Veto Arizona’s Religious Freedom Act – SB 1062

I support the veto of the Arizona “religious freedom” act, SB 1062.

I support the veto, not because I think it is anti-gay (it isn’t) and not because I don’t think that the freedom to exercise our religious beliefs need protecting.

I just think it is bad law.

Far from being an anti-gay bill, it actually places the burden of proof of religious infringement on the person claiming such. While it does add religious infringement as a valid defense to claims, it also requires that the defendant in such a claim to prove that there is an actual infringement in order to be considered an affirmative defense.

It also does an inadequate job of defining what constitutes “religion”, only stating that:

“Exercise of religion” means the PRACTICE OR OBSERVANCE OF RELIGION, INCLUDING THE ability to act or refusal to act in a manner substantially motivated by a religious belief, whether or not the exercise is compulsory or central to a larger system of religious belief.

So what constitutes a “religion” and “religious beliefs” are left open to be defined by the courts.

Currently, there is no prohibition in Arizona for a business refusing service to anyone for any reason and this bill changes that. Personal bias does not qualify as a “religion”, so homophobia and/or bigotry would not qualify. This bill is actually not pro-religion, it is arguably more favorable to the individual claiming discrimination for not being served that it is the person who refuses to provide the service.

It is poorly constructed and in my opinion, it has little chance of accomplishing its stated goal.

It is bad law and should be vetoed. Too many times people say that they are against infringement on individual rights but what they are really against is that they aren’t in charge to do the infringing. If you say you are against some sort of abuse, and then prosecute the same sort of abuse when you are in the majority, you are a hypocrite. That is the biggest problem I have with the establishment GOP, they wail against the Democrats doing crappy things and when they get in charge, they just do crappy things of their own…to me, this bill appears to fall into the “WE. MUST. DO. SOMETHING!” category instead of being well thought out…I think it is crap – but that is just my analysis, I’m not a legislator or a lawyer, I don’t play either on TV and I did NOT stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night…

There is also the invocation of the recent end of litigation in the New Mexico gay wedding photography case, Willock v. Elaine Photography, LLC – but there is something that never really came to the attention of the public in that case that is revealed in the final order of the New Mexico Human Rights Commission.

The fact of the matter is that while the respondent, Elaine Photography was clear that they did not prefer to photograph gay weddings, the complainant’s (Vanessa Willock) partner, Misti Collinsworth (aka Misty Pascottini) proceeded to attempt to secure the services of Elaine Photography after it was clearly known that they were not interested in the business. Collinsworth did so under the name of Misty Pascottini without identifying that it would be a same-sex ceremony, apparently with the intent to deceive Elaine Photography.

Ms. Willock and Ms. Collinsworth (Pascottini) filed a “public access” discrimination complaint AFTER securing another photographer who successfully photographed the ceremony – and for substantially less than the amount quoted by Elaine Photography.

According to the final order:

“Ms. Willock was shocked, angered and saddened to receive Ms. Elaine Huguenin’s response. Ms. Willock was also fearful, because she considered the opposition to same-sex to be so blatant. Ms. Willock thought that Ms. Elaine Huguenin’s response was an expression of hatred at what Ms. Willock had hoped to be a happy occasion.”

So, other than losing her “joy” over this, she could demonstrate no material harm. She must have had time to recover her joy as the actual ceremony didn’t take place for almost another year.

Elaine Photography and its owners, Jonathan and Elaine Huguenin, were targets of two apparently radical lesbians who set this business up and apparently were intent on forcing their views on others, not the other way around. There were ample opportunities for them to secure another photographer (which they did) and there was no binding legal agreement between the complainant and the respondent. This case was decided wrongly on the law and says more about political correctness and arbitrary exercise of authority by the New Mexico Human Rights Commission than it does fairness.

The point to all of this is this: you can’t trust a government or a judiciary to decide based on principle. Most quasi-judicial bodies like the New Mexico Human Rights Commission are politically motivated and view legislation as nothing less than an opportunity for mischief. This is the kind of crap that has opened Pandora’s Box and ultimately results in less liberty for everybody. There is a reason that the Constitution spells out limited government.


19 thoughts on “Veto Arizona’s Religious Freedom Act – SB 1062

  1. I must admit to being against the Veto……But you have given me pause to think.

    I’m not sure how Vetoing the Bill actually DOES protect those who don’t want to be forced to provide services to those activities and position are the Polar Opposite from what they believe religiously. It seems without the Bill business owners will be forced into legal conflicts constantly and thus effectively be put out of business by the Gay Activists.

    Which is the Goal of Folks like George Takai……. (1) Push their agenda on everyone, everywhere….(2) use the “law” to put anyone out of business that doesn’t bow to their “special Interest Demands”.

    This seems like Yet another Rule over the People by the Elites and the Small Minority.

    But You make good points too.

    • I think it puts us in a worse position, Don. I tried to look at how I would attack it if I wasn’t hetero and long distance hot for Kells and I think I could break it.

      If there was ever a candidate for repeal (or veto) and replace, this is it.

      But like I said, that is just my opinion and it is worth what you guys are paying for it – nothing!

        • Spot on. Gay marriage never has been about equality, it is about sticking a finger in the eye of the church and forcing Christians to take it, without lube.

          You will be made to care.

          • Now….if I may….. Texas’ post below which Highlighted the Tennesse Lawyers take on “Push-back”. In it he mentioned those not complying with the UN-Constitutional Gun Registration in Connecticut…..the uprisings against Totalitarianism in Ukraine, Venezuela, Thailand and elsewhere……

            The issues brought up here vere with that Post as well I think. In the sense that “Push-Back” is what is needed and will happen. There are more than just Christians who don’t want to “take it” or Be made to “care”. The discust with be “forced” is more broadly based……this issue is just another Straw on the proverbial Camels back.

    • I side with Utah on this.

      I haven’t read the law. But it is logically ridiculous/superfluous.

      It’s a “slippery slope” argument.

      Consider as an aside: One cannot disprove a negative. Otherwise stated; prove something did not happen which did not occur. If something did not happen, there are no positive facts to affirmatively confirm its absence.

      If Arizona has to write a law to tell everyone what they do not have to do, then everyone has to do everything except what the state says one does not have to do.

      Doesn’t make logical sense does it.

      According to natural law AND our Constitution, the State cannot legally require a person to take an action.

      (Until the legally and morally wrong decision allowing Obamacare. Similarly, slavery was held legal/constitutional many times before finally being righted.)

      • I am somewhat agreeing with you guys.

        But New Mexico and Washington States DID REQUIRE a person(s) to take an action(s). They forced people to provide services specifically to others specifically BECAUSE they were Gay. And fined them etc….. whether this “Legal” in the Natural Law sense is pretty debatable… is Crystal Clear that Legality was used to Force people against their will and Conscience to act in direct opposition to their beliefs ….. and used the “state” to harm them financially.

        • Freedom of association includes the freedom to discern who one will associate with. When one chooses who they will associate with they also choose who they will not associate with, and are thereby discriminating.

          Being “free” or having “liberty” has an infinite number of possibilities.
          Infinity can never be legislated.

          Marxists (progressives) look at the world and believe they have the right to tell everyone what they should and can do, and make illegal everything/anything else.

          This is why their societies always regress to the Stone Age and murder millions of individuals.

  2. I have to agree with you, Don. Was all fired to lambast Gov Brewer for vetoing this SB 1062, but unlike Nazi Pelosi, I read
    the bill (four (4) times) and am still confused as to what the actual intent of the law is? I am under the assumption that
    this is an amendment to existing law? Why do these politicians have to write bills so DAMN CONFUSING?

    If passed or vetoed, this bill/law is going to end up in the courts. Fortunately it is only two pages.

    • The big question I have is…..So how DO WE ( how DOES ARIZONA ) protect people from being FORCED to support activities they believa are sinful ? And further how DO WE ( Does Arizona) protect those same people and their Businesses ( livlihoods) from being Sued into submission to the Gay Agenda or harrassed by the gays and by activist Federal Judges ??

      I just don’t see how Vetoing this provides ANY protection to those people……. I don’t see how Vetoing this bill helps protect their Constitutional rights their basic Bill of Rights.

      The Veto on one hand seems to STRIP those Business owners of their rights actually…… but maybe I’m missing something.

      • “Being “free” or having “liberty” has an infinite number of possibilities.
        Infinity can never be legislated.”

        So what are people to do? Grow up, be respectful, and refuse service in a polite and non-threatening way.

        I see signs in businesses every day: Of course, I’m sure some jurisdictions “outlaw” liberty, so move to a jurisdiction that allows freedom.

        “We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason.” or “no shoes, no service” or “no public displays of affection that may be considered offensive by other customers”

        • I agree 100 % with what You say in these two Comments. I really Do !

          BUT….. the things you describe DO NOT stop the Gay activists in concert with the activist Judges and the ACLU from harassing business owners …..whether those owners are curteous or not. You ( WE ) can’t turn the other Cheek to Lawsuits brought if you DON’T do what the Gays and the Judges say.

          And Catering or Photography or Baking Cakes with TWO Same gender “statues” on top are the “services” the business provides……you cannot “Turn the other Cheek” on them if you are forced by the Court to provide them …… because you first Put up a sign and respectfully and politely refused service in a non-threatening way…..

          And in fact the Police will then be used to arrest you for refusing the Orders of the Court and their Gay constituency Bosses.

    • Well you support the Gay Agenda over the Constitution …. so there’s no surprise there. I believe this is called Libertarian today.

      • That has got to be one of the most idiotic comments I’ve ever read.

        Let’s play a little game, sweet Don. This game is called pretend. Let’s pretend that you come into my restaurant, and I deem you gay.(Cause you are a flamer, after all.) I now have the legal right to cause you to go hungry. You decide to go stay at hotel because you’re cold, tired, and hungry, but they decide you to be a flamer, as well. Now you are left to sleep hungry in your van down by the river, but you need gas. Obviously, you are denied, because, well, everyone knows that all gay men talk with a lisp.

        The bill was unconstitutional. Period.

        • The problem in the Country today is precisely because we are “Playing Games”.

          The Words of the Framers …of the Founding Documents in Utah’s post above were not games. They were the words of serious Adults….they were the words outlining a new direction for mankind ….one NOT based of Selectivity, favoritism and Frivolity

          The other problem is the rampant Hate-speech employed and encouraged……”That has got to be one of the most idiotic comments I’ve ever read.”…………. That’s what this is….and it is also an excercising of the Rules for Radicals .

          I made my observation based on over a year of reading collective comments from positions you’ve taken on these issues.

          Notwithstanding your scenario is strawman as it assumes there are no alternatives….second, your position basically says no business has the right to refuse services to anyone for any reason ( or in essence will eventuall LEAD to this) Since there are endless “subgroups” of people lined up to claim victim status…..thus the Business and the Business owner become the “employee” of the Federal Government….allowed to do only the kind of Business dictated by the Federal Gov’t. And as such it is undermining Property Rights as well as Religious Rights……BOTH of which are Natural Rights.

          Essentiall what your “example” is saying is that those Natural Rights….those Constitutional Rights should be eliminated in favor of Special Groups…..and this is EXACTLY what America has become…and where and how the Declaration/ Constitution/Bill of Rights has been undermined……….. And America continues to..”Play Games” .

          When Americans decide to become adults again…and become serious about our rights again we will be saved. Until then the Rapid decline will continue and accereated.

          • The words of the Founders were based on Natural Law. There was s specific reason that they separated church and state and that was Canon Law. “they were the words outlining a new direction for mankind ….one NOT based of Selectivity, favoritism and Frivolity” And yet this law would’ve done the exact opposite, no?

            I’m sorry if I was abrasive in my wording of your comment, as I do believe you to be an highly intellectual fella. I just felt that I had basically said the same thing as Utah and Texas did and was denounced. I just found it odd.

            Oh, and you’re wrong on my position. But if you’d like to know; I believe a private company should be able to boot who they want to boot (within the means of the law.) These laws are already on the books.

            What you’re saying that my “example” is saying is in reality what you’re saying!

            But I tell ya what. Let’s open up a coffee shop without handicapped access because by gosh, by golly, they are just the scum of the earth! Wait! We’ll need a law for that. We can make it happen!

            Am I clear, or do I need to clarify? (I know I have a way of talking that confuses and infuriates………….but so do you.)

            • They (The Framers / Founders) Didn’t separate Church and State .

              This is a purposely repeated Fallacy by Academia and the Media for a specific purpose………. this Fallacy has been disproved many times.

              Your reasons for agreeing to this Veto are quite different from Texas and Utah’s…’ll notice my discussions with them address VERY different angles….this ALSO is because of my attention to their positions since coming here.

              To answer your question…No….this law would have attempted to STOP the Lawsuits brought by Gays in other States …which appeal to Selectivity based on Sexual activity….and attack another’s religious beliefs about their own conduct and actions seen as support for other actions which violate their beliefs.

Talk Amongst Yourselves:

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s