That Arizona Law? Here is the law with a few notes. I hasten to add this: there are ways Christian folks can function in a world full of lust without the writing of another law. I illustrate such, in this post. BTW, not a word in the law about Homo or anti-homo. The law only gave a line of defense if taken to court.

516 views - count time closed

Note:  Bracketed statements  -  "[ . . .]" are those of this blog's editor.  The official version with amendments is reproduced in this posting.  It begins with a title page followed by legal definitions,  and,  finally,  the law itself.  Understand that this is NOT an anti-gay rights bill but a freedom of religious express,  bill.  The bill in sections 24 -32 of page 2,  puts a heavy burden on those who exercise the rights protected by this bill.  Lines 33/34 of page two,  places the requirement of "substantial burden" on those who are involved in the prosecution of this law or its legislated liberty.   As I read the proposed bill,  it really does nothing but muddy the waters.  If Gov Brewer signs this law,  the gay crowd will immediately enter a business as a gay couple or individual,  and the court challenges will have begun.  

I am an ex-pastor (14 years) and a retired building contractor (35 years).   I do not believe in same sex marriages.  So how would I handle the matter?  In fact,  I still preform weddings,  from time to time. I always counsel those who come to me for services rendered. If the counseling is offered to all,  and the material presented is the same,  I have been told that such counseling (which includes my personal beliefs on gay marriages)  is within my rights.  After sharing my biblical views,  I would perform the wedding,  as long as the ceremony did not involve any lurid displays of immoral behavior (Hey,  I don't allow hetero couples lurid activity,  either).  

The bill was "inspired" by a wedding cake shop that refused to make a wedding cake for a gay couple.  What to do?  Me,  I would have baked the cake, changed my policy as to supplied figurines. As a shop owner,  the customers would have to supply and mount their own figurines,  whether gay or straight.  My conscience would be clear.  After all,  a  cake is a cake is a cake.  

Anyway,  I see this bill as problematic and,  perhaps,  too broad based.  See what you think  ~ J David Smithson.  

Senate Engrossed



State of Arizona
Senate
Fifty-first Legislature
Second Regular Session
2014


SENATE BILL 1062


AN ACT

AMENDING SECTIONS 41-1493 AND 41-1493.01, ARIZONA REVISED STATUTES; RELATING
TO THE FREE EXERCISE OF RELIGION.


(TEXT OF BILL BEGINS ON NEXT PAGE)


S.B. 1062

 [Definitions ]

 - 1 -
1 Be it enacted by the Legislature of the State of Arizona:
2 Section 1. Section 41-1493, Arizona Revised Statutes, is amended to
3 read:
4 41-1493. Definitions
5 In this article, unless the context otherwise requires:
6 1. "Demonstrates" means meets the burdens of going forward with the
7 evidence and of persuasion.
8 2. "Exercise of religion" means the PRACTICE OR OBSERVANCE OF
9 RELIGION, INCLUDING THE ability to act or refusal to act in a manner
10 substantially motivated by a religious belief, whether or not the exercise is
11 compulsory or central to a larger system of religious belief.
12 3. "Government" includes this state and any agency or political
13 subdivision of this state.
14 4. "Nonreligious assembly or institution" includes all membership
15 organizations, theaters, cultural centers, dance halls, fraternal orders,
16 amphitheaters and places of public assembly regardless of size that a
17 government or political subdivision allows to meet in a zoning district by
18 code or ordinance or by practice.
19 5. "Person" includes a religious assembly or institution ANY
20 INDIVIDUAL, ASSOCIATION, PARTNERSHIP, CORPORATION, CHURCH, RELIGIOUS ASSEMBLY
21 OR INSTITUTION OR OTHER BUSINESS ORGANIZATION.
22 6. "Political subdivision" includes any county, city, including a
23 charter city, town, school district, municipal corporation or special
24 district, any board, commission or agency of a county, city, including a
25 charter city, town, school district, municipal corporation or special
26 district or any other local public agency.
27 7. "Religion-neutral zoning standards":
28 (a) Means numerically definable standards such as maximum occupancy
29 codes, height restrictions, setbacks, fire codes, parking space requirements,
30 sewer capacity limitations and traffic congestion limitations.
31 (b) Does not include:
32 (i) Synergy with uses that a government holds as more desirable.
33 (ii) The ability to raise tax revenues.
34 8. "Suitable alternate property" means a financially feasible property
35 considering the person's revenue sources and other financial obligations with
36 respect to the person's exercise of religion and with relation to spending
37 that is in the same zoning district or in a contiguous area that the person
38 finds acceptable for conducting the person's religious mission and that is
39 large enough to fully accommodate the current and projected seating capacity
40 requirements of the person in a manner that the person deems suitable for the
41 person's religious mission.
42 9. "Unreasonable burden" means that a person is prevented from using
43 the person's property in a manner that the person finds satisfactory to
44 fulfill the person's religious mission.
S.B. 1062

 [The Actual Law]

 - 2 -
1 Sec. 2. Section 41-1493.01, Arizona Revised Statutes, is amended to 
2 read: 
3 41-1493.01. Free exercise of religion protected; definition 
4 A. Free exercise of religion is a fundamental right that applies in 
5 this state even if laws, rules or other government actions are facially 
6 neutral. 
7 B. Except as provided in subsection C, government OF THIS SECTION,
8 STATE ACTION shall not substantially burden a person's exercise of religion
9 even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability.
10 C. Government STATE ACTION may substantially burden a person's
11 exercise of religion only if it THE GOVERNMENT OR NONGOVERNMENTAL PERSON
12 SEEKING THE ENFORCEMENT OF STATE ACTION demonstrates that application of the
13 burden to the person PERSON'S EXERCISE OF RELIGION IN THIS PARTICULAR
14 INSTANCE is both:
15 1. In furtherance of a compelling governmental interest.
16 2. The least restrictive means of furthering that compelling
17 governmental interest.
18 D. A person whose religious exercise is burdened in violation of this
19 section may assert that violation as a claim or defense in a judicial
20 proceeding, and obtain appropriate relief against a government REGARDLESS OF
21 WHETHER THE GOVERNMENT IS A PARTY TO THE PROCEEDING.
22 E. A PERSON THAT ASSERTS A VIOLATION OF THIS SECTION MUST ESTABLISH

23 ALL OF THE FOLLOWING: 

24 1. THAT THE PERSON'S ACTION OR REFUSAL TO ACT IS MOTIVATED BY A 
25 RELIGIOUS BELIEF. 
26 2. THAT THE PERSON'S RELIGIOUS BELIEF IS SINCERELY HELD. 
27 3. THAT THE STATE ACTION SUBSTANTIALLY BURDENS THE EXERCISE OF THE 
28 PERSON'S RELIGIOUS BELIEFS. 
29 F. THE PERSON ASSERTING A CLAIM OR DEFENSE UNDER SUBSECTION D OF THIS 
30 SECTION MAY OBTAIN INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF. A party who prevails 
31 in any action to enforce this article against a government shall recover 
32 attorney fees and costs. 

33 E. G. In FOR THE PURPOSES OF this section, the term substantially 
34 burden is intended solely to ensure that this article is not triggered by 
35 trivial, technical or de minimis infractions.
36 H. FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS SECTION, "STATE ACTION" MEANS ANY ACTION,
37 EXCEPT FOR THE REQUIREMENTS PRESCRIBED BY SECTION 41-1493.04, BY THE
38 GOVERNMENT OR THE IMPLEMENTATION OR APPLICATION OF ANY LAW, INCLUDING STATE
39 AND LOCAL LAWS, ORDINANCES, RULES, REGULATIONS AND POLICIES, WHETHER
40 STATUTORY OR OTHERWISE, AND WHETHER THE IMPLEMENTATION OR APPLICATION IS MADE
41 BY THE GOVERNMENT OR NONGOVERNMENTAL PERSONS.

Our newest High Court justice does the right thing and recuses herself on 25 of 51 cases . . .

Kagan's recusals take her out of action in many of the Supreme Court's cases — Elena Kagan begins hearing cases as the Supreme Court's 112th justice Monday morning. But anyone who wants to see her in action needs to be sharp. — Kagan will hear the first case argued before the court . . . . . . .

Editor's notes: Kagan recuses herself from 25 of the 51 cases already accepted by the High Court. Included in the cases she will NOT hear, is the Arizona vs DOJ; the immigration law that has been used by open borders people to drive a wedge in the general population, Arizona has been demonized by the Marxist crowd, arguing that the state does have the right to enforce border law when the federal government refuses to honor its own laws on the subject.

Understand that Kagan appeared to be a rabid social justice councilor during her Senate confirmation, one who had no legal concept in mind as relates to the use of "unalienable rights" in the Preamble. Time will tell just how far Left this babe is. We really do not know. It is certain that will have no definitive answer for six to eight months. Don't hold your breath . . . . . we need your vote in 31 days !!!

Add Obama's Report against the US to his list of "firsts." We have that UN report and our list of "firsts."

An Editorial Report: In 2002, the United States was voted off the U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights for its campaign against human rights violation by some of the members of that UN commission. Last year, Obama decided to disregard those continuing concerns and join the US to this committee in accord with his personal vendetta against the United States.

A year later, this president of the United States, this representative of the greatest nation on earth, has submitted a list of human rights grievances against . . . . . . . . . . . . . . his own country. So, here we are, presenting the United States as if our internal social issues are on a par with the issues of beheadings and stonings in Iran, human rights violations of repressive governments in Venezuela, N. Korea, Somalia, Cuba, Burma, South Africa (especially in the near past), Russia in Chechnya, China and its treatment of Tibet, the Sudan and Zimbabwe. (Note: Zimbabwe and South Africa may have resolved their human rights complaints, over the years).

Past members on this Human Rights committee have included the Sudan (hundreds of thousands of Christians have been and are being murdered in Darfur) and Libya (a leader in Muslim terror training for decades). Also, this commission has exhibited an expressed bias against Israel.

Specifically, in joining this review board, Obama submitted a 30 page report to the UN Human Rights Commission, a list of complaints and concerns with regard to Human Rights violations that his Administration is working to correct, a list of concerns that apparently needs to be made public on the world's stage in the spirit of "leading by example." Crap.

Included in this report is section 95 : "A recent Arizona law, S.B. 1070, has generated significant attention and debate at home and around the world. The issue is being addressed in a court action that argues that the federal government has the authority to set." Read the full report in PDF, here.

When PJ Crowley, State Department spokesman, was asked to defend the inclusion of this paragraph, he only responded with "this is in line with our effort at leadership by example" or words to that effect. He tried to play down the criticism that Obama was hanging Arizona "out to dry" as he repeated the phrase "leadership by example." Anyone with an ounce of grey matter understands the implicit significance of Section 95.

What the Obama spokesman does not want to admit is that "leadership by example" means nothing with regard to the inclusion of the Arizona law if it does not mean that Obama sees the law as problematic on a human rights level. Obama via Crowley has fooled no one. This is another disgraceful episode in the 20 month melodrama that is the Obama presidency and reason enough to begin impeachment proceedings against this stranger in our White House. Will that happen? No. Should it happen. Of course.

In Obama, we have a man who came to office as president with a rather remarkable list of grievances against the United States of America. As President, he has acted on this list without regard to popular opinion or the limitations of Congressional review. More than that, he carries grudges against those who oppose him and has demonstrated a thuggish willingness to assault his opposition. He is not a nice guy.
.
His list of "firsts" is telling. Beginning with the event reported in this post, Obama is the first president to "bring the U.S. up on charges" with the UN. He is the first president to oppose the notion that America is a Christian nation and to do so on the world's stage. He is the first to name Israel as an "occupier" of Palestinian lands. He is the first to campaign for the US presidency in Europe. He is the first Chief of State to make a formal announcement with the Islamic media (he sat down with al Jazeera, after his inauguration, before talking to any in the American press). He is the first to allocate monies specifically for Muslim mosque construction and repair (6 million dollars). He is the first to develop a strategy of legislative intent that circumvents Congressional approval or review (using the EPA, FTC, FCC and the NEA as agency in his personal service as President). He is the first to unilaterally violate established military treatises (missile defense treatises with Georgia and Poland). He has had more personal televised appearances than all other presidents combined - and he did this in just 20 months; this, in and of itself, is a "first." He is the first to separate himself from an entire constituency - the conservative opinion of this country. He often and on every occasion possible, voices his disgust for conservative America and his opposition to the traditional values of the Founding Fathers. He is the first president in modern times to call out the Supreme Court in a State of the Union Address. He is the first president to take council from admitted Communists AND not challenge that accusation (Anne Dunn and Van Jones are two examples that readily come to mind). He is the first to actually attend and get on his knees in a Muslim prayer service. He is the first president to hang a "Mao" decoration on the White House Christmas tress. He is the first Black Liberation pundit hold the High Office. Finally, for the sake of this post, Obama is the first president to ever order the name of "Jesus" covered over (at Georgetown University and the covering of IHS - the Latin symbols for the name of Jesus).

There is more, but the point of the above listing is to demonstrate the disconnectivity of this man and his Marxist controlled party. He is not representative of the populace of this country and, what makes matters worse, he does not care. --- jds.

The NY Times jumps the gun on the Arizona decision and here is why . . . .

Ruling Against Arizona Is a Warning for Other States — A federal judge in Arizona on Wednesday broadly vindicated the Obama administration's high-stakes move to challenge that state's tough immigration law and to assert the primary authority of the federal government over state lawmakers in immigration matters. . .

Editor's notes: this is a NY Times story and it could not be more misplaced. No one "in the know," believed that a Clinton appointed activist judge would have decided differently. OF COURSE she struck down the law's primary clauses. And, OF COURSE, this is only the first step. The article uses the term "vindicated" in its appraisal of the Court's decision. The purpose of the Times article ?? To do what the author could to influence the outcomes of advancing national opinion. "Vindicated" bears a sense of finality, does it not? And there is nothing final about this decision.

We all know there are at least two additional judicial steps in this vetting process: the 9th District Court's review and the Supreme Court. While the clowns at the White House and the NY Times are giving each other "high fives" over this decision, there is the distinct possibility that after the High Court's decision, their faces will be sullen and their rhetoric will be something other than gracious. Such is the M.O. of this adolescent corp of "leaders."

Point of post: "vindicated" is hardly the word of the day. There are 18 other states currently writing similar laws. Why have they waited to get their legislation on the books? Well, they were waiting for this particular decision. They are not giving up. They see no "vindication" of the Feds position. They only see the official judicial debate framed in concrete legal opinion. Let the revisionist writing begin !! The coming avalanche of state legislation will reflect "corrections" to the "weaknesses" of the Arizona law. For the conservative onlookers, we are saying the "best is yet to come."
.