Bipartisan group of attorneys ask Brewer to sign SB 1062

posted at 12:41 pm on February 26, 2014 by Ed Morrissey

Yesterday, I wrote about the effort by the Arizona legislature to amend their state constitution to expand religious-liberty protection in the wake of lawsuits attempting to force participation in same-sex weddings by private businesses. The reaction of some to the bill described it as the next Jim Crow, without apparently knowing that Jim Crow mandated segregation rather than allow for private decisions on commerce. That hyperbolic and uninformed reaction doesn’t mean that the bill is good, though, and the retreat by Arizona politicians that once supported it — including one of its sponsors — sends a pretty big signal that it would create a lot of unintended consequences, either legal, commercial, political, or all three.

Governor Jan Brewer is still mulling over her options, although NBC reported yesterday that she was leaning toward a veto. Brewer vetoed a similar bill earlier, with less fanfare. My friend Paul Mirengoff at Power Line has received a letter from a bipartisan group of noted legal scholars sent to Brewer today arguing that, far from a return to Jim Crow, SB 1062 simply uses a familiar statutory framework for codifying religious liberty in order to require courts to prioritize sincerely-held religious beliefs over weaker state interests. The signatories are not just a mix of Republicans and Democrats, but also a mix of same-sex marriage supporters and opponents:

Some of us are Republicans; some of us are Democrats. Some of us are religious; some of us are not. Some of us oppose same-sex marriage; some of us support it. Nine of the eleven signers of this letter believe that you should sign the bill; two are unsure. But all of us believe that many criticisms of the Arizona bill are deeply misleading.

The federal government and eighteen states have Religious Freedom Restoration Acts (RFRAs). Another twelve or thirteen states interpret their state constitutions to provide similar protections. These laws enact a uniform standard to be interpreted and applied to individual cases by courts. They say that before the government can burden a person’s religious exercise, the government has to show a compelling justification.

That standard makes sense. We should not punish people for practicing their religions unless we have a very good reason. Arizona has had a RFRA for nearly fifteen years now; the federal government has had one since 1993; and RFRA’s standard was the constitutional standard for the entire country from 1963 to 1990. …

SB1062 would amend the Arizona RFRA to address two ambiguities that have been the subject of litigation under other RFRAs. It would provide that people are covered when state or local government requires them to violate their religion in the conduct of their business, and it would provide that people are covered when sued by a private citizen invoking state or local law to demand that they violate their religion.

But nothing in the amendment would say who wins in either of these cases. The person invoking RFRA would still have to prove that he had a sincere religious belief and that state or local government was imposing a substantial burden on his exercise of that religious belief. And the government, or the person on the other side of the lawsuit, could still show that compliance with the law was necessary to serve a compelling government interest.

In an earlier post, Paul offered conditional support unless the language was poorly written to allow abuses in discrimination.  These legal scholars are satisfied that none exists. If this is accurate — and I’m hardly in a position to challenge a constitutional scholar like Michael McConnell or Douglas Laycock, who come down on opposite sides of the same-sex marriage argument in all other contexts– then it appears that those worries about the legal impact are misplaced. That still doesn’t necessarily address the commercial and political impact to Arizona if Brewer signs this bill, and there isn’t a politician who doesn’t take those issues in account when making decisions like these.

It would be far better if courts just took this as a common-sense application of the freedom to religious expression, without the potential backfire of using an expansion of statutes and the potential for unintended consequences that result from them. Common sense, in this case, would recognize that the right to religious liberty trumps the extremely weak state interests in the commercial industries surrounding weddings. Unfortunately, the Obama administration has been undermining that application of common sense with the HHS contraception mandate for the last two years, and courts haven’t entirely embraced the common-sense conclusion that business owners shouldn’t be compelled to provide free contraception and sterilization services when it opposes their religious principles. As I noted yesterday, if everyone took the same approach as Andrew Sullivan, there wouldn’t be a need (real or perceived) for this bill at all:

I would never want to coerce any fundamentalist to provide services for my wedding – or anything else for that matter – if it made them in any way uncomfortable. The idea of suing these businesses to force them to provide services they are clearly uncomfortable providing is anathema to me. I think it should be repellent to the gay rights movement as well.

The truth is: we’re winning this argument. We’ve made the compelling moral case that gay citizens should be treated no differently by their government than straight citizens. And the world has shifted dramatically in our direction. Inevitably, many fundamentalist Christians and Orthodox Jews and many Muslims feel threatened and bewildered by such change and feel that it inchoately affects their religious convictions. I think they’re mistaken – but we’re not talking logic here. We’re talking religious conviction. My view is that in a free and live-and-let-live society, we should give them space. As long as our government is not discriminating against us, we should be tolerant of prejudice as long as it does not truly hurt us. And finding another florist may be a bother, and even upsetting, as one reader expressed so well. But we can surely handle it. And should.

Leave the fundamentalists and bigots alone. In any marketplace in a diverse society, they will suffer economically by refusing and alienating some customers, their families and their friends. By all means stop patronizing them in both senses of the word. Let them embrace discrimination and lose revenue. Let us let them be in the name of their freedom – and ours’.

That is the definition of tolerance — not enforced participation, but allowing people to make their own personal choices free of government-imposed mandates of acceptance and participation. Speaking of which, this test case in the UK is making the e-mail rounds today, and seems on point:

Britain’s most famous surrogate gay dads have hired lawyers to sue the Church of England for the right to a full-blown religious wedding.

Barrie and Tony Drewitt-Barlow told Gay Star News it was important for them as Christians to marry in church and for their kids to see they were equal.

Under the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act for England and Wales, which has been signed into law but won’t be implemented until 2014, religious groups can opt in to marrying same-sex couples but don’t have to if they don’t want to.

The Church of England, the state religion, is protected by a quadruple lock to protect it from being forced to wed gay couples.

But the Drewitt-Barlows, from Essex, southeast England, attend their local parish church in the village of Danbury with their five children and want to marry there.

They told GSN: ‘We actually feel that the government has done all it can do right now to push equality for same sex marriage in the right direction.

‘However, there is still discrimination towards same-sex couples in terms of being allowed to marry in a church.["]

Before scoffing that this can’t happen here, let’s remember that ministers occupy a quasi-official state role in certifying marriages — a much more significant state interest than in bakers or photographers. It’s certainly food for thought, and don’t be surprised to see test-case lawsuits filed here in the US for the same purpose.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3

noted legal scholars

LOL

d1carter on February 26, 2014 at 12:43 PM

Any Muslim bakeries in Arizona..?

d1carter on February 26, 2014 at 12:45 PM

There is/was never more than a 0% chance she wouldn’t veto it. Just as there is 0% chance of bitterness all around.

M240H on February 26, 2014 at 12:45 PM

The same thing is gonna happen here…. It’s just a matter of time…

sandee on February 26, 2014 at 12:45 PM

2 Timothy 3
King James Version (KJV)
3 This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come.

2 For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy,

3 Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good,

4 Traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God;

5 Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away.

stenwin77 on February 26, 2014 at 12:45 PM

… no bitterness …

M240H on February 26, 2014 at 12:46 PM

can’t believe it–sullivan makes sense….

and don’t be surprised to see test-case lawsuits filed here in the US for the same purpose.

guaranteed
after the downfall of this bill, this will be their next target methinks….

cmsinaz on February 26, 2014 at 12:47 PM

2 Timothy 3
King James Version (KJV)
3 This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come.

2 For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy,

3 Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good,

4 Traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God;

5 Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away.

stenwin77 on February 26, 2014 at 12:45 PM

Just as long as I live long enough to see Obuggerme & co. pi** themselves …

M240H on February 26, 2014 at 12:48 PM

These legal scholars are satisfied that none exists. If this is accurate — and I’m hardly in a position to challenge a constitutional scholar like Michael McConnell or Douglas Laycock, who come down on opposite sides of the same-sex marriage argument in all other contexts– then it appears that those worries about the legal impact are misplaced.

Misplaced? How about misrepresented in order to push an agenda (a fascist agenda) against freedom of speech, freedom of association, First Amendment protections for the free exercise of religion, and an individual’s liberty?

Athos on February 26, 2014 at 12:49 PM

Holy crap. I agree with Andrew Sullivan.

I picked a bad week to stop drinking.

As for forcing a religious figure of some sort to perform your marriage, that is precisely what I have against radical gays. major dad and I were married by the Court Clerk in santa Ana. Wy? because we didn’t have time to FOLLOW THE CATHOLIC CHURCH’s RULES.

That’s why they’re called “rules” and each church is allowed to have their own set. We knew it and accepted the fact. No harm, no foul.

It’s like being an adult about something…or something.

tree hugging sister on February 26, 2014 at 12:50 PM

Great post Ed.

gwelf on February 26, 2014 at 12:50 PM

It’s different in the UK because the Church of England is the state church. If the state approves it, it’s hard to fathom the church not eventually allowing it or a court not forcing it to. England has no written Constitution so the church is more or less on its own here.

On the other hand, the right to a marriage does not necessarily convey the right to a wedding. Many straight and gay couples are perefctely happy being married in a civil ceremony by a justice of the peace. But using the ridiculous legal theory of Judge Walker in the Prop 8 case, same sex couples will no doubt argue that a church wedding confers special societal acceptance and status on a marriage, and therefore the church cannot refuse it for any reason other than animus toward homosexuals, which the law forbids.

They just keep proving my theory that most of this was never about “equality” in obtaining the marriage certificates, it was about the weddings.

rockmom on February 26, 2014 at 12:51 PM

Hmmm.

And ADF sent a new fb status as to why it’s a good bill.

I wonder if Governor Brewer is still whipped by the Obama administration’s bullying over a past immigration law.

22044 on February 26, 2014 at 12:53 PM

It’s certainly food for thought, and don’t be surprised to see test-case lawsuits filed here in the US for the same purpose.

Warnings were issued about the slippery slope in the wake of the Lawrence v. Texas ruling. Those concerns about the slippery slope have largely been confirmed by subsequent actions of those working the agenda.

Taking one more step to force religious entities to conduct same-sex marriages regardless of their religious beliefs and values would hardly be a surprise. Fascism is fascism and it doesn’t stop.

Athos on February 26, 2014 at 12:53 PM

SB1062 would amend the Arizona RFRA to address two ambiguities that have been the subject of litigation under other RFRAs. It would provide that people are covered when state or local government requires them to violate their religion in the conduct of their business, and it would provide that people are covered when sued by a private citizen invoking state or local law to demand that they violate their religion.

It’s not just the UK case…

“Unfortunately, there are two primary areas of conflict between religious freedoms and government policy in Canada: abortion and homosexuality. A group of eight Christians, members of a group called Operation Rescue protesting abortion were arrested and sentenced to jail terms for peacefully protesting outside an abortion clinic. I met one of the men, Donald Spratt, who was incarcerated in British Columbia’s maximum security Oakalla prison for his crime — he was holding a sign outside an abortion clinic. Currently, he is awaiting trial in the BC Court of Appeal for violating the “bubble zone” of an abortion clinic. Once again, he was simply holding a sign with a Bible verse on it — Thou shalt not kill.

A man by the name of Bill Whatcott, an evangelical Christian who is a licensed practical nurse, was fined $15,000 by his professional association, for protesting against abortion on his own time, and also fined $20,000 by the Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission for speaking out against homosexuality. There is a great deal of intolerance shown towards religious people who express their views in public.

In May 2002, a Catholic high school in Whitby, Ontario, was forced by the Ontario Supreme Court to allow a homosexual student, Marc Hall, to take his boyfriend to the graduation prom, even though the church-run school has strict prohibitions against condoning any kind of homosexual behaviour.

And marriage commissioners, who are public employees licensed to perform civil marriages, were told by Frank Quennell, the Saskatchewan Minister of Justice, to resign if they intend to refuse to perform same sex marriages. Several have already. The new legislation currently being considered by the Canadian government provides no protection for civic officials who for reasons of conscience or religious belief will not perform a same sex marriage.

Just a few months ago, a lesbian couple in the Vancouver suburb of Coquitlam arranged to rent a hall for their wedding reception from the Knights of Columbus, a Catholics men’s service group. When the group discovered that the marriage was going to be between two women, they cancelled the rental agreement, stating that their religious beliefs prevented them from accommodating a same sex wedding. Even though they paid to reprint the wedding invitations and for the rental of a new hall, the couple is still suing the group in the BC Human Rights Tribunal…”

More at the link:

http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/persecution/pch0080.html

workingclass artist on February 26, 2014 at 12:53 PM

Holy crap. I agree with Andrew Sullivan.

I picked a bad week to stop drinking.
tree hugging sister on February 26, 2014 at 12:50 PM

A fing men!

melle1228 on February 26, 2014 at 12:53 PM

Stupid Colmes compared teh gayness to slavery.

Fools of HA, those who claim the same, when was a gay owned, mistreated, exploited, bought and sold by a master?

Schadenfreude on February 26, 2014 at 12:53 PM

As for forcing a religious figure of some sort to perform your marriage, that is precisely what I have against radical gays. major dad and I were married by the Court Clerk in santa Ana. Wy? because we didn’t have time to FOLLOW THE CATHOLIC CHURCH’s RULES.

That’s why they’re called “rules” and each church is allowed to have their own set. We knew it and accepted the fact. No harm, no foul.

It’s like being an adult about something…or something.

tree hugging sister on February 26, 2014 at 12:50 PM

+1000

rockmom on February 26, 2014 at 12:54 PM

I also think that – if I understand constitutional lawyer John Eastman correctly – that in addition to showing that the state has a compelling interest in infringing someone’s religious (or other liberties like speech and association) the state also has to show that their policy/action is the most direct and least burdensome – e.g., the state should not be able to force Hobby Lobby to pay for abortions because if the state has a compelling interest in handing out abortifacients and abortions then the state can do it directly itself instead of compelling private third parties to do it for them.

What this comes down to is that the left demand that in order to be part of the public square you MUST surrender your liberties and agree to support liberal pieties in every area.

gwelf on February 26, 2014 at 12:55 PM

Andrew Sullivan’s side is winning the argument because Andrew Sullivan’s side has attained unelected, unaccountable power and is willing to destroy anyone who gets in its way.

cbenoistd on February 26, 2014 at 12:55 PM

Wouldn’t it be discrimination if the NFL pulled the Super Bowl..? Ironic…?

d1carter on February 26, 2014 at 12:55 PM

Holy crap. I agree with Andrew Sullivan.

I picked a bad week to stop drinking.
tree hugging sister on February 26, 2014 at 12:50 PM

A fing men!

melle1228 on February 26, 2014 at 12:53 PM

I think it’s been more than a decade since I agreed with Sullivan.

gwelf on February 26, 2014 at 12:55 PM

Before scoffing that this can’t happen here…

Scoff? I’ve long opposed gay marriage precisely because its most ardent supporters WANT to force churches to perform the wedding ceremony. Regardless of the tax implications, I can tell you that a lot of churches-mine included-are going to flat out refuse. What happens then? Nothing good.

Physics Geek on February 26, 2014 at 12:56 PM

Stupid Colmes compared teh gayness to slavery.

Fools of HA, those who claim the same, when was a gay owned, mistreated, exploited, bought and sold by a master?

Schadenfreude on February 26, 2014 at 12:53 PM

Same comparison from HillAreWe last evening…..it’s all they have…..

..behold the Leftists from the recent open reg…..maybe
Colmes was one?

ToddPA on February 26, 2014 at 12:56 PM


Andrew Sullivan’s side has attained unelected, unaccountable power

…bearing in mind that Obama originally was against same-sex marriage until Joe Biden “saw the light.”

cbenoistd on February 26, 2014 at 12:57 PM

I say veto the bill. Fair or not, this thing has been twisted to be the next coming of Jim Crow. Its all younger idiots on Facebook and at my work are talking about, a perfect distraction in an election year.

Jack_Burton on February 26, 2014 at 1:01 PM

It’s different in the UK because the Church of England is the state church. If the state approves it, it’s hard to fathom the church not eventually allowing it or a court not forcing it to. England has no written Constitution so the church is more or less on its own here.

On the other hand, the right to a marriage does not necessarily convey the right to a wedding. Many straight and gay couples are perefctely happy being married in a civil ceremony by a justice of the peace. But using the ridiculous legal theory of Judge Walker in the Prop 8 case, same sex couples will no doubt argue that a church wedding confers special societal acceptance and status on a marriage, and therefore the church cannot refuse it for any reason other than animus toward homosexuals, which the law forbids.

They just keep proving my theory that most of this was never about “equality” in obtaining the marriage certificates, it was about the weddings.

rockmom on February 26, 2014 at 12:51 PM

Yep.

I expect that once the Anglican Church is forced to perform gay weddings…All denominations (except the Muslims since they have successfully intimidated the UK government) will be forced to comply.

The Catholics will shut down their churches…maybe go mobil in terms of issuing sacraments…like they did in Ireland during the Penal laws?

workingclass artist on February 26, 2014 at 1:01 PM

Mr. Sullivan is correct, they are winning the war, stop hurting people unnecessarily with the peripheral skirmishes that do more harm than good.

Cindy Munford on February 26, 2014 at 1:01 PM

It was never about the damned wedding cake!

Happy Nomad on February 26, 2014 at 1:03 PM

Hmmm.

And ADF sent a new fb status as to why it’s a good bill.

I wonder if Governor Brewer is still whipped by the Obama administration’s bullying over a past immigration law.

22044 on February 26, 2014 at 12:53 PM

Money talks.

workingclass artist on February 26, 2014 at 1:05 PM

They just keep proving my theory that most of this was never about “equality” in obtaining the marriage certificates, it was about the weddings.

rockmom on February 26, 2014 at 12:51 PM

It’s about attacking, diminishing and discrediting traditional religion in order to weaken society.

It’s about dismantling the existing social order in order to facilitate taking greater power.

It’s about increasing identity politics and divisions within society.

It’s about using these issues to weaken and ultimately eliminate the concepts of individual freedom and liberty.

David Horowitz on the goals of the progressive left:

The belief in a perfect future inevitably inspires a passionate (and otherwise inexplicable) hatred towards the imperfect present. The first agenda of social redeemers is to dismantle the existing social order, which means their intellectual and political efforts are focused on the work of destruction.

To achieve it’s goal to dismantle the existing social order, the left adopts and leverages – the ends justifies the means – a free pass to commit any crime needed to achieve the desired goal.

Athos on February 26, 2014 at 1:05 PM

I say veto the bill. Fair or not, this thing has been twisted to be the next coming of Jim Crow. Its all younger idiots on Facebook and at my work are talking about, a perfect distraction in an election year.

Jack_Burton on February 26, 2014 at 1:01 PM

I am so sick of surrender monkeys. So if NSA spying can be spun as good for you, you say let it happen. How about ethnic cleansing being spun so that the economy improves?

You don’t fing surrender and except government force because someone somewhere might ignorantly not understand.

melle1228 on February 26, 2014 at 1:06 PM

I know a way out for Gov. Brewer…

… Just admit that she is really Terence Stamp and be done with it.

Seven Percent Solution on February 26, 2014 at 1:06 PM

It was never about the damned wedding cake!

Happy Nomad on February 26, 2014 at 1:03 PM

Correct.

It’s a sustained campaign of intimidation against any and all critics of anything on the Fascist Left agenda…Both individual,private sector and institutional.

workingclass artist on February 26, 2014 at 1:06 PM

except

accept *

melle1228 on February 26, 2014 at 1:06 PM

They just keep proving my theory that most of this was never about “equality” in obtaining the marriage certificates, it was about the weddings.

rockmom on February 26, 2014 at 12:51 PM

It’s not about the weddings either. It’s about state mandated celebration and participation.

That which isn’t forbidden will be mandatory.

gwelf on February 26, 2014 at 1:07 PM

Good post and Sullivan, bless his heart, makes some sense. Live and let live. I was raised in a Fundamentalist Christian church and it’s hard (but getting less difficult in these times, actually)to stay within the moral bounds of that child “raised in the way it should go and… not depart from it.” I look to my past to bring moral clarity to the present. My fear is that, through government edicts, executive orders and a plethora of lawsuits held before ‘progressive’ judges, that the, heretofore, ‘alternative lifestyles’ will by design, force the wisdom of the ages into the ‘alternative’…

vnvet on February 26, 2014 at 1:08 PM

I’ve long opposed gay marriage precisely because its most ardent supporters WANT to force churches to perform the wedding ceremony. Regardless of the tax implications, I can tell you that a lot of churches-mine included-are going to flat out refuse. What happens then? Nothing good.

Physics Geek on February 26, 2014 at 12:56 PM

And that’s the whole point. The gays don’t want equality or tolerance they are out for revenge and won’t be happy until the Pope is forced to bless a perverse union at the high altar in St. Peter’s. Conversely, the churches could just opt to disband which would be okay with the gays too.

Happy Nomad on February 26, 2014 at 1:08 PM

Any Muslim bakeries in Arizona..?

d1carter on February 26, 2014 at 12:45 PM

They’d probably get a pass

workingclass artist on February 26, 2014 at 1:09 PM

It’s a sustained campaign of intimidation against any and all critics of anything on the Fascist Left agenda…Both individual,private sector and institutional.

workingclass artist on February 26, 2014 at 1:06 PM

Yep. That New Mexico “couple” went shopping until they found a baker that refused to make them a damned wedding cake. Never mind that they went to more than a few before they found the “bigoted” baker. All of the outrage is as manufactured as Rosa Parks bus ride.

Happy Nomad on February 26, 2014 at 1:11 PM

Here is the message in the clear:

Bullying for liberals all ok, but not for you low life conservatives.

“Let me make myself clear, we get to bring a gun you piss ant conservatives get the knife.”

APACHEWHOKNOWS on February 26, 2014 at 1:11 PM

On the other hand, the right to a marriage does not necessarily convey the right to a wedding. Many straight and gay couples are perefctely happy being married in a civil ceremony by a justice of the peace. But using the ridiculous legal theory of Judge Walker in the Prop 8 case, same sex couples will no doubt argue that a church wedding confers special societal acceptance and status on a marriage, and therefore the church cannot refuse it for any reason other than animus toward homosexuals, which the law forbids.

They just keep proving my theory that most of this was never about “equality” in obtaining the marriage certificates, it was about the weddings.

rockmom on February 26, 2014 at 12:51 PM

Yep.

And it was never about the weddings. It was about antireligious bigotry and using the government to punish religious beliefs.

The reason Andrew “Christianist” Sullivan is suddenly trying to look all reasonable is because this is a PR disaster in the making. Once it becomes obvious that gay-sex bigots intend to force churches to marry gay people, THAT will be what pushes through a constitutional amendment that marriage is not a right.

northdallasthirty on February 26, 2014 at 1:12 PM

It’s different in the UK because the Church of England is the state church. If the state approves it, it’s hard to fathom the church not eventually allowing it or a court not forcing it to. England has no written Constitution so the church is more or less on its own here.

rockmom on February 26, 2014 at 12:51 PM

The CoE pays lip service to the Bible and will twist and turn to find a way of interpreting it to support lofty left wing ideas .

EnglishRogue on February 26, 2014 at 1:14 PM

Here is the list of signatories:

Prof. Douglas Laycock, University of Virginia School of Law
Prof. Helen M. Alvare, George Mason University School of Law
Prof. Carl H. Esbeck, University of Missouri School of Law
Prof. Christopher C. Lund, Wayne State University Law School
Prof. Gregory C. Sisk, University of St. Thomas School of Law (Minnesota)
Prof. Mary Ann Glendon, Harvard Law School
Prof. Michael W. McConnell, Stanford Law School
Prof. Thomas C. Berg, University of St. Thomas School of Law (Minnesota)
Prof. Richard W. Garnett, Notre Dame Law School
Prof. Mark S. Scarberry, Pepperdine University School of Law
Robert Fretwell Wilson, University of Illinois College of Law

Pork-Chop on February 26, 2014 at 1:14 PM

‘However, there is still discrimination towards same-sex couples in terms of being allowed to marry in a church

I was not allowed to remarry in the Catholic church because I was divorced and did not get a chuch anullment. My son just went through the same thing. It takes over a $1000 and at least a year to Maybe get a Catholic anullment. But teh gheys will push to be able to marry in the church. This is such BS.

BeachBum on February 26, 2014 at 1:14 PM

Big business does not want anything that gets in the way of profits and the bottom line. They do not want to offend anyone, as that cuts into profits. Welcome to transnationalism. They don’t see any logic in discriminating as that reduces market share. Them’s the rules.

Nape-wa-ste on February 26, 2014 at 1:14 PM

And that’s the whole point. The gays don’t want equality or tolerance they are out for revenge and won’t be happy until the Pope is forced to bless a perverse union at the high altar in St. Peter’s. Conversely, the churches could just opt to disband which would be okay with the gays too.

Happy Nomad on February 26, 2014 at 1:08 PM

The Church just goes kinda underground until things change…and they always do.

The average length of time in the modern era is give or take 80+ years (Eastern Europe,Mexico)

Hate to see it happen here…But the Bishops are preparing the flock.

In her long history The Church has seen many Neros.

workingclass artist on February 26, 2014 at 1:15 PM

Leave the fundamentalists and bigots alone.

- AS

That is the definition of tolerance

– AP

MontanaMmmm on February 26, 2014 at 1:15 PM

However, there is still discrimination towards same-sex couples in terms of being allowed to marry in a church.

Well, yeah! That’s called freedom of religion!

I have no faith the Brits will get this right, and whatever awful precedent they set we better be prepared to fight against it here. This nonsense makes the contraception mandates currently before SCOTUS even more important. If SCOTUS gets it wrong all hell is going to break loose as the gheys decide it’s time to dismantle religion as we know it.

NotCoach on February 26, 2014 at 1:17 PM

I am so sick of surrender monkeys. So if NSA spying can be spun as good for you, you say let it happen. How about ethnic cleansing being spun so that the economy improves?

You don’t fing surrender and except government force because someone somewhere might ignorantly not understand.

melle1228 on February 26, 2014 at 1:06 PM

Damn right. It’s that attitude that allowed Hitler to eventually cart Jews away in box cars.

Bitter Clinger on February 26, 2014 at 1:17 PM

Before scoffing that this can’t happen here, let’s remember that ministers occupy a quasi-official state role in certifying marriages — a much more significant state interest than in bakers or photographers. It’s certainly food for thought, and don’t be surprised to see test-case lawsuits filed here in the US for the same purpose.

By “don’t be surprised” you obviously mean “bet your bottom dollar.”

Akzed on February 26, 2014 at 1:17 PM

Do not forget the photo of Gov. Brewer taking the “Lord/King” on re: his crap on the border as he “de-plane’d” from his Blow Hard One plane.

She is a target of the commies now and forever.

APACHEWHOKNOWS on February 26, 2014 at 1:18 PM

An explanation of the bill, and why it’s needed:

Arizona needs SB 1062 to protect the religious freedom rights of every citizen.

In America, people should be free to live and work according to their faith. Our nation was founded upon the ideal of religious freedom and the right to freely walk your faith.

People don’t forfeit their religious freedom rights simply because they go to work or start a business.

No one should ever be forced to choose between their conscience or religious beliefs and their profession. The Constitution doesn’t only guarantee our “freedom to worship” but our freedom to practice and promote our faith. Americans don’t have to leave their faith and convictions at their church door; we have the right to carry it with us in all aspects of our lives.

Arizona’s Religious Freedom Restoration Act needs to be updated. Due to the growing hostility towards religious freedom in our nation, it is vital that Arizona law clearly protects the religious liberty of every citizen.

Participation in religious communities should be celebrated, not penalized. Persecuting individuals or groups for their religious beliefs creates second-class citizens who are seen as less valuable because of their faith.

This law clarifies and strengthens existing law protecting religious freedom. In recent years, Arizona has taken significant steps to ensure the religious freedom rights of every individual. Updating the state’s RFRA is an important piece of this effort.

Conclusion:

SB 1062 is necessary to update Arizona’s Religious Freedom Restoration Act and to close loopholes that might jeopardize a person’s free exercise of religion in Arizona.

http://www.azpolicy.org/bill-tracker/religious-freedom-restoration-act-sb-1062

Pork-Chop on February 26, 2014 at 1:20 PM

stenwin77 on February 26, 2014 at 12:45 PM

Baloney. The “last days” being spoken of were the last days of the old covenant. This has nothing to do with the days we live in.

Akzed on February 26, 2014 at 1:21 PM

That New Mexico “couple” went shopping until they found a baker that refused to make them a damned wedding cake.

the baker was in oregon but i would like to read the article that says they shopped around till they found a baker that they knew would refuse them.

brushingmyhair on February 26, 2014 at 1:22 PM

This is how they are dealing with forceing “amnesty” on U.S..

Same old crap over and over until they start the political trials and the re-education camps.

You will OK amnesty or will will doubble down on “Obama Care.”

APACHEWHOKNOWS on February 26, 2014 at 1:23 PM

I was not allowed to remarry in the Catholic church because I was divorced and did not get a chuch anullment. My son just went through the same thing. It takes over a $1000 and at least a year to Maybe get a Catholic anullment. But teh gheys will push to be able to marry in the church. This is such BS.

BeachBum on February 26, 2014 at 1:14 PM

This is an old battle in that the State seeks to force a change in Church Doctrine.

The reformation created alternatives for christians…they can shop around.

Even Roman Catholics who are divorced can join an Eastern denomination,keep the sacraments and still remain in communion with Rome…and many have done just that. Anglicans can join and keep their book of common prayer.

Why don’t Gays form their own churches with their own rituals? (This was done in Dallas,Tx. it’s called the Cathedral of Hope)

But doing that wouldn’t silence the critics now would it?

workingclass artist on February 26, 2014 at 1:24 PM

Someone in the comments on Breitbart listed links to each attorneys profile and only 2 were not conservative attorneys. Most of them write for the site Federalist Society.

stingray9813 on February 26, 2014 at 1:25 PM

Tweets

Jan Brewer ‏@GovBrewer 13h

I assure you, as always, I will do the right thing for the State of Arizona. #SB1062
Expand
============

https://twitter.com/GovBrewer

canopfor on February 26, 2014 at 1:26 PM

Tweets

Jan Brewer ‏@GovBrewer 13h

I assure you, as always, I will do the right thing for the State of Arizona. #SB1062
Expand
============

https://twitter.com/GovBrewer

canopfor on February 26, 2014 at 1:26 PM

And the right thing is: Super Bowl tickets for teh gheys!

NotCoach on February 26, 2014 at 1:29 PM

as manufactured as Rosa Parks bus ride. Happy Nomad on February 26, 2014 at 1:11 PM

Straight from the Highlander Folk School to that bus!

Akzed on February 26, 2014 at 1:30 PM

the baker was in oregon but i would like to read the article that says they shopped around till they found a baker that they knew would refuse them.

brushingmyhair on February 26, 2014 at 1:22 PM

You provide a link on how this is like slavery.

Schadenfreude on February 26, 2014 at 1:31 PM

Brewer has already been pressured and hammered down by the media and Mc Lame and Flakey. She doesn’t have the moral courage to sign the bill. This is where the subjugation of religious freedom begins and those who are not religious look the other way because it doesn’t affect them. “First they came for the Jews…” say goodbye to your personal freedom. Business owners should be allowed to refuse service to anyone for any reason. Take your money elsewhere, vote with your wallet, but don’t use the government to take away your fellow Americans freedoms, because you want them to force them to embrace your beliefs.

searcher on February 26, 2014 at 1:32 PM

Bwahahahahahahahaha

They have to cloak discrimination under the guise of religious freedom because they are scared of the word and misunderstand the concept. They would never pass legislation saying that businesses could discriminate against anyone on the basis of race, creed, color, religion, age, gender, height, weight, disability, familial status, marital status, socioeconomic status, political preference, religious piety, national origin, odor, or appearance. That is, they would never legalize freedom.

There is no right to service. In a free society, every individual and business owner has the right to refuse service. It is part and parcel of the inviolability of private property, the freedom of assembly, the freedom of association, the freedom of contract, free enterprise, and the free market. In a free society, business owners, like homeowners, have the right to run their businesses as they choose, including the right to refuse service, and including the right to discriminate on any basis against anyone. I am speaking of a free society—a society that hasn’t existed in the United States for quite some time.

Discrimination means freedom. A free society includes the freedom to discriminate based on anything, not just religion, but a free society also includes the freedom to discriminate based on nothing. A free society includes the freedom to discriminate against all gays, not just gay couples, but a free society also includes the freedom to discriminate against anyone, not just gays. And a free society likewise includes the freedom to discriminate whether doing so is logical or illogical, reasonable or unreasonable, rational or irrational.

roflmmfao

donabernathy on February 26, 2014 at 1:32 PM

SO SO SICK of the radical gay lobby.

The funny thing is this bill would have never come to light if they didn’t start suing people for expressing their religious beliefs. They are responsible for the very bill they are having a heart attack over.

gophergirl on February 26, 2014 at 1:32 PM

Brewer quickly caves on Obamacare. She’ll cave on this.

annoyinglittletwerp on February 26, 2014 at 1:34 PM

Brewer has already been pressured and hammered down by the media and Mc Lame and Flakey….

searcher on February 26, 2014 at 1:32 PM

And Mitt Romney

Schadenfreude on February 26, 2014 at 1:35 PM

+1 gg

cmsinaz on February 26, 2014 at 1:37 PM

You provide a link on how this is like slavery.

Schadenfreude on February 26, 2014 at 1:31 PM

where did i say this was equal to slavery?

brushingmyhair on February 26, 2014 at 1:37 PM

where did i say this was equal to slavery?

brushingmyhair on February 26, 2014 at 1:37 PM

Doesn’t matter. Your side claims it. See your ‘sistas and bros”.

Schadenfreude on February 26, 2014 at 1:38 PM

Easy fix for when Teh Ghey wants to force a church to perform their weddings.

“Dearly beloved, we are gathered here in the sight of almighty GOD and these witnesses to join in unholy matrimony these two sinners who are an abomination unto GOD….”

You can fill in the remaining.

Can you imagine the shidt storm that would then ensue?

Here’s the thing though, the couple could sue the church, but the church would win because its their church and in control of the ceremony. If the nuptial couple storms out of the church without completing the ceremony, or even if they completed the ceremony, they would have done so of their own volition and not been denied anything.

44Magnum on February 26, 2014 at 1:38 PM

Brewer quickly caves on Obamacare. She’ll cave on this.

annoyinglittletwerp on February 26, 2014 at 1:34 PM

…and ‘immigration’ law.

Schadenfreude on February 26, 2014 at 1:38 PM

Someone in the comments on Breitbart listed links to each attorneys profile and only 2 were not conservative attorneys. Most of them write for the site Federalist Society.

stingray9813 on February 26, 2014 at 1:25 PM

So they can’t be right in the legal opinion they hold?

And if John McCain joining Dems can be billed as bipartisan, then this is a bipartisan group. But most importantly- the offensive part is this idea that just because you don’t think they are moderate enough that their opinions hold no merit. Put another way, show where their thinking is wrong instead of attacking their associations.

Happy Nomad on February 26, 2014 at 1:39 PM

Most trolls are at OfA’s education session.

Schadenfreude on February 26, 2014 at 1:40 PM

Doesn’t matter. Your side claims it. See your ‘sistas and bros”.

Schadenfreude on February 26, 2014 at 1:38 PM

who claims its like slavery?

brushingmyhair on February 26, 2014 at 1:41 PM

And the gnatbrain of the left weighs in.

who claims its like slavery?

brushingmyhair on February 26, 2014 at 1:41 PM

Your sista HILLxxx, last night on the QotD, for just one sample.

Schadenfreude on February 26, 2014 at 1:43 PM

The Church of England, the state religion, is protected by a quadruple lock to protect it from being forced to wed gay couples.

The difference should be we don’t have a State religion. I think they may have a case because of that. I think it is a weak argument that ministers sign marriage certificates so may also be forced to as they are also certifying the marriage us under Church doctrine. My church won’t even marry members without going to a premarital class. The church is primary the civil side is incidental. Not difficult to get signed up to marry people either. Nevada has drive through chapels.

CW20 on February 26, 2014 at 1:44 PM

who claims its it’s like slavery?

brushingmyhair on February 26, 2014 at 1:41 PM

Allen Colmes, today

Schadenfreude on February 26, 2014 at 1:44 PM

stenwin77 on February 26, 2014 at 12:45 PM

Baloney. The “last days” being spoken of were the last days of the old covenant. This has nothing to do with the days we live in.

Akzed on February 26, 2014 at 1:21 PM

It will most likely be the same at the end of the new covenant.

Akzed, are you a preterist?

davidk on February 26, 2014 at 1:44 PM

Your sista HILLxxx, last night on the QotD, for just one sample.

Schadenfreude on February 26, 2014 at 1:43 PM

a random commenter? what? you for real?

brushingmyhair on February 26, 2014 at 1:47 PM

Salesforce CEO on Arizona anti-gay bill: ‘If this bill passes we will never do another corporate event in Arizona’ – @Benioff
end of alert
============

Marc Benioff ‏@Benioff 30m

If this bill passes we will never do another corporate event in Arizona. Good bye @the_phoenician and @ArizonaBiltmore – my two favorites!
Expand
=======

https://twitter.com/Benioff

canopfor on February 26, 2014 at 1:48 PM

As for forcing a religious figure of some sort to perform your marriage, that is precisely what I have against radical gays. major dad and I were married by the Court Clerk in santa Ana. Wy? because we didn’t have time to FOLLOW THE CATHOLIC CHURCH’s RULES.

That’s why they’re called “rules” and each church is allowed to have their own set. We knew it and accepted the fact. No harm, no foul.

It’s like being an adult about something…or something.

tree hugging sister on February 26, 2014 at 12:50 PM

Yep. We have become this in all areas of society here. “I what you to change the rules of your organization to fit my lifestyle”. Not “I adjusted my lifestyle to fit the rules of your organization”

reddevil on February 26, 2014 at 1:49 PM

While on a U.S. tour In 2006, former Iranian President Mohammed Khatami was invited to speak at the ultra-liberal Harvard University.

Khatami actually defended Iran’s practice of executing homosexuals.

Khatami told the gathered faculty and students: “Homosexuality is a crime in Islam and crimes are punishable. And the fact that a crime could be punished by execution is debatable.”

Since 1979, Iran has executed more than 4,000 people for the “crime” of homosexuality.

In 2005, the Iranian government hanged Mahmoud Asgari, 16, and Ayaz Marhoni, 18, for homosexual acts. The two teenagers were imprisoned for 14 months and each given 228 lashes before a hangman’s noose was slipped around their necks.

Yet, Harvard’s left-wing populace treated the murderous Khatami with great respect as he spoke at the university’s Kennedy School of Government.

There were no protesters, no chants and no opposition.

However, when then-Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Colin Powell delivered Harvard’s commencement address in 1993, he was treated to a barrage of raucous jeers from protesting homosexuals.

The school’s gay student body turned out en masse to make Powell feel as uncomfortable as possible. They booed and chanted while he spoke, they proudly held offensive signs, and released pink balloons in the face of the Vietnam War hero. Powell became the target of the harassment because he opposed allowing homosexuals to serve openly in the military.

Isn’t it curious that a man who has spent all of his adult life serving the United States and doing so with great integrity, was treated so shabbily by the same group who in turn warmly welcomes a murderer?

Apparently, it is worse for someone to state their personal beliefs in support of traditional marriage than it is to actually murder individuals over their sexual preference.

http://www.examiner.com/article/was-christian-bakery-owner-targeted-by-gay-marriage-activists

davidk on February 26, 2014 at 1:53 PM

Usually about this point in the game smirking Benedict Roberts jumps in and decrees the Serfs will do as he damn well pleases….

viking01 on February 26, 2014 at 1:55 PM

canopfor on February 26, 2014 at 1:48 PM

I guess they forgot the hit several big businesses took when they joined in on the gay community’s attack against Chik-fil-A.

Flora Duh on February 26, 2014 at 1:56 PM

Bwahahahahahahahaha

They have to cloak discrimination under the guise of religious freedom because they are scared of the word and misunderstand the concept. They would never pass legislation saying that businesses could discriminate against anyone on the basis of race, creed, color, religion, age, gender, height, weight, disability, familial status, marital status, socioeconomic status, political preference, religious piety, national origin, odor, or appearance. That is, they would never legalize freedom.

There is no right to service. In a free society, every individual and business owner has the right to refuse service. It is part and parcel of the inviolability of private property, the freedom of assembly, the freedom of association, the freedom of contract, free enterprise, and the free market. In a free society, business owners, like homeowners, have the right to run their businesses as they choose, including the right to refuse service, and including the right to discriminate on any basis against anyone. I am speaking of a free society—a society that hasn’t existed in the United States for quite some time.

Discrimination means freedom. A free society includes the freedom to discriminate based on anything, not just religion, but a free society also includes the freedom to discriminate based on nothing. A free society includes the freedom to discriminate against all gays, not just gay couples, but a free society also includes the freedom to discriminate against anyone, not just gays. And a free society likewise includes the freedom to discriminate whether doing so is logical or illogical, reasonable or unreasonable, rational or irrational.

roflmmfao

donabernathy on February 26, 2014 at 1:32 PM

Yes, yes, a thousand times yes ……. only what is it with the bwahahah and the roflmmfao? Would Jefferson scribble a cartoon on the margins of the Declaration of Independence?

fadetogray on February 26, 2014 at 1:58 PM

Thought I would never see the day that I would agree with Andrew Sullivan and my pig took to flight out in my hog pen…What next??

bimmcorp on February 26, 2014 at 1:59 PM

who claims its it’s like slavery?

brushingmyhair on February 26, 2014 at 1:41 PM

Kirstin Powers

Schadenfreude on February 26, 2014 at 2:01 PM

I guess they forgot the hit several big businesses took when they joined in on the gay community’s attack against Chik-fil-A.

Flora Duh on February 26, 2014 at 1:56 PM

Sleepnumber is still feeling the hurt for having betrayed Limbaugh about Sandra “Heavy Duty” Fluke.

Now they’re relegated to advertising overnight TV alongside the marital aids, get rich schemes and 900 phone “friends.”

viking01 on February 26, 2014 at 2:01 PM

What do you call 10 lawyers at the bottom of the ocean- good start.
If lawyers want this, it is another reason for it to be vetoed, they are salivating and numerous lawsuits they get to get reach from.

anikol on February 26, 2014 at 2:01 PM

a random commenter? what? you for real?

brushingmyhair on February 26, 2014 at 1:47 PM

To the NSA I’m just a phantom.

See Allan Colmes and Kirstin Powers, and the entire gaggle on TV, on topic.

Schadenfreude on February 26, 2014 at 2:02 PM

So last week five WW reporters called these two bakeries anonymously to get price quotes for other occasions frowned upon by some Christians.

WW Asks – I’m looking to get a special cake for a barbecue we’re having next week. Our cow just died of old age and we’re planning to grill some steaks along with lobster and pulled-pork sandwiches—what size would we need for 10 people and how much would it be?

http://www.wweek.com/portland/article-20698-the_cake_wars.html

davidk on February 26, 2014 at 2:03 PM

Settled science by the Supreme Court since 1878, Reynolds v. United States.

You have a right to believe whatever you want, but the state can make laws regarding the actions you wish to take because of that belief. Why? Same crap arguments being made in Arizona today. Somebody might believe in human sacrifice, or murder, or incest.

Interesting that the Republicans find themselves on the other side of religious liberty 150 years later. I guess they aren’t the majority anymore. Karma.

Sebastian on February 26, 2014 at 2:03 PM

Sebastian on February 26, 2014 at 2:03 PM

Bmore, list.

Schadenfreude on February 26, 2014 at 2:04 PM

Any Muslim bakeries in Arizona..?

d1carter on February 26, 2014 at 12:45 PM

I’d like to see someone ask one of these critics if the state should force Muslim business owners to attend and support gay weddings.

Keep asking the question until they answer it.

JellyToast on February 26, 2014 at 2:04 PM

I remember many moons ago when Gov Brewer looked like a shining conservative star. Turns out she was just the typical opportunistic bureaucrat who was smart enough to ride the TEA party wave for a couple of months. With her position secure for another 4 years, she goes back to progressive, big govt, liberal ways. (McCain, Flake,….)

Arizona must be chock full of suckers. They’ll believe anything.

kpguru on February 26, 2014 at 2:05 PM

Settled science by the Supreme Court since 1878, Reynolds v. United States.

You have a right to believe whatever you want, but the state can make laws regarding the actions you wish to take because of that belief. Why? Same crap arguments being made in Arizona today. Somebody might believe in human sacrifice, or murder, or incest.

Interesting that the Republicans find themselves on the other side of religious liberty 150 years later. I guess they aren’t the majority anymore. Karma.

Sebastian on February 26, 2014 at 2:03 PM

Broken bulb says what?

The issue here is not whether or not somehow should be allowed to do something, but whether or not someone should be compelled to do something against their religious beliefs. Please explain to us how compelling people to act promotes liberty. Prohibitions on human sacrifice, murder, and incest are not compulsions to act, but restrictions on actions.

NotCoach on February 26, 2014 at 2:12 PM

Any Muslim bakeries in Arizona..?

d1carter on February 26, 2014 at 12:45 PM

Great question:

The Jim Crow charge only applies in reverse. Segregation was imposed by the law. In these cases, association is being imposed by law. I’m not sure that I can decide which is worse.

I’d like to get this question answered by someone on the evil side of this debate: Should a Christian baker be forced to bake a cake in the shape of a weener for an aval wedding?

Maybe in such a case the parties could compromise and bake it in the shape of Florida.

Akzed on February 26, 2014 at 2:08 PM

Schadenfreude on February 26, 2014 at 2:14 PM

Arizona must be chock full of suckers. They’ll believe anything.

kpguru on February 26, 2014 at 2:05 PM

A lot of Lost Angeles liberal-freeloader debris drifted to Phoenix just as they effed up Seattle

viking01 on February 26, 2014 at 2:14 PM

Why can’t the find a middle ground here? Of course you should not be forced to hold same sex weddings at your venue if you do not believe in them. The bill though should not be written in a manner that goes so far as to say someone can deny homosexuals from eating at their diner or restaurant on the basis that they are gay. You don’t solve a problem by enacting an extreme.

eski502 on February 26, 2014 at 2:15 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3