Announcement

Collapse

Civics 101 Guidelines

Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!

Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less

Arizona passes bill protecting religious freedom of business owners

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by Sam View Post
    They have — the example coming to mind at the moment is whether people have sincere religious beliefs when claiming to be conscientious objectors.
    Makes sense.

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by Sam View Post
      This indemnifies business owners from any state lawsuits that arise from their discriminatory actions, just as long as they say they are acting upon a sincere religious belief.
      Can you show where SB1063 actually indemnifies business owners simply on the basis of their "claim" that they are acting upon a sincere religious belief?
      The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
        Can you show where SB1063 actually indemnifies business owners simply on the basis of their "claim" that they are acting upon a sincere religious belief?
        Section 2 of SB1062:

        --------------
        41-1493.01. Free exercise of religion protected; definition

        A. Free exercise of religion is a fundamental right that applies in this state even if laws, rules or other government actions are facially neutral.

        B. Except as provided in subsection C, government OF THIS SECTION, STATE ACTION shall not substantially burden a person's exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability.

        C. Government STATE ACTION may substantially burden a person's exercise of religion only if it THE OPPOSING PARTY demonstrates that application of the burden to the person PERSON'S EXERCISE OF RELIGION IN THIS PARTICULAR INSTANCE is both:

        1. In furtherance of a compelling governmental interest.

        2. The least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.

        D. A person whose religious exercise is burdened in violation of this section may assert that violation as a claim or defense in a judicial proceeding, and obtain appropriate relief against a government REGARDLESS OF WHETHER THE GOVERNMENT IS A PARTY TO THE PROCEEDING. THE PERSON ASSERTING SUCH A CLAIM OR DEFENSE MAY OBTAIN APPROPRIATE RELIEF. A party who prevails in any action to enforce this article against a government shall recover attorney fees and costs.
        --------------

        That means if an "opposing party" (either the state government or another private entity) wants to sue for discrimination, all the defendant need do is "assert that violation as a claim or defense in a judicial proceeding, and obtain appropriate relief . . ."

        "that violation" refers to the purported violation of the individual's right to free exercise of religion. So, unless the plaintiff can sufficiently demonstrate those three clauses I mentioned before, all the defendant need do is assert that they were acting upon a sincere religious belief and they are protected from legal action.

        —Sam
        "I wonder about the trees. / Why do we wish to bear / Forever the noise of these / More than another noise / So close to our dwelling place?" — Robert Frost, "The Sound of Trees"

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by Sam View Post
          That means if an "opposing party" (either the state government or another private entity) wants to sue for discrimination, all the defendant need do is "assert that violation as a claim or defense in a judicial proceeding, and obtain appropriate relief . . ."

          "that violation" refers to the purported violation of the individual's right to free exercise of religion. So, unless the plaintiff can sufficiently demonstrate those three clauses I mentioned before, all the defendant need do is assert that they were acting upon a sincere religious belief and they are protected from legal action.

          —Sam
          I really think you're oversimplifying this, Sam.... in D, I think you're overlooking the clause "in a judicial proceeding".... "Noun 1. judicial proceeding - a legal proceeding in a court; a judicial contest to determine and enforce legal..."

          Both sides will file briefs, and it would stand to reason that that the complainant's counsel will seek to establish whether the defendant's religious beliefs are legitimate.

          I really don't think you can claim that a defendant can simply say "it was my religious belief", and the law suit will be automatically dismissed.
          Last edited by Cow Poke; 02-22-2014, 09:47 PM.
          The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by Sam View Post
            So, unless the plaintiff can sufficiently demonstrate those three clauses I mentioned before, all the defendant need do is assert that they were acting upon a sincere religious belief and they are protected from legal action.
            That part simply doesn't make sense, since it is assumed by the fact that this is happening "in a judicial proceeding", that legal action is already occurring.

            In addition, section E clearly states...

            E. For the purposes of this section, the term substantially burden is intended solely to ensure that this article is not triggered by trivial, technical or de minimis infractions.
            The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

            Comment


            • #36
              There is no difference, or at the very least no operative difference between discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and discrimination on the basis of race. On this I agree with Outis.

              Originally posted by Probably Sparko
              homosexuality is a behavior, not a race. So don't compare the two.
              GAY IS A CHOICE, but realistically the demographics of most homosexuals are white males, so if someone wanted to ban gays, banning white males from your store would work pretty well in over 90% of the actual cases. Conversely, black is a race and not a behavior, but the distinction tends to be blurry in the operative sense when more and more of them are in one place.

              Neither courts nor businessmen, however, can reliably make that distinction, so banning any form of discrimination outside of federal hiring is stupid.

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
                I really think you're oversimplifying this, Sam.... in D, I think you're overlooking the clause "in a judicial proceeding".... "Noun 1. judicial proceeding - a legal proceeding in a court; a judicial contest to determine and enforce legal..."

                Both sides will file briefs, and it would stand to reason that that the complainant's counsel will seek to establish whether the defendant's religious beliefs are legitimate.

                I really don't think you can claim that a defendant can simply say "it was my religious belief", and the law suit will be automatically dismissed.
                I never said that. I said days ago that the government or another party would have to prove in court those three clauses. Nevertheless, the discriminating party is indemnified by claiming a sincere religious belief — and, unlike earlier Court interpretations, that belief does not have to be part of the central tenets of that party's professed religion. So it becomes virtually impossible to prove in a legal setting that the party's beliefs are not sincere — and anyone who tries and fails to do so has to pay all the legal costs.

                So, yes, this bill does indeed indemnify people who wish to use the claim of sincere religious beliefs. It is not absolute but it would be incredibly hard for the state government, let alone a private party, to successfully sue for discrimination.

                —Sam
                "I wonder about the trees. / Why do we wish to bear / Forever the noise of these / More than another noise / So close to our dwelling place?" — Robert Frost, "The Sound of Trees"

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by Sam View Post
                  I never said that. I said days ago that the government or another party would have to prove in court those three clauses. Nevertheless, the discriminating party is indemnified by claiming a sincere religious belief — and, unlike earlier Court interpretations, that belief does not have to be part of the central tenets of that party's professed religion. So it becomes virtually impossible to prove in a legal setting that the party's beliefs are not sincere — and anyone who tries and fails to do so has to pay all the legal costs.

                  So, yes, this bill does indeed indemnify people who wish to use the claim of sincere religious beliefs. It is not absolute but it would be incredibly hard for the state government, let alone a private party, to successfully sue for discrimination.

                  —Sam
                  Good.
                  "As for my people, children are their oppressors, and women rule over them. O my people, they which lead thee cause thee to err, and destroy the way of thy paths." Isaiah 3:12

                  There is no such thing as innocence, only degrees of guilt.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by Sam View Post
                    I never said that. I said days ago that the government or another party would have to prove in court those three clauses. Nevertheless, the discriminating party is indemnified by claiming a sincere religious belief — and, unlike earlier Court interpretations, that belief does not have to be part of the central tenets of that party's professed religion. So it becomes virtually impossible to prove in a legal setting that the party's beliefs are not sincere — and anyone who tries and fails to do so has to pay all the legal costs.

                    So, yes, this bill does indeed indemnify people who wish to use the claim of sincere religious beliefs. It is not absolute but it would be incredibly hard for the state government, let alone a private party, to successfully sue for discrimination.

                    —Sam
                    How many times have you actually been in court, Sam? Once again, it's talking "a claim or defense in a judicial proceeding", which would indicate that the "suing" had already taken place.

                    Anyway, I was just curious about your very narrow and determined reading of this law. No biggie.

                    Carry on!
                    Last edited by Cow Poke; 02-22-2014, 10:19 PM.
                    The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
                      How many times have you actually been in court, Sam? Once again, it's talking "a claim or defense in a judicial proceeding", which would indicate that the "suing" had already taken place.

                      Anyway, I was just curious about your very narrow and determined reading of this law. No biggie.

                      Carry on!
                      It's not a narrow reading. It's pretty much explicitly stated right there in the text.

                      I've been in court enough times to know the difficultly in proving that evidence reaches the bar of being "compelling." That's just a shade under "beyond reasonable doubt."

                      Anyone can sue. Indemnification doesn't mean that you can't be sued. In this case, it means that you're protected from damages stemming from the expression of your religious beliefs. So if someone -does- sue you for refusing to bake a cake for their wedding and you claim a sincere religious belief, you are protected from damages stemming from the expression of that belief, even if it is discriminatory. You're even protected from the costs of going to court!

                      —Sam
                      "I wonder about the trees. / Why do we wish to bear / Forever the noise of these / More than another noise / So close to our dwelling place?" — Robert Frost, "The Sound of Trees"

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by Sam View Post
                        It's not a narrow reading. It's pretty much explicitly stated right there in the text.

                        I've been in court enough times to know the difficultly in proving that evidence reaches the bar of being "compelling." That's just a shade under "beyond reasonable doubt."

                        Anyone can sue. Indemnification doesn't mean that you can't be sued. In this case, it means that you're protected from damages stemming from the expression of your religious beliefs. So if someone -does- sue you for refusing to bake a cake for their wedding and you claim a sincere religious belief, you are protected from damages stemming from the expression of that belief, even if it is discriminatory. You're even protected from the costs of going to court!

                        —Sam
                        Well, NOW we're GETTING somewhere! All the furor isn't over "baking a cake" for somebody, Sam. The hyperventilation seems to be some wild hare fear that this means that restaurants are going to refuse to serve a meal to a gay person, just because they're gay.

                        Baking a cake for a gay wedding is a far cry from serving a meal in a restaurant. I'd be 100% FOR defending somebody's religious beliefs in not baking the wedding cake for a gay wedding, because there's pretty much the implicit approval of the gay wedding.

                        I would be AGAINST a restaurant refusing to serve somebody a meal solely because they're gay.
                        The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
                          Well, NOW we're GETTING somewhere! All the furor isn't over "baking a cake" for somebody, Sam. The hyperventilation seems to be some wild hare fear that this means that restaurants are going to refuse to serve a meal to a gay person, just because they're gay.

                          Baking a cake for a gay wedding is a far cry from serving a meal in a restaurant. I'd be 100% FOR defending somebody's religious beliefs in not baking the wedding cake for a gay wedding, because there's pretty much the implicit approval of the gay wedding.

                          I would be AGAINST a restaurant refusing to serve somebody a meal solely because they're gay.
                          It's not a "wild hare fear" — that scenario is entirely possible given the language of this bill. Whether any of us would be against a restaurant refusing to serve gay individuals isn't really relevant — if this bill passes into law, any Arizona restaurateur who claimed a religious belief prevented her from serving homosexuals could put a sign in the window. A hotel owner could refuse to rent out rooms to gay individuals or couples. A private cemetery could refuse to offer a plot for a gay couple's final resting places.

                          So if you're very much against a restaurant refusing to serve a meal to a gay individual, you're very much against the implications of this bill.

                          In the other thread, I made note of the difference between what we'd call formal cooperation with evil and material cooperation with evil and how one's actions had to be causal in order to make a sufficient claim for either. Cakes and flowers aren't causal to weddings and so we can't really say that bakers and florists are complicit in the purportedly sinful activity.

                          —Sam
                          "I wonder about the trees. / Why do we wish to bear / Forever the noise of these / More than another noise / So close to our dwelling place?" — Robert Frost, "The Sound of Trees"

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by Sam View Post
                            It's not a "wild hare fear" — that scenario is entirely possible given the language of this bill.
                            to the fearmongerer, sure.

                            Whether any of us would be against a restaurant refusing to serve gay individuals isn't really relevant
                            Yes, Sam, it is. People vote with their wallets in such cases.

                            — if this bill passes into law, any Arizona restaurateur who claimed a religious belief prevented her from serving homosexuals could put a sign in the window. A hotel owner could refuse to rent out rooms to gay individuals or couples. A private cemetery could refuse to offer a plot for a gay couple's final resting places.
                            Yeah, and how long do you think that would really last? How long do you think such an establishment would stay in business?

                            So if you're very much against a restaurant refusing to serve a meal to a gay individual, you're very much against the implications of this bill.
                            I think the hype is downright silly.

                            In the other thread, I made note of the difference between what we'd call formal cooperation with evil and material cooperation with evil and how one's actions had to be causal in order to make a sufficient claim for either. Cakes and flowers aren't causal to weddings and so we can't really say that bakers and florists are complicit in the purportedly sinful activity.

                            —Sam
                            Yes, and I think you grossly misrepresented the teachings of Paul on the "weaker brother" concept.
                            The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
                              Yeah, and how long do you think that would really last? How long do you think such an establishment would stay in business?
                              Chick-fil-A.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by lao tzu View Post
                                Chick-fil-A.
                                Oh, they refuse to serve lunch to gays? Yeah, that totally torpedoes my whole argument.
                                Last edited by Cow Poke; 02-22-2014, 11:34 PM.
                                The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by little_monkey, 03-27-2024, 04:19 PM
                                16 responses
                                180 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post One Bad Pig  
                                Started by whag, 03-26-2024, 04:38 PM
                                53 responses
                                417 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Mountain Man  
                                Started by rogue06, 03-26-2024, 11:45 AM
                                25 responses
                                114 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post rogue06
                                by rogue06
                                 
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 09:21 AM
                                33 responses
                                198 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Roy
                                by Roy
                                 
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 08:34 AM
                                87 responses
                                397 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Mountain Man  
                                Working...
                                X