Arizona passes bill protecting religious freedom of business owners

[Outis]

Makes sense.

[Cow Poke]

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?

[Sam]

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?

[Cow Poke]

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.

[Cow Poke]

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.

[Epoetker]

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.

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.

[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.

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

[Darth Executor]

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

Good.

[Cow Poke]

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

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!

[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!

[Cow Poke]

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.

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.

[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.

[Cow Poke]

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.

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.

Yes, and I think you grossly misrepresented the teachings of Paul on the "weaker brother" concept.

[Juvenal]

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.

[Cow Poke]

Chick-fil-A.

Oh, they refuse to serve lunch to gays? Yeah, that totally torpedoes my whole argument.