Religious Liberty, AZ Gets it Right

[Pressing-On]

On Religious Liberty, Arizona Gets it Right and NY Times Gets it Wrong Again

In 1999 the state of Arizona passed similar legislation that prevents the state government from similarly burdening the free exercise of religion. The bill that the Arizona legislature just passed is an amendment to the 1999 state RFRA clarifying that the protections extend to any “state action” and would apply to “any individual, association, partnership, corporation, church, religious assembly or institution or other business organization.” In other words, it protects all citizens and the associations they form from undue burdens by the government on their religious liberty or from private lawsuits that would have the same result.

http://blog.heritage.org/2014/02/25/...uw_oT0.twitter

[KeptByTheWord]

Let's hope this applies fairly to all in concern, and not just a select group.

Does this mean that a Christian business can refuse service to a homosexual couple wanting their wedding needs met?

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by KeptByTheWord

Let's hope this applies fairly to all in concern, and not just a select group.

Does this mean that a Christian business can refuse service to a homosexual couple wanting their wedding needs met?

It means that a Christian business is not forced to violate their religious conscience.

However, I will be surprised if Gov. Brewer doesn't veto the bill. She is receiving a lot of opposition from the Republicans and threats from other groups, the NFL being among them.

It is merely a technical bill

http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/51leg/2r/bills/sb1062s.pdf

9. "Unreasonable burden" means that a person is prevented from using the person's property in a manner that the person finds satisfactory to fulfill the person's religious mission.

"This bill is not about allowing discrimination," Sponsor Sen. Steve Yarbrough said during a debate that stretched for nearly two hours. "This bill is about preventing discrimination against people who are clearly living out their faith."

Something needs to be done. A business shouldn't be forced into bankruptcy because a group of people decide to file a lawsuit to MAKE the owners acquiesce to a way of life that is fundamentally opposed in the Bible.

I would only object to the strong stance if the business was receiving government funding. Any small business should be allowed to refuse service to anyone they wish. Free market capitalism will take care of prejudices. We have a problem with the past history of racial discrimination which will always be in play during this type of discussion. However, today, any business takes a risk on maintaining any racial discrimination. The patrons would decide if they want to lay down their money in any establishment. I just don't want the Federal Government intervening and making the rules. That would only end up in unequal intervention as we are seeing with this bakery, photography, gay marriage issue.

[Jermyn Davidson]

This bill may not be about codifying state-protected discrimination, but that is EXACTLY what the fruit will be of this legislation, if it is not vetoed.

Furthermore, I have just read over the amendments to the pre-existing Arizona law (which is what this legislation is about) and it appears that it would be just a matter of time before "people exercising their rights" under this state law will violate the Federal Civil Rights laws designed to protect the rights of all citizens, but especially racial minorities.

I am thinking Bob Jones University, but on a much larger scale if such discrimination can be codified by state law aimed at protecting "religious freedom". These amendments are very broad.

I really hope this legislation is vetoed.

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by Jermyn Davidson

This bill may not be about codifying state-protected discrimination, but that is EXACTLY what the fruit will be of this legislation, if it is not vetoed.

Furthermore, I have just read over the amendments to the pre-existing Arizona law (which is what this legislation is about) and it appears that it would be just a matter of time before "people exercising their rights" under this state law will violate the Federal Civil Rights laws designed to protect the rights of all citizens, but especially racial minorities.

I am thinking Bob Jones University, but on a much larger scale if such discrimination can be codified by state law aimed at protecting "religious freedom". These amendments are very broad.

I really hope this legislation is vetoed.

I don't fear that happening at all. And I don't buy into the regression theory either. The United States has the shortest history of slavery than any nation in the world. The only reason some measure of discrimination is still hanging around is purely political on both sides. We should recognize that, stick together, and vote out these people who are doing our country such harm.

I think that every situation that arises needs to be dealt with on an individual basis regarding our 1st Amendment rights. Now it is religious liberty that is at stake. It is now our turn. It needs to be dealt with in a fair way. If not, then it will be discriminating against religious liberty, which is escalating at an alarming rate.

[Pressing-On]

‘We Don’t Want Your Kind Here’: Hollywood Gay Bar Bans Christian Lawmakers

Southern California lawmakers who support legislation to discriminate against gays and lesbians now have one less hotspot to visit in West Hollywood.

David Cooley, the founder of The Abbey Food & Bar located at 692 North Robertson Blvd., has announced the popular gay bar will add any legislator in any state who votes for “bills to allow for discrimination against LGBT people” to a “Deny Entry List.”

http://patdollard.com/2014/02/hollyw...gay-lawmakers/

[Pressing-On]

Trader Joe's drops black-neighborhood store plan

The Portland African American Leadership Forum sent the city a letter saying it would "remain opposed to any development in N/NE Portland that does not primarily benefit the Black community." It said the grocery-store development would "increase the desirability of the neighborhood," for "non-oppressed populations."

http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_25...n-oregon-store

[Pressing-On]

Yes, of course a business owner should have the right to refuse service to gay people

It’s not that business owners want to “refuse service” to gays simply because they’re gay; it’s that some business owners — particularly people who work in the wedding industry — don’t want to be forced to employ their talents in service of something that defies their deeply held religious convictions.

This shouldn’t be an issue, but it is, because some gays in some states have specifically and maliciously targeted religious florists, bakers, and photographers, so that they can put these innocent people in a compromising position, and then run to the media and the courts when — GASP! — Christians decide to follow the dictates of Christianity.

http://themattwalshblog.com/2014/02/...to-gay-people/

[Pressing-On]

Understanding this issue a little better as it moves along. "Public accommodation" is the issue.

"Public accommodation" are spaces that are supposed to be opened to the public all over the United States. It's an outgrowth of the Civil Rights Law.

The definition of what is a "public accommodation" has changed through the years. It's including a lot more "places" including businesses. We used to view "public accommodation" as a bus, a stadium or a restaurant, but now it's changed to include more spaces. You can't discriminate against people when you are in this "public accommodation" arena.

If this bill passes, you will see a whole lot of legal challenges, which is I why I think that Brewer will veto. They will say it violates the Equal Protection Clause. Legislators are going to think twice before passing something like this because they will get hammered with lawsuits.

So, what is going on now is that the "public accommodation" laws are trumping the 1st Amendment right to Freedom of Religion in the courts. It's going to have to go to the Supreme Court.

Okay, headed out of town in the morning. Won't be back for a while. I am expecting to hear it is vetoed.

[KeptByTheWord]

Will be interesting to follow, and see what happens.