Arizona's SB 1062 is a Homophobic Stunt, Not a Blow Against Big Government

Gay marriageG. dallortoCalled out for the gay-bashing at the heart of Arizona's controversial SB 1062, advocates of the bill feign outrage and insist that all they want is the freedom to associate or not associate based on their religious beliefs. According to social conservative Bill McMorris, libertarians embrace big government and make him "participate in these new norms" by pointing out that Arizona businesses already have the right to refuse service to gays and lesbians and don't require the assurance of a "we really mean it" legislative backstop. I'm apparently especially awful for referring to Arizona lawmakers as "homophobic pricks" and praising a pizzeria that responded to the controversy by banning legislators from its premises (a protection-worthy exercise of the right to freedom of association, you might think).

But, pace McMorris, he and his social conservative comrades aren't broadly defending freedom of association, or even religious liberty. Every step of the way, advocates of SB 1062 have made it clear that the bill is meant to specifically protect the right to shun nasty homosexuals. As he writes at The Federalist:

[Tuccille] was referring to an updated state Religious Freedom Restoration Act that the Arizona legislature passed this week. The bill is designed to protect religious business owners from the types of litigation and sanction that have seen massive fines imposed upon Christian entrepreneurs for opting out of gay weddings.

Joseph La Rue and Kerri Kupec of the Arizona-based Alliance Defending Freedom explained their support for SB 1062 in the Arizona Republic:

Elaine Huguenin, the Christian owner of Elane Photography, declined to photograph what two women called their “commitment ceremony.” The women had no trouble finding another photographer because plenty of them were clamoring for their business. But the couple sued Elaine’s business anyway, alleging that it had violated a law banning sexual-orientation discrimination.

And the Center for Arizona Policy piled on. (Whoops! Just got a nasty visual.)

The critical need for this change came to light in a case recently ruled on by the New Mexico Supreme Court. On August 22, 2013, the New Mexico Supreme Court unanimously ruled in Elane Photography v. Willock that the state’s RFRA did not apply in a case where a private party sought to enforce a state law against another private party.

Got it. It's not about gays at all—except that it really, really is. But Arizonans already have the right to refuse service to gays and lesbians. As Reason's Scott Shackford wrote:

[S]exual orientation is not included in Arizona’s public accommodation laws. Discrimination against gays is actually legal in a lot of places in America still. What Senate Bill 1062 does is essentially tweak the state’s existing freedom of religion laws to say that, no really, people in Arizona have the right to the free exercise of religion.

And the Los Angeles Times's Paresh Dave pointed out that "New Mexico law specifically bars a public accommodation from denying services to someone based on that person’s sexual orientation or gender identity. Twenty-one states have similar laws, according to Human Rights Campaign. Arizona isn’t one of them."

So SB 1062 is the equivalent of promoting a law protecting the specific right to call people "fags," just in case the free speech protections for that right ever slip.

Could the courts ever decide to reinterpret the law in such a way as to force people (such as social conservatives) to do business with customers who give them the creepy crawlies (such as gays and lesbians)? Courts have creatively rewritten the law before, so it's possible.

But then, why not protect everybody's liberty? Make it clear that the point is to shield freedom of association and freedom of conscience for all, in a way that would protect the right of gay-owned businesses to chase Bill McMorris out of their stores as it would protect his right to toss them out of his place of business. And certainly craft it to protect the right of all of us to turn politicians away.

But SB 1062 backers have made it clear, from the beginning, that this is all about their dislike of one group. This isn't about paring back government; it's about using legislation to slap at gays and lesbians.

Warren Severin, chairman of the Libertarian Party of Arizona, put it nicely when he pointed out:

While all individuals and non-government businesses retain an absolute right to refuse to do business with anyone (including government) for any reason, proposing a law to that effect is not only redundant, but unnecessarily incites argument....

The 'bread and butter' for the kind of politicians who would propose such legislation is the division of the electorate. They seek only to divide us (the American People) up into groups, pit them against one another, and then offer to referee.

Bill McMorris says libertarians aren't worth talking to so long as we resist his buddies' efforts to torment groups they don't like. To the contrary, McMorris and company will be worth our time when they admit that freedom is for everybody.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Homple||

    And how are the gays being "tormented" by this law?

  • prolefeed||

    Apparently, by having legislation that reaffirms that under existing law, bigoted homophobes are allowed to act on their beliefs act like jerks by refusing to do business with people seeking to have a wedding featuring gays, while not having the law spell out that under existing law other people can be jerks also and refuse to serve people they find icky.

    Not really buying TwoChili's argument, but I can see how people quick to take offense might do so about this law instead of being laid back about it.

  • Homple||

    I, for one, am tired of the shriekers who "are quick to take offense".

  • Cytotoxic||

    They aren't. Tuccille on the other hand is tormented by SoCons, which is understandable, except that he lets his hatred guide him to write a hissy-fit of a column that goes nowhere.

  • ||

    The tormenting is implied.

    Like when your wife says she's going shopping, she's really tormenting you about forgetting an anniversary.

  • fredtyg||

    Agreed. I think J.D. is way off base with this.

  • Acosmist||

    People need to get over their fear of similar things.

  • Tonio||

    When you define your audience's needs you've lost the conversation.

  • General Butt Naked||

    Oh man, I've been waiting, like, 20 minutes to talk about this again.

    I'm starting to get the feeling that Reason writers produce articles with the sole aim of annoying john.

  • Hugh Akston||

    All of existence is actually just a coordinated campaign to annoy John. God finally got tired of trying to get the universe to come out right, so now He's just out to fuck with one guy.

  • Tim||

    Has it been 20 minutes already?

  • Acosmist||

    Culture War trumps Bill of Rights for Reason. WOOOOOOOO

    And yeah, this will annoy John!

  • Calidissident||

    Cause that's totally what Tucille said.

  • Michael Hihn||

    Quite a few people here seem to have no clue what Tucille wrote. WOOOOOO

  • ||

    But then, why not protect everybody's liberty? Make it clear that the point is to shield freedom of association and freedom of conscience for all, in a way that would protect the right of gay-owned businesses to chase Bill McMorris out of their stores as it would protect his right to toss them out of his place of business. And certainly craft it to protect the right of all of us to turn politicians away.

    Because KULTUR WAR!

  • Pro Libertate||

    Yes, that's what I don't like. Why can't I determine who I do business with? Certainly, except for some politically favored classes, businesses can, even in today's fucked up world, arbitrarily deny service, or do it because they don't like how someone is dressed, smells, what have you.

  • ||

    The problem is that a lot of the people complaining about their free association are doing it not because they believe in free association, it's because they think gays are icky. And a lot of the people on the other side complaining about treating gays in a bigoted manner are doing it not because they believe in equality, but because they think people who think gays are icky are icky.

    There are a lot of assholes involved in this. It muddies up the issue, because so many people aren't actually for what they claim to be. Which is the essence of KULTUR WAR; it's not about principles, it's about what people don't like.

    For the record, I am 100% for free association. I also think people who won't serve gays are fucking retarded and deserve any lost business that occurs because of it. Just for the extra retarded, that's business lost because gays decide not to shop there, not because of any legislation.

  • SugarFree||

    Yes, the libertarian position is to get rid of all public accommodation laws, not carve out an island of exception for a certain group.

  • Cytotoxic||

    But taking the island if that's what we have is totally libertarian.

  • Rock Action||

    Are you going to tell your black friends about this? :laughs:

  • ||

    I have mentioned my preference for a total lack of accommodation laws in front of a black friend. He disagreed, but he doesn't think I'm evil - just naive.

    I find it interesting that the libertarian position is the most thoughtful, but is most often accused of being naive.

  • Pro Libertate||

    In all seriousness, these issues almost always involve assholes. You know, like Illinois Nazis.

    Obviously, very few of us here would refuse to provide goods and services to people because they're gay or think it makes any kind of business sense. But freedom isn't about doing what every one else approves of, and it is totally not a hallmark of a free society for government to force some people to contract with others.

  • ||

    What part of "I am 100% for free association" did you not seem to get?

  • Pro Libertate||

    My only comment directed to you was that the poster children for civil liberties cases are more often than not assholes.

  • Bobarian||

    Larry Flynt gambit?

  • Rock Action||

    Even the Pox guys?

  • Homple||

    They might lose business from gays but make up for it in increased traffic from, say, Christer Fundies. Let another put up a "we heart gays" sign and he might get extra revenue from gays and their friends. The market will decide whether either or both made correct decisions. Let 'em go at it.

  • fredtyg||

    This is a minor problem which, in fact, involves probably half a percent of businesses. It does involve people who are self employed who should be able to choose their jobs regardless of political correctness.

  • Troglodyte Rex||

    Makes me want to open a business and advertise it with a sign stating, "Spend your GAY money here!"

  • Troglodyte Rex||

    caveat - Except Tony. Because, FTTW.

  • fredtyg||

    People and businesses have the right of association, as well as non- association. I can't believe any libertarian would support the decision to force people to serve those they'd rather not.

  • DRourk||

    Anyone who would force someone to serve those they'd rather not isn't a libertarian, as forcing someone to associate with someone they'd rather not is a pretty egregious affront to anyone's basic liberties.

  • Major Johnson||

    I'm with you. I want people to be free to put signs saying "blacks not served" in front of their stores so I know where I don't want to spend my money. The way things are today I spend money in their stores because the government won't let them put the signs out, thus supporting the bastards.

    But the real deal is that we started discounting the inalienable part of rights. Americans like the idea of rights, but the reality they don't care for. They want to be able to take rights from those they disagree with, don't like or are frightened of. You can't do that with rights. Freedom is nice as a rallying cry, but in reality it's frightening and untidy.

    We now have a Bill of Privileges.

  • PapayaSF||

    No, because CIVIL RIGHTS ACT!

    Arguably freedom of association ended in 1964, and if one accepts the modern assumption that gays=blacks, then you can't "protect everybody's liberty" without overturning that enshrined law.

  • Calidissident||

    "Arguably freedom of association ended in 1964"

    It existed before then?

  • Pro Libertate||

    Of course, in strictly legal terms and ignoring what is actually going on, statutes can't conflict with the Constitution.

    Now back to your illegal reality, already in progress.

  • ||

    Yeah, because Jim Crow laws really upheld freedom of association.

  • R C Dean||

    Make it clear that the point is to shield freedom of association and freedom of conscience for all,

    Because it has been handed down by our Masters that this would be racist?

  • Michael Hihn||

    Umm, the exact opposite.

  • RightNut||

    Yawn...Excuse me if I dont care about this. Yes the bill is redundant, perhaps it is fueled by homophobia, no this is not gay jim crow. End of story.

  • DEATFBIRSECIA||

    Any non-governmental entity should be free to discriminate for any reason at any time, and that includes against all of the federally protected classes of citizens, and for any reason, even FYTW.

    The actual government, on the other hand, must treat all of its citizens fairly.

  • prolefeed||

    Any non-governmental entity should be free to discriminate for any reason at any time, and that includes against all of the federally protected classes of citizens, and for any reason, even FYTW.

    That would awesome wording in actual legislation. I might be register to vote for a politician proposing that law.

  • fredtyg||

    Exactly!

  • Aloysious||

    "...freedom is for everybody."

    Beautiful words.

  • ||

    This should be a fun thread. Can we talk about the Duke pornstar too?

  • Pro Libertate||

    Can I refuse to sell her stuff?

  • ||

    I'd rather talk about your mom. She says hi, by the way.

  • UnCivilServant||

    If someone claimed to be Warty's mom, she was lying, our tests have shown that Warty amalgamated from random proteins and wasn't actually born.

  • SugarFree||

    It is known.

  • ||

    You're right, I meant your mom.

  • UnCivilServant||

    Anything to avoid talking about your own issues?

  • ||

    Your mom is my issue.

  • ||

    do you mean issue from your loins? Weird.

  • Root Boy||

    So, is JD mad because people talk about the bullshit gay suites to make wedding photogs comply with them, or because the law as actually written lets you hide from the gays?

  • Cytotoxic||

    JD is mad because SoCons like this law, basically and because people did something that is sort of right but pointless for mixed reasons. Best not to try and make sense JD "I'm confused" Tuccile right now.

  • Root Boy||

    He sure sounds mad, while simultaneously confusing his argument -- though that's almost inevitable if you are in that state.

    Hey, if Andrew Sullivan (!!?) says "I don't like it, but no big deal" why can't most writers for a Libertarian publication?

  • Cytotoxic||

    KULTR WAR

  • Tonio||

    But at least he knows the difference between a contiguous set of rooms and a lawsuit.

  • Restoras||

    Zingha!

  • Root Boy||

    A suite of suits

  • Michael Hihn||

    The only one confused here is you. Tucille is quite clear to literate readers.

  • SugarFree||

    Once again...

    The law is neither redundant nor affirms religious right of association. As it is written, it would "protect" individual employees who object to any aspect of their job on religious grounds from being fired by their employer. It enshrines an individual right of refusal for anyone against anyone (not just the state) if substantial burden can be show and there is no compelling state reason to overrule.

    It is a far more damaging to free association than the status quo, that already allows business owners to discriminate against gay customer to their heart's content.

    It is a bad law.

  • ||

    As it is written, it would "protect" individual employees who object to any aspect of their job on religious grounds from being fired by their employer.

    If this is correct, it is the fucking opposite of free association and property rights. Yay, KULTUR WAR bullshit all over again!

  • Brett L||

    This is how I read it. The definition of person says "individual, partnership, corporation" and several other things. And then the law says "any person may refuse based on religious freedom". So yeah, I could refuse to refuse to serve gays based on my religious views and be unfireable.

  • Tonio||

    Yeah, none of the Sno Conez want to talk about that.

    And the the imagined schadenfreude of movement homos over the opposition to this law by OMG teh kkkorporations is delicious.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    I need someone to verify this information for me. Someone I trust. And sorry boss, but there's only two men I trust. One of them's me. The other's not you. (It's Cameron Poe.)

  • SugarFree||

    They changed the language from it being protections from state action to protections from anyone. So if you were suing your employer for wrongful termination, if you could show that you were fired for refusing to do something based on a religious belief, this law provides injuctive relief.

    It creates a class of unfirable employees who can refuse to do a wide range of things on religious grounds.

    There is already no protections afforded due to sexual orientation in Arizona. This is either redundant homophobic grandstanding or a badly amended redundant law that has become something quite dangerous to free of association and employment law.

    Everyone seems to be ignoring this in the face of Kultchur War hijinks.

  • Bill Dalasio||

    So, wait, I could claim my religious beliefs forbid me from refraining from browsing internet pr0n during work hours?

  • CampingInYourPark||

    "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.

    An employee would have a difficult time meeting the definition of being burdened in the proposed legislation.

  • SugarFree||

    If your boss ordered you to bake a cake for a gay couple and you refused you'd have the same protections as the boss if he refused the gay couple himself.

  • CampingInYourPark||

    You repeated yourself, but I don't think you read the definition of "burden" in the legislation.

    Telling your boss to fuck off because you don't want to do something you think is icky isn't the same as your boss preventing you from using your property in a manner you deem satisfactory to fulfill your religious mission.

  • SugarFree||

    That is from Section 1 and is in reference to religious zoning rules. Read section 2. It refers to a substantial burden on religious expression. Property is not mentioned.

  • CampingInYourPark||

    41-1493. Definitions
    In this article, unless the context otherwise requires:

    Section 1 includes the definitions that apply to the whole article. Property doesn't have to be mentioned in Section 2, because it's in the definition of "Unreasonable burden".

  • SugarFree||

    Section 2 Part D uses "substantial burden" as the standard. "Unreasonable burden" is not mentioned.

  • Lord at War||

    Arizona is a "at will" state.

    I didn't fire you because you refused to serve that gay customer, I fired you because you are dumber than shreik on a six month glue-sniffing bender.

    And your pancreas suck, but your mom doesn't.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    I already figured it was buying votes for a certain base, but that happens all the time and I didn't see any other harm here worth the extra outrage. (In my defense, I initially didn't care enough to think about it much.) But yes, this looks worth the outcry.

    But answer me this, smart guy. Why won't you acknowledge my Con Air quote?

  • SugarFree||

    Why won't you acknowledge my Con Air quote?

    You have answered your own question.

    Also, Micheal Bay thinks being diabetic is basically the same thing as being a heroin addict.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    Ha! Damn, I forgot about how that movie taught a young me that people with the sugar were a total burden.

  • Tonio||

    Because Conair makes shitty blowdryers. Duh.

  • Seamus||

    Wrong. Read the letter from Laycock et al.: The law "would provide that people are covered when sued by a private citizen invoking state or local law to demand that they violate their religion." (Even better, read the effing bill.)

  • fredtyg||

    Nope. If you're working for someone besides government, you do what your employer tells you. If he tells you to serve, or not serve, gays, that's his option.

    99.99% of people or businesses would never tell you to do that. But, if your in their employ, you do what you're told. Don't like it? Get another job.

  • ||

    If this is true, then all the people above can shut the fuck up.

  • ||

    Well heck. Why didn't someone just mention that to begin with? That's a lot more to be outraged about than "this law reinforces already existing laws."

  • ||

    Well heck. Why didn't someone just mention that to begin with? That's a lot more to be outraged about than "this law reinforces already existing laws."

  • ||

    Furthermore, how difficult is it to include a function that allows you to edit or delete posts?

  • Christophe||

    No one's been able to touch the servers for the last 5 years. The squirrel guard it day and night.

  • Sunmonocle Backwards Tophat||

    No, it still has to be state action. If my employer is a grocery store and they fire me because I won't make a cake for a gay wedding, I can't sue unless the grocer did so as an act of enforcing a law or regulation. If it's just their own initiative, I have no case.

  • SugarFree||

    Section D makes no requirement for state action to be present.

    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.
  • Sunmonocle Backwards Tophat||

    No, state action is still required; read how state action is defined in section F. State action can still be performed by a non-governmental actor, if it's done in furtherance of a law or regulation. If a third party violates the law - as in, they invoke a law, such as firing an employee due to an employee's violation of a municipal regulation - the employee can sue. If the employer just doesn't like the employee's actions, they can fire them without cause. The bill prevents municipal laws from preempting this law when the government isn't a party.

  • Sunmonocle Backwards Tophat||

    Here's the text:

    "STATE ACTION" MEANS ANY ACTION BY THE GOVERNMENT OR THE IMPLEMENTATION OR APPLICATION OF ANY LAW, INCLUDING STATE AND LOCAL LAWS, ORDINANCES, RULES, REGULATIONS AND POLICIES, WHETHER STATUTORY OR OTHERWISE, AND WHETHER THE IMPLEMENTATION OR APPLICATION IS MADE OR ATTEMPTED TO BE MADE BY THE GOVERNMENT OR NONGOVERNMENTAL PERSONS.

    Here's what you need to ask:
    1) Is the government a party?
    2) Is the party implementing or enforcing a government law or regulation?

    If both answers are "no", then you can't invoke this law. Currently, the government has to be a party. That's the difference.

  • Seamus||

    No, the government doesn't (necessarily) have to be a party. To quote Laycock et al.: "The Arizona RFRA was modeled on the federal RFRA, parts of which were copied verbatim. Language in the federal RFRA that authorizes relief against a government, inserted for reasons having to do with sovereign immunity, has been misinterpreted by a few courts to mean that RFRA cannot be a defense against a suit by a private citizen. . . . Arizona copied the sovereign immunity language from the federal RFRA, and presumably had no intent to change the meaning. Defendants will assert RFRA defenses in suits by private plaintiffs whether or not you sign this bill. Without the bill, whether RFRA applies will be an additional issue for litigation; with the bill, the answer will be clear and the parties and the court can proceed to the merits."

  • Sunmonocle Backwards Tophat||

    Got it, I was under the impression the government had to be a party right now.

  • Sunmonocle Backwards Tophat||

    State action is required because, in order to assert a claim or defense, there has to be a violation. According to Section B, state action must be present for there to be a violation.

  • SugarFree||

    State Action and Individual Action are both recognized as burdens. That's why they are in separate sections.

    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 requires none of this.

  • Sunmonocle Backwards Tophat||

    No, it does. There is only one way to violate this law, and that's defined in Section B. Section B must be violated for Section D to apply, and for Section B to be violated, the following must be present:

    1) Violation of Section 2 (whether performed by government or non-governmental party)

    2) Judicial proceeding (whether invoked as a claim or defense)

    For a party to violate section 2, they have to violate section B, and for that to happen, there must be state action. How else is it possible?

  • Sunmonocle Backwards Tophat||

    Here's some confusion, maybe: when the bill refers to a section, they mean the whole section, not the alphabetical subsection.

  • Michael Hihn||

    This is like the parable of the blind men describing an elephant!
    Section B.
    No, Section C.
    But how 'bout D?

  • fredtyg||

    If you're not doing what the employer requires, you should be fired. Better yet, you should leave on your own accord if those duties are offensive to you.

  • Rasilio||

    Yes we know it is a homophobic stunt, the problem is the people who are most vocally opposed to the law are the most annoying slavers on the planet who actively believe that public accomodation laws are not merely a necessary evil to protect against racism, homophobia, or other kinds of discrimination but think that they are an active good in and of themselves.

    So it is really hard to not feel some mild support for the law even if it's drafters are morons fighting a war they already lost against icky butt secks

  • Tonio||

    First paragraph - agree.

  • Seamus||

    I'm going to call bullshit on this. Prof. Douglas Laycock, of the University of Virginia School of Law, and 10 other law professors point out that the purpose of the law is to "amend the Arizona RFRA to address two ambiguities that have been the subject of litigation under other RFRAs." That is, "[]t would provide that people are covered when state or local government requires them to violate their religion in the conduct of their business, and it would provide that people are covered when sued by a private citizen invoking state or local law to demand that they violate their religion." ("But," Laycock et al. hasten to add, "nothing in the amendment would say who wins in either of these cases. The person invoking RFRA would still have to prove that he had a sincere religious belief and that state or local government was imposing a substantial burden on his exercise of that religious belief. And the government, or the person on the other side of the lawsuit, could still show that compliance with the law was necessary to serve a compelling government interest." ( http://tinyurl.com/mheqp3y )

  • Seamus||

    Moreover, and perhaps most important of all: "SB1062 does not say that businesses can discriminate for religious reasons. It says that business people can assert a claim or defense under RFRA, in any kind of case (discrimination cases are not even mentioned, although they would be included), that they have the burden of proving a substantial burden on a sincere religious practice, that the government or the person suing them has the burden of proof on compelling government interest, and that the state courts in Arizona make the final decision."

  • Homple||

    Your legal analysis is negated by someone saying "homophobe". You know that, don't you?

  • Seamus||

    Would it be too much to ask people to RTFB ( http://tinyurl.com/qbgr8xk ) before sounding off on it? You'll notice nothing in it about homosexuality, or discrimination. It's all about general application of Arizona's RFRA. That, of course, means it would apply to anti-discrimination laws, but exactly the same way it would applu to anti-peyote laws, laws outlawing circumcision, laws outlawing kosher slaughter, or any other law that arguably infringes religious freedom.

  • Tonio||

    Dude, could you quit it with the tiny-urling? There's no way to tell where those links ultimately go, so many of us are disinclined to click on them. Either post a naked URL, or use the html tag below. Please note that the actual tag uses angle brackets, the example uses square brackets because angle brackets would be eaten:

    [a href="actual_url_here"] text_which_will_be_orange[/a]

  • Seamus||

    When I tried using the actual URLs, my post got rejected because the URLs were too long. Sorry.

  • Seamus||

    But here are html tags for: (1) the letter from Professors Laycock et al and (2) the text of the bill.

  • John Thacker||

    The federal RFRA passed (nearly unanimously) because of an anti-peyote ruling.

    I am not familiar enough with the Arizona bill to have a definite opinion, but it does seem like Scott here is saying that even if the Arizona bill were textually identical to the federal law, the federal law could be okay because it was motivated (at least in part) by a good cause like allowing American Indians to take peyote in rituals, where the Arizona law seems motivated by causes like not wanting to take photos of or bake cakes for gay weddings.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    http://blog.heritage.org/2014/.....ets-wrong/

    Heritage supports it, of course.

  • Lord Humungus||

    You know who else did a homophobic stunt?

  • Dances-with-Trolls||

    Jehovah?

  • BoxyBoxyBoxyBoxy||

    Evel Knievel?

  • Almanian!||

    Caligula (ironically)?

  • Seamus||

    But then, why not protect everybody's liberty?

    If Tuccille had done as I suggested, and RTFB before posting, he'd have seen that it does exactly that.

  • Tonio||

    Except the liberty of the employers to fire employees who don't want to serve customers who the employer wants to serve.

  • John Thacker||

    No, I think that was a feature of the (now killed) Kansas bill. Probably killed by the Republican Senate leadership in Kansas for that reason.

    The Arizona bill does not have the restriction on the right of employers to fire employees, as far as I can tell.

  • Sunmonocle Backwards Tophat||

    This is correct. The Arizona bill applies to non-governmental entities enforcing state action, not non-governmental entities acting on their own interest. There's a lot of misinformation going around about this bill.

  • Seamus||

    Profs. Laycock et al. point out how SB 1062 is quite different from the Kansas bill, which according to the professors, "enacts a specific rule about religious objections to same-sex marriages and civil unions, and . . . says the religious objector always wins, no matter what."

  • Seamus||

    If there's a law that would prevent those employers from firing those employees, and the employers fired them because of religious motivations, then the proposed law *would* apply.

  • ||

    No it doesn't, it doesn't protect people who want to deny service for non-religious reasons.

  • Tonio||

    Because nobody would ever claim a religious exemption to get out of anything.

  • Seamus||

    And if they do, they have to demonstrate to the satisfaction of the that their claimed religious motivation is not a pretext and that the law in question imposes a substantial burden on their religious practice. Even then, they lose if the government shows that it has a compelling government interest in enforcing the law according to its terms. You know, the same standards that apply when, say, someone wants to smoke peyote and claims that the Controlled Substances Act violates his religion.

  • David K Az||

    Steven Yarborough is the Arizona senator who introduced SB 1062. He is a republican who is up for reelection this year. He is opposed by Kristie O'Brein, a democrat: http://www.obrienforazsenate.com/ She will have a link on her site to accept contributions within a couple of weeks. She can accept early contributions up to $160 from people from outside her district but will not be able to do so for a long time. Any help would be appreciated by the people of Arizona to remove Steven Yarborough from office. I have nothing to do with Kristie's campaign. I am just a resident of Arizona who wants to see the bullies and racists removed from Arizona politics. Please help us do so.

  • ||

    Why would I want to replace one shithead with another shithead?

  • OldMexican||

    Re: David K Az,

    I am just a resident of Arizona who wants to see the bullies and racists [sic] removed from Arizona politics.


    Gay is the new black!

  • R C Dean||

    One good way to rein in the bullies is to rein in their ability to bring in the professional thugs who will be enforcing court orders violating freedom of association, right?

    So why isn't this bill one that removes bullies?

  • Hawk Spitui||

    Any help would be appreciated by the people of Arizona to remove Steven Yarborough from office.

    If the people of Arizona want him removed from office, they're quite capable of effecting that themselves without any help from me, thankyouverymuch.

  • Notorious G.K.C.||

    I would very much recommend that anyone who is interested in the subject look at the letter from Prof. Laycock and other law profs about the law's actual meaning (see above). It clarifies that corporations and discrimination defendants have the right to *invoke* RFRA, though not necessarily to win their cases. And of course the bill would protect a corporation which refused to serve members of the Westboro Baptist Church, or a religious business owner facing zoning hassles for giving out free food to the homeless, and so on and so on.

    It would be nice if everyone accepted the principles of this bill, but there actually are people who say RFRA laws should never apply to for-profit corporations (because KKorprashions, and the govt gives them so many favors already, why should we give them religious freedom?). There are also people who say that if a private person sues you for discrimination, you have no RFRA rights, because the "government" isn't involved (ignoring the fact that courts are part of the government, and if a court imposes damages because of your private business decisions that's a government act).

    No the bill is *not* simply restating what everyone believes. It's a contested issue.

    But the bill's sponsors are icky, so therefore the bill is bad. Principals, not principles.

  • Almanian!||

    What?

  • Notorious G.K.C.||

    say that one more time

  • Almanian!||

    What?

  • Seamus||

    Say "what" again. Say "what" again, I dare you, I double dare you motherfucker, say what one more goddamn time!

  • Almanian!||

    Say what again? What?

  • OldMexican||

    But then, why not protect everybody's liberty?


    That's the thing. Looks like only a few are willing to accept that SB1062 was written in reaction to what amounted to lawful chattel against business owners who simply wanted not to engage in the trade of their services with people of a certain sexual orientation. Instead of addressing the terrible and tyrannical violations of individual rights derived from anti-discrimination laws, libertarians are losing sleep over SB1062. I don't understand it.

    Without intending to be provocative, I have to say that your feelings about bigoted people are irrelevant when it comes to their right to property and right to trade. NOBODY is being harmed by one party's refusal to trade, as the result is the same as the status quo ante, and INaction is also a right. Instead, REAL and TERRIBLE harm comes to those that face retaliation with the help of anti-discrimination laws. You as libertarians have to come to grips with the reality that anti-discrimination laws are MUCH WORSE for individual rights than SB 1062 could ever hope to be.

  • Almanian!||

    ...and here comes Old Mexican to bring some sobriety to the proceedings.

    Well stated, OM.

  • ||

    "Curves is not open to male members"

    http://tinyurl.com/7a3e8lr

    Clearly against AZ law, but no outrage. Rule of law is clearly not in play here, just emotional b.s.

    http://tinyurl.com/ldx95ws

  • R C Dean||

    I want gays to have exactly the same recourse to the courts as I have if someone refuses me service.

    Does that make be bigoted?

  • Rock Action||

    Yes, my man. Of course it does. This is reason, you see.

    This is hilarious. A bunch of cake makers get sued, and we get wild expansions of religious conscience, mixed with wildly crazy reactions to expansive bills. Frothing cosmos.

    Why not just limit the language?

    Because. This is the slippery slope about compelling religious services for gay marriage, which 12 out of 12 state statutes have provided for, and 3 out of 4 courts have. It's activism!

  • thorax232||

    Put the government into anything and you get pure trash, corruption, and low brow bickering.

  • Michael Hihn||

    Or ... we could go all the way. Force Muslim restaurants to serve pork. Force Jewish photographers to shoot Nazi rallies. Make atheists pray at Notre Dame football games. Ok, that last one may be too much.

  • D. M. Michell||

    No. The last one isn't too much. Right on M. H.

  • D. M. Michell||

    First of all, private (PRIVATE, as in own by someone other than the government) have the inalienable right to refuse service to anyone for any reason. The government should not approve or disapprove the decisions of the beliefs of private people. A private business is open to the public but is not a public business like the government.

    Second, to all the so-called Christian homophobes. Read you Bible and see just what is and is not prohibited. Multiple wives for men: not prohibited. Slavery: not prohibited. Killing rebellious youths: encouraged. Sheesh! You dimwits are totally amazing.

  • Jayburd||

    Professor 'Laycock'? Really? What are the other professors names?

  • mitch77||

    When an article starts out with a deceitful, politically correct "Newspeak" title there is not much hope for the body.

    To disagree with it's practice, in fact to KNOW perversion is a bad thing is NOT "homomphobia".
    I wonder why it is the libofascists who always rant about personal freedom don't defend smokers?Perversion kills, sickens, and maims it's supplicants in HUGE numbers. It does great damage to families and culture. If it is worthy of defense how could tobacco not be?

    The problem is all the pseudo-intellectual defenders can't be troubled to look at the VAST and decades long collection of medical, psychological, and social science that proves it to be horribly damaging.
    NOPE!
    They march "forward' with their little emotions and self ASSured arrogance leading the way. Dragging the world further down the rabbit hole.

    I disagree with pedophilia too...How soon till I'm a pedophiliaphobic?
    Freakin' morons.

  • Jayburd||

    Oh come on, man, it takes a village to raise a child don't ya know!

  • Jayburd||

    Whoever goes to court over a wedding cake is a real drama queen.

  • ||

    Libertarians are the only principled people on the planet.

    We're the only people capable of standing up for BOTH the right of gay people to get married, AND the right of religious people to not bake them cakes.

    Why is that? Why is everyone else a retarded bigot?

  • Larrybud||

    Should a Jewish event planner be forced to plan a KKK rally?

  • Rock Action||

    Absolutely! Why not???

    You have no private conscience anymore, fool.

    Not in the service of gay marriage.

  • Kellifrombrooklyn||

    This law is government interference in the market BTW. It grants a special privilege.
    I'm a liberal-tarian but I'd like to throw out some libertarian proposals for dealing with discrimination and see what people think.
    A ) Truth in labeling. Limit government action to what Milton Friedman called the "rules of the game". Require disclosure of discriminatory policies. Consumers have a right to freedom in contracts and to know which companies to boycott or reward. Global corporations have a right to know if an area will be inhospitable. It is unfair for businesses that are open to the public to have to compete with discriminators. The presumption is that businesses serve the public unless they disclose otherwise. With disclosure minorities will no longer receive inferior service from businesses forced to serve them. Require disclosure and let the market decide.
    B ) Have discrimination laws only for essential services like food and shelter.
    C ) Have discrimination laws only to protect the disabled. Everyone else can easily seek out other businesses they can contract with.
    D ) Expand the category of businesses that have an existing right to discriminate like cooperatives, clubs and independent contractors.
    E ) End market interference in tandem with ending government regulations like zoning and licensing laws that impede minorities from opening their own businesses.
    F ) End all market interference but only AFTER first ending the government regulations that impede minorities.

  • ||

    None of that is remotely libertarian except the last 2. Maybe D), except that ideally there's no "categories of business" defined by the state.

  • Kellifrombrooklyn||

    Milton Friedman was not a libertarian? He was a moderate libertarian.

  • Murray Roodbaard||

    "[S]exual orientation is not included in Arizona’s public accommodation laws. Discrimination against gays is actually legal in a lot of places in America still. What Senate Bill 1062 does is essentially tweak the state’s existing freedom of religion laws to say that, no really, people in Arizona have the right to the free exercise of religion."

    Which begs the question. Why is Tucille so upset?
    Obviously not because someone is doing something unlibertarian, but something politically incorrect. So that basically makes this Reason.com article a big whine story about some people not being all tolerant and diverse and politically correct.

    Big deal.

  • JAQO||

    The use of the tiresome and hackneyed ideological term "homophobic" is beneath Reason. Every business should have the right to refuse service for any reason. There is no proven so-called homophobia as a clinical condition, hence its mere ideological use herein should be rejected. Let business owners deal with the consequences of their practices.

  • ConstitutionFirst||

    I have nothing against homosexuals, but at 3-5% of the population this is nothing more than a diversion.
    48 Christians, mostly woman and children, were dragged out of their homes and murdered yesterday in Africa and there was ZERO coverage in the American (Malfeasant) Media. We know more about celebrity drug and alcohol problems than we do about the on-going Christian genocide.
    We are 1930's Germany all over again and all you people in the Ministry of Propaganda can do is create diversions from the real horrors destroying this world.

  • 1idvet||

    Funny how homosexual, or gay was never anywhere in the bill.

    Curiouser and curiouser Reason.
    That title is a fail.
    It's not homophobic to want to protect religious freedom.
    Morons.

  • RickCaird||

    Tuccille consistently gets things wrong. He is not even seeing the situation from a libertarian perspective.

    This is not some homophobic legislation. All it says is the state cannot force someone to provide a service where providing that service would imply participation in some event where the provider has a moral objection. For the state to compel someone to photograph a gay wedding or provide a cake for that wedding is libertarian incongruity.

    Tuccille is a strange libertarian. He really needs to go back and determine if he has not confused "liberal" with "libertarian". This is not the first time he has wandered off into left field and gotten lost in the weeds. He needs to be yanked back and asked to explain his understanding of libertarian principles. There seem to be some serious holes in his understand.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Progressive Puritans: From e-cigs to sex classifieds, the once transgressive left wants to criminalize fun.
  • Port Authoritarians: Chris Christie’s Bridgegate scandal
  • The Menace of Secret Government: Obama’s proposed intelligence reforms don’t safeguard civil liberties

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement