This is a hot one.
SB 1062 opponents are putting Arizona at risk
Advocates: Bill offers necessary protections, clarification
By Joseph La Rue and Kerri Kupec
Phoenix’s newspaper the Arizona Republic takes a novel editorial stance. In my life, at least, it’s brand new. It goes something like this: If you get angry at Arizona then you will damage it. Governor Brewer might propose a new motto for the capital building’s frieze: ‘The Glass Menagerie State.’
Opponents of the proposed amendment to Arizona’s Religious Freedom Restoration Act are putting the people of Arizona in a high-risk disaster zone when it comes to their First Amendment freedoms.
In America, we live by the basic principle that you don’t forfeit your religious freedom just because you step outside the four walls of your home.
Two paragraphs in and no mention of what SB 1062 says. Maybe we’re too precious as well? If La Rue and Kupec tell us what the bill does we might faint?
Congress passed the federal RFRA, the legislation after which the Arizona RFRA is modeled, for that very purpose.
But the federal RFRA only applies to the federal government, and thus, a number of states, including Arizona, enacted their own versions to ensure this religious protection for their citizens.
Paragraphs three and four there, and done. Arizona’s SB passed 1062 after the federal RFRA fell short of what the states’ claimed were its RRs. So you can’t really blame them, KWIM?
So, what happens in states that don’t have a clear RFRA? Elane Photography in New Mexico is a perfect illustration.
Elaine Huguenin, the Christian owner of Elane Photography, declined to photograph what two women called their “commitment ceremony”…but the couple sued Elaine’s business anyway, alleging that it had violated a law banning sexual-orientation discrimination.
No Arizonan should be forced to choose between making a living and living free. An amended bill that provides a safeguard from laws that violate our First Amendment freedoms — while still letting government enact laws necessary to the common good — is a sensible one.
No court in Arizona should be able to tell you that a violation of those freedoms is just the “price of citizenship.”
Right. Code words and acronyms and philostophy to beat the band, but there’s also something missing. The word ‘Gay.’ Also ‘Homosexual.’ There’s no mention of anybody being targeted. Nothing about how some people will become second class citizens after the bill passes. Gays. And homosexuals. If Arizona is so aggrieved by the marauding hippies they should just make their case. Like: We have every right to discriminate against our fags without comment from you.