the government already has to make the same level of accommodations it always has. Basically if government burdens religion it must do so for a compelling interest using the least restrictive means. This sounds scary but for religious freedom claims the rule is strict in theory feeble in fact.

Anyways what says NSG am I an evil man advancing an evil agenda or has Arizona tricked me ?

[Arkinesia]

This bill would effectively allow businesses to turn away people based on their sexual orientations. Such allowances are inherently anti-capitalist, anti-liberty, and anti-American.

Anyone who calls themselves patriotic Americans and support legislation like this should be ashamed of themselves.

[God Kefka]

So Arizona has a religious freedom bill and everyone is in a tizzy.

http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2 ... mbill.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the ... ay-rights/
http://www.npr.org/2014/02/25/282523501 ... -era-fears
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/02/2 ... 38214.html


The typical argument is this bill will allow private businesses to discriminate against gay people and government employees to do the same. Now here is the text of the bill. http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/51leg/2r/bills/sb1062p.pdf

Also here is a map of states with LGBT employment protection. Light blue means only for state employers.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:LGBT_ ... States.svg

A map showing LGBT housing discrimination.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:US_LG ... nation.svg (Grey means no protection)


Now in reading the text of the bill keep in mind that the words in black are already law, the words in red that are crossed out are currently law but are proposed to changes. So where the evil comes from will honestly come from the big blue words that are proposed additions to the law.

So in looking at the changes we start with section A. Looking at definition 2 they actually narrow the term exercise of religion. moving to definition section 5 they expand the definition of who can practice the religion. Though arguably they did not because the previous wording was not exhaustive.

Moving to section B they replace the word government with state action.

Looking at section c government is replaced with state action, and it is replaced with person opposing and lastly person who is burdened is clarified since the change from it would make the matter confusing.

Section D This is where the controversy is. A civil cause of action is expanded to mean more than just the government.

F is a clarification.

E is a new section that expands the exemption.


Now I know section D sounds like private employers will not be able to fire religiously objecting employees who do things like refuse to serve gay couples. However you must read the statute as a whole Section d brings a private right of action in regards to section b. Section b only applies to state action.

But what about government employees ? glad you asked. Nothing has changed the government already has to make the same level of accommodations it always has. Basically if government burdens religion it must do so for a compelling interest using the least restrictive means. This sounds scary but for religious freedom claims the rule is strict in theory feeble in fact.

Anyways what says NSG am I an evil man advancing an evil agenda or has Arizona tricked me ?

I wouldn't get too excited one way or another...

But I suppose if I ran a business I would want to freedom to choose who I want to serve and who I don't want to serve. I should have that right. Sounds fair on principle...

[AiliailiA]

Well about time. Arizona hasn't gone full retard in so long I almost forgot that it exists.

[Ermarian]

They're not going to go through with it, because it'll hit their economy pretty badly. [ http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/arizon ... ure-n38186 ]

Brewer is getting pressure from her own party to veto the bill, including both of Arizona's senators:

https://twitter.com/SenJohnMcCain/statu ... 3276143616
https://twitter.com/JeffFlake/status/438154616279420928

(Recently, whenever the conservative movement has attempted to grand-stand and push something outrageous, they've had to back out because of insufficient political capital and support, and each of those times it has cost them further credibility. Consider the government shutdown, and failed subsequent shutdowns over the debt ceiling.)

[Stormaen]

This bill would effectively allow businesses to turn away people based on their sexual orientations. Such allowances are inherently anti-capitalist, anti-liberty, and anti-American.

Anyone who calls themselves patriotic Americans and support legislation like this should be ashamed of themselves.

In one.

[Limerent]

They're not going to go through with it, because it'll hit their economy pretty badly. [ http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/arizon ... ure-n38186 ]

Brewer is getting pressure from her own party to veto the bill, including both of Arizona's senators:

https://twitter.com/SenJohnMcCain/statu ... 3276143616
https://twitter.com/JeffFlake/status/438154616279420928

(Recently, whenever the conservative movement has attempted to grand-stand and push something outrageous, they've had to back out because of insufficient political capital and support, and each of those times it has cost them further credibility. Consider the government shutdown, and failed subsequent shutdowns over the debt ceiling.)

Brewer is claiming she'll do the right thing for Arizona, which I'd assume would be interpreted as a promise to veto.

[Herskerstad]

They're not going to go through with it, because it'll hit their economy pretty badly. [ http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/arizon ... ure-n38186 ]

Brewer is getting pressure from her own party to veto the bill, including both of Arizona's senators:

https://twitter.com/SenJohnMcCain/statu ... 3276143616
https://twitter.com/JeffFlake/status/438154616279420928

(Recently, whenever the conservative movement has attempted to grand-stand and push something outrageous, they've had to back out because of insufficient political capital and support, and each of those times it has cost them further credibility. Consider the government shutdown, and failed subsequent shutdowns over the debt ceiling.)

Brewer is claiming she'll do the right thing for Arizona, which I'd assume would be interpreted as a promise to veto.

And pass up democratic talking points up to the next election? Hell no, developments like this is practically a gift to Hilary's upcoming campaign. Not only will it leave a bad taste which solidifies the northwest and the eastern seaboards, but it also weakens republican states internally putting them even further away from key population targets such as the youth.

If LGBT rights has to be tossed under the bus for the cause of the next election, LGBT rights will be tossed under the bus for the cause of the next election. Politics do come before ideals and the Democratic establishment will value election chances above some ideological intervention which would aid the desires of others.

[AiliailiA]

If LGBT rights has to be tossed under the bus for the cause of the next election, LGBT rights will be tossed under the bus for the cause of the next election. Politics do come before ideals and the Democratic establishment will value election chances above some ideological intervention which would aid the desires of others.

I don't like it, but that's how it is. You are right: at this time in an election year, this bill is just bait. Democrats should not take the bait.

[Threlizdun]

Brewer is claiming she'll do the right thing for Arizona, which I'd assume would be interpreted as a promise to veto.

And pass up democratic talking points up to the next election? Hell no, developments like this is practically a gift to Hilary's upcoming campaign. Not only will it leave a bad taste which solidifies the northwest and the eastern seaboards, but it also weakens republican states internally putting them even further away from key population targets such as the youth.

If LGBT rights has to be tossed under the bus for the cause of the next election, LGBT rights will be tossed under the bus for the cause of the next election. Politics do come before ideals and the Democratic establishment will value election chances above some ideological intervention which would aid the desires of others.

Yeah, fuck those people who suffer from this, my party needs votes!

[Risottia]

So Arizona has a religious freedom bill ...

Because nothing says "religious freedom" like having an excuse to discriminate other people.

Luckily most religious people don't share these idiotical views.

[Jerusalemian]

If Arizona passes the bill then it'll be bad for them.
But if they reject this bill then good for them.

[Starvation Is Fun]

This bill would effectively allow businesses to turn away people based on their sexual orientations. Such allowances are inherently anti-capitalist, anti-liberty, and anti-American.

Anyone who calls themselves patriotic Americans and support legislation like this should be ashamed of themselves.

Well I came here to post pretty much exactly this but this guy did it better.

[Vitaphone Racing]

This could easily be fixed by amending the Civil Rights Act of 1991 to include protection based on sexuality.

[Greed and Death]

This bill would effectively allow businesses to turn away people based on their sexual orientations. Such allowances are inherently anti-capitalist, anti-liberty, and anti-American.

Anyone who calls themselves patriotic Americans and support legislation like this should be ashamed of themselves.

In Arizona they already can do that. Sexuality is not a protected class in either Federal or Arizona civil rights law.

This bill has no effect on owners ability to do that.

[Ifreann]

This could easily be fixed by amending the Civil Rights Act of 1991 to include protection based on sexuality.

That, OR, we could ban Arizona.

[Imperializt Russia]

Anyways what says NSG am I an evil man advancing an evil agenda or has Arizona tricked me ?

Depends, doesn't it, are you pro-what-we-all-think-is-happening here or not?

[Imperializt Russia]

So Arizona has a religious freedom bill ...

Because nothing says "religious freedom" like having an excuse to discriminate other people.

Luckily most religious people don't share these idiotical views.

And yet, American government.

[Vitaphone Racing]

Because nothing says "religious freedom" like having an excuse to discriminate other people.

Luckily most religious people don't share these idiotical views.

And yet, American government.

It's Arizona; where the extreme right are more vocal than the extreme left and nobody in between cares too much.

[Starvation Is Fun]

This could easily be fixed by amending the Civil Rights Act of 1991 to include protection based on sexuality.

That, OR, we could ban Arizona.

I'd vote to ban Arizona.

[Fascist Russian Empire]

Bullshit. America needs to stop sucking up to the religious community.

The rights of religions end where the rights of individuals begin. Religious people have the right to worship, the right to build religious institutions, and be religious, but they do not have the right to interfere with the rights of others.

[Greed and Death]

Bullshit. America needs to stop sucking up to the religious community.

The rights of religions end where the rights of individuals begin. Religious people have the right to worship, the right to build religious institutions, and be religious, but they do not have the right to interfere with the rights of others.

But rights are only a restriction on government activity not private activity.

[Vitaphone Racing]

Bullshit. America needs to stop sucking up to the religious community.

The rights of religions end where the rights of individuals begin. Religious people have the right to worship, the right to build religious institutions, and be religious, but they do not have the right to interfere with the rights of others.

But you see, in their own weird way, they think they're safeguarding the rights of individuals. Namely, the right to be an ass.

[Fascist Russian Empire]

Bullshit. America needs to stop sucking up to the religious community.

The rights of religions end where the rights of individuals begin. Religious people have the right to worship, the right to build religious institutions, and be religious, but they do not have the right to interfere with the rights of others.

But rights are only a restriction on government activity not private activity.

Murder is a private activity. Rape is a private activity. Theft and arson are private activities. Are those rights people deserve? No, and neither is the right to discriminate.

[Greed and Death]

So Arizona has a religious freedom bill and everyone is in a tizzy.

http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2 ... mbill.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the ... ay-rights/
http://www.npr.org/2014/02/25/282523501 ... -era-fears
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/02/2 ... 38214.html


The typical argument is this bill will allow private businesses to discriminate against gay people and government employees to do the same. Now here is the text of the bill. http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/51leg/2r/bills/sb1062p.pdf

Also here is a map of states with LGBT employment protection. Light blue means only for state employers.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:LGBT_ ... States.svg

A map showing LGBT housing discrimination.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:US_LG ... nation.svg (Grey means no protection)


Now in reading the text of the bill keep in mind that the words in black are already law, the words in red that are crossed out are currently law but are proposed to changes. So where the evil comes from will honestly come from the big blue words that are proposed additions to the law.

So in looking at the changes we start with section A. Looking at definition 2 they actually narrow the term exercise of religion. moving to definition section 5 they expand the definition of who can practice the religion. Though arguably they did not because the previous wording was not exhaustive.

Moving to section B they replace the word government with state action.

Looking at section c government is replaced with state action, and it is replaced with person opposing and lastly person who is burdened is clarified since the change from it would make the matter confusing.

Section D This is where the controversy is. A civil cause of action is expanded to mean more than just the government.

F is a clarification.

E is a new section that expands the exemption.


Now I know section D sounds like private employers will not be able to fire religiously objecting employees who do things like refuse to serve gay couples. However you must read the statute as a whole Section d brings a private right of action in regards to section b. Section b only applies to state action.

But what about government employees ? glad you asked. Nothing has changed the government already has to make the same level of accommodations it always has. Basically if government burdens religion it must do so for a compelling interest using the least restrictive means. This sounds scary but for religious freedom claims the rule is strict in theory feeble in fact.

Anyways what says NSG am I an evil man advancing an evil agenda or has Arizona tricked me ?

I wouldn't get too excited one way or another...

But I suppose if I ran a business I would want to freedom to choose who I want to serve and who I don't want to serve. I should have that right. Sounds fair on principle...

It is already fine to discriminate on sexuality in Arizona and a great many other states. Sexuality is not a protected class.