Arizona SB 1062 is the Arizona law to amend existing laws to grant individuals or statutory bodies an exemption from state law if it substantially burdens their religious practice, including Arizona law that requires public accommodation.
It is one of several similar bills in the US state legislature that allows individuals to refuse service on a religious basis, with some bills that specifically protect religious opposition to same-sex marriage. It is widely reported as the LGBT target of people, although Arizona's law does not provide protection against discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. Critics noted that it would broadly dispute anybody's service on the basis of religion. Proponents argue that it only restores the legal status of the right to freedom of religion as referred to by the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.
The bill was passed by the Republican state-controlled legislature and vetoed by Republican Governor Jan Brewer on February 26, 2014.
The national controversy surrounding the bill prompted Arizona State Senator Steve Gallardo to appear gay in public. He called the bill "a game changer," and noted the national controversy surrounding his section, as pushing his decision.
Video Arizona SB 1062
​​â € <â €
The United States Supreme Court ruled in the Employment Division v. Smith (1990) that one might not oppose the common neutral law of application, like public accommodation law, as an expression of religious beliefs. "To allow this," Judge Scalia wrote, "will make religious doctrines about religious belief superior to state law, and essentially allow every citizen to become a law for himself." He wrote that neutral laws of general application do not have to meet strict supervisory standards, because such requirements would create "the right of person to disregard common law". Close supervision will require the law to be the least restrictive means to advance the interests of an attractive government. The meaning of the common law of general application was spelled out by the courts in 1993. The US Congress responded by issuing the Freedom of Religion Records Act (RFRA), which required close scrutiny when the common application neutral law "substantially overloaded [s ] one's religious practice ". When the Supreme Court ruled in 1997 that the RFRA was not applicable to state laws, some countries passed their own Freedom of Religion Records Act, including Arizona's proposed SB 1062 law to amend. The Supreme Court upheld the federal RFRA constitutionality as applied to federal law in Gonzales v. O Centro Espirita Beneficente Uniao performed Vegetal in 2006.
Arizona lawmakers are worried about the 2013 New Mexico Supreme Court ruling that weakens its country's RFRA, ratified as religious exceptions to its own public accommodation law that prohibits denial of service based on a person's sexual orientation or gender identity. Twenty-one states, excluding Arizona, have similar public accommodation laws that protect sexual orientation. The New Mexico Supreme Court ruled at Elane Photography v. Willock that the RFRA state can not be made between two parties if the government is not a party to the legal process.
The bill was introduced by Senator Steve Yarbrough to amend the law that currently provides religious assemblies or religious liberty agencies of any law. The bill was passed by the Republican-controlled Senate on February 19, along party lines and passed by the state on 20 February. Counting of votes in the Senate is 17 for, 13 against, and in the House of Representatives, 33 to, 27 against. On February 26, Governor Jan Brewer vetoed the bill after receiving significant national attention. There is not enough votes in the legislature to override the veto.
After the veto, Senator Steve Gallardo, one of Bill's most shrill opponents, came out as gay. He identified the day the bill passed the Senate as a "game changer".
Maps Arizona SB 1062
Content
SB 1062 is intended to amend Articles 41-1493 of the Arizona Revised Statute, which prevents "any law, including state and local laws and regulations, regulations, regulations and policies" from "substantially burdening ["] a person's religious practice, unless the burden is the least restrictive way to advance "interesting government interests". SB 1062 will revise it by extending the definition of persons in articles of "religious or institutional assemblies" to include "individuals, associations, partnerships, corporations, churches," "real, trust, foundations or other legal entities" , and will allow religious freedom as a claim or defense in a lawsuit "regardless of whether the government is a party to the proceedings."
Criticism
While supporters say the bill is intended to protect the right of business owners to refuse service based on religious objections and is a direct response to the decision of the New Mexico Supreme Court at Elane Photography v. Willock to religiously objected businesses to accommodate same-sex marriages, critics, some media and opponents argues that the goal is to allow businesses to refuse to serve LGBT communities, especially in the case of same-sex couples. Critics say that the bill would allow any business to discriminate against any group of people for religious reasons.
Businesses, civil rights groups, and gay rights groups have opposed the bill. Because state law has allowed companies to refuse service to anyone for some reason, business owners note that denying services to LGBT people is currently allowed. They will only lose business by discriminating and do not need extra protection for something that can not be prosecuted. Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of UC Irvine law school, argues that the bill is dangerous and "sends a message that the country is fanatical." Supporters of the bill include two conservative groups, the Arizona Policy Center and the Freedom Defending Alliance, both working on the bill. The Arizona Catholic Conference has asked the congregations to support the bill. Three lawmakers who originally voted for the bill, including Majority Senate Whip Adam Driggs, have pushed Governor Brewer to veto.
The National Football League stated that it was "following the issue in Arizona and will continue to do so the bill should be signed into law", prompting fears from Arizona business leaders that the SB1062 signing will lead to the withdrawal of the Super Bowl XLIX, similar to how Super Bowl XXVII transferred to Pasadena, California after Martin Luther King Jr.'s voting decision. Day failed in the election in Arizona 1990. This issue was made debatable by vetoing the bill.
Similar rules in other states
Arizona SB 1062 was similar, at the time, to bills in five other countries - South Dakota, Kansas, Idaho, Tennessee, Colorado, and Maine - all of which failed or faced major setbacks in February 2014. Other bills centered on the same core issue is:
See also
- Indiana SB 101
- Religious freedom in the United States
- Kansas House Bill 2453
- LGBT Rights in Arizona
References
External links
- Senate Bill 1062 Text
- Legislative process
- Text of charge: AZ SB1062 | 2014 | Fifty-first Legislature 2 Regular | Introduced. LegiScan. 2014-02-25
Source of the article : Wikipedia
0 Comments