Arizona

Gov. Brewer Vetoes Arizona SB 1062

No religious exemption to deny public accommodations

|

A sort-of victory.
Credit: Datchler / Foter / CC BY-NC-ND

Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer just announced that she has vetoed Senate Bill 1062, which would have allowed a special, additional religious exemption to the state's public accommodation laws, meaning businesses and individuals could decline to provide goods and services to customers on the basis of religious objections. Though the bill didn't directly mention gays and lesbians, it was widely known to be a response to lawsuits or complaints filed in other states against bakers and photographers that declined to provide services to gay weddings due to religious objections.

Arizona, however, doesn't include sexual orientation in its state public accommodation laws, so citizens don't actually have to justify not wanting to serve gay people. Brewer pointed to the vague wording of the law as a problem, believing it "has the potential to create more problems than it solves."

My own personal, cynical theory is that somebody started realizing it would allow Muslim-owned businesses to refuse to serve women who weren't accompanied by men or not dressed "modestly" and then there will be panic about Shariah Law or something. I was actually kind of secretly hoping that would happen because it would have been hilarious.

Anyway, this particular battle is over and I suspect much celebration in the lesbian and gay community, even though, as I pointed out, they still don't have any state protection from business discrimination. It would not be a surprise, though, if this fight were used to push forward an addition to the state's public accommodation laws.

NEXT: Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer Vetoes SB 1062– Update

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.

  1. Yeah, we can now buy goods and services from people who hate us! What’s not to celebrate?

    Sorry, I wouldn’t discriminate against anyone who’s gay, but I also would rather not do business with anyone who hates me because I’m white or heterosexual, or male, or whatever else. And I also don’t want the government to force said parties to do business with me.

    Fuck the government, that is all.

    1. Hyperion|2.26.14 @ 8:27PM|#
      “Yeah, we can now buy goods and services from people who hate us! What’s not to celebrate?”

      Nope. Folks who don’t want money from gay pockets are already protected in AZ.
      It was a ‘symbolic’ law; proving the GOP leads the So Con pack and nothing more.

      1. A GOP governor vetoed it and neither GOP Senators supported it. Mitt Romney even weighed in against it.

        This shows a lack of party discipline to keep such foolishness from coming to fruition, but we are a republic after all and foolish cannot be ever totally done away with, because fools do get elected by the people.

      2. The schizophrenia on this issue is interesting. The opponents want us to believe that it is meaningless, but also that it would have led to a new Jim Crow. Which is it?

        I guess you’re coming down on the meaningless side. I think that’s a difficult position to sustain if you RTFB.

    2. ain’t that the truth. I don’t get the desire to give money to someone who does not want it.

      1. Yeah, I can’t ever remember walking into a shop and the owner was rude or inattentive, and my thoughts were, ‘Wow, I can’t wait to give that guy my money! Someone please force him to take it!’.

        A lot of this, I think is just attention seeking. ‘Hey, look at me, I’m special! Make people be nice to me, I’m a victim!’.

        Not saying that all gays are like that, they certainly are not, but the ones screaming the loudest about things like this, almost certainly are.

        1. Nobody forced the pus-filled bags of semi-sentient mammalian tissue in the Arizona legislature to pass this bill, which is essentially indistinguishable from a Jim Crow law. How does it feel to be on their side? Lonely?

          1. “essentially indistinguishable from a Jim Crow law”

            Indistinguishable is in the eye of the beholder. I won’t speak for Hyperion, by I find the essential difference quite easy to distinguish.

            1. Tony always struggles with the difference between being forced to do X (Jim Crow), and being allowed to do X (freedom).

              1. This is the essential flaw of progressive politics, and aptly explains why European nations keep getting hoodwinked by dictators.

          2. Do you know of someone who has taken upon themselves to parse out the specific pieces of this legislation that are “jim crow?”

      2. I honestly don’t think the goal is to force businesses to serve homosexuals when they would rather not. The goal is to force those business owners to close up shop. Or to simply punish them.

      3. The goal is to make public disapproval of homosexual behavior illegal. It is to make the opposition submit.

        1. There’s some truth to that: I have encountered people on the internet who honestly do not seem to understand why you would ever allow someone to do something wrong. To them, the purpose of the law is to make everyone do the right thing. Discriminating against people because of their sexual orientation is wrong, ergo it should be forbidden.

          And they do have something of a point in that laws can have a strong psychological effect that empowers people even in cases that the law doesn’t directly touch on – look at the Jim Crow laws, which made racial segregation look normal and approved-of even in fields where segregation wasn’t required by the law.

          Anyway, one of the issues I noticed with SB 1062 that didn’t get much mention is that it privileges religious sentiment over other kinds of thought. You hate the gays because you think Big Sky Daddy hates the gays? OK, that’s a defense. You hate the gays because of a sincere belief that has nothing to do with Big Sky Daddy? Nope, not a defense. Given America’s persistent love affair with and lip service to religion in general, I doubt that privileging of religion could have formed the basis of a real challenge, but it’s interesting to note.

          1. “To them, the purpose of the law is to make everyone do the right thing. Discriminating against people because of their sexual orientation is wrong, ergo it should be forbidden.”

            Which, in this context, is an utterly insane position. What happens if America decides being gay is wrong? The assumption that we will simply keep progressing toward increased enlightenment does not comport with history.

    3. I wouldn’t want to do business with anyone who hates me because I’m in to pegging, they might do something to my food.

      Also, I wouldn’t want to do business with anybody who does pegging in the kitchen, they might get something in the food.

      1. I don’t hate you, but I really, really don’t want to be your photographer.

    4. Your privilege level is Extremely Oppressed with a score of -625

  2. OT, but did anyone post the story about the cops in Towson, MD telling the guy that he doesn’t have any rights, because he was filming them?

    1. Many times. Stupid pig totally forgets he’s supposed to beat, arrest, and confiscate the photographer’s phone.
      Fuckin’ slacker probably hasn’t met his dog-shooting quota either.

      1. Yeah, that was one lucky dude. He still has his cell phone, his dog if he had one, was not with him, and he’s unbeaten and alive! Amazing luck.

  3. “Arizona, however, doesn’t include sexual orientation in its state public accommodation laws, so citizens don’t actually have to justify not wanting to serve gay people.”

    Troglodytes could already refuse to do business with gays, according to that. So the entire purpose of the law was grandstanding.
    Tell me again why the GOP loses elections.

    1. Troglodytes could already refuse to do business with gays, according to that. So the entire purpose of the law was grandstanding.

      No, the actual purpose of the law is explained in this letter by Douglas Laycock of the University of Virginia School of Law (who argued the Hosanna-Tabor v. EEOC case before the Supremes, leading to a 9-0 victory for religious freedom) and 10 other law professors: “SB1062 would amend the Arizona RFRA to address two ambiguities that have been the subject of litigation under other RFRAs. It 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.”

      http://www.azpolicy.org/media-…..a_RFRA.pdf

  4. It would not be a surprise, though, if this fight were used to push forward an addition to the state’s public accommodation laws.

    Future Reason headline?

    Gay Statists Oppose Liberty

    1. No Cocktail parties for you.

      1. Freedom of association FTW!

        1. The black leather faction is taking over at Reason.

  5. . Wow. Harry Reid claims that all the bad things said about obamacare are lies cooked up by the Koch brothers. Now Sebelius is claiming that the 7million signup number did not come from her or the white house.

    I wonder if shreek will echo verifiably false talking points.

    I think they are preferring to live in some bizarro alternate reality than face the fact that they have created a disaster on par with prohibition, maybe worse.

    1. It’s a valid tactic, seeing that in a few years, it won’t be their problem any more. Thanks, politicians and bureaucrats!

      1. It will be to their shame forever. Signature accomplishment…his legacy. The dems did this single handedly. They own it. Jugears owns it. It is a huge steamy turd and everyone but them could see that from the start.

        I am keeping my fingers crossed that one of them has a meltdown on camera over it like that idiot proggy girl did someone posted earlier.

        1. Repost please? I missed that and it sounds delicious.

        2. I agree, they own it, they asked to own it. I have said it before, there is no justice if Obamacare does not become to Obama and the Dems what Iraq became to Bush and the GOP.

            1. The bill will be just as costly, and will have equal benefit to the average citizen. The comparison is apt.

              1. Key diff = Iraq had bipartisan support @ onset. Ds walked it back quickly enough but the were “Ayes” at vote time.

    2. I read a NYT article today that blames the entire IRS scandal on the Koch Bros and Karl Rove.

      I couldn’t tell you why because I couldn’t make any sense of the authors logic, at all.

      Seriously, you think they would come up with some new material soon, but they don’t seem to be able to.

      Whoever came up with Boooosh did it first! Koch Bros! Sarah Palin!, seems to have died and he was the only creative person on the left.

      1. TEAM BLUE functions on boogeymen. It’s part and parcel of their entire world view. They’re sort of like a big TEAM of conspiracy theorists, but instead of chemtrails and 9-11 being an inside job, everything bad that happens in world is the fault of certain of the other TEAM’s people or even people who aren’t (the Kochs).

        It’s an incredibly simpleminded way to know how and what to think; just slot in the boogeyman that the marching orders tell you about, and bam! All thought done, no more necessary.

        TEAM RED does this somewhat too (Soros, etc.), but the degree to which TEAM BLUE will completely make boogeymen out of whole cloth is impressive.

        1. Yeah, Team Red certainly has their own scary boogeymen and often even shares them with Team Blue.

          Terrorists under every bed, drug dealers on every playground, not enough government spending to keep women and children from dying in the streets.

          If it were not for how na?ve and ignorant a majority of the population are, they couldn’t get away with it.

        2. And Soros is, genuinely, a bad person. He’s rich, but he got rich by manipulating markets, and he otherwise just sucks. The Koch Brothers got rich by, what, keeping manufacturing alive well past it’s expiration date? Rove is a paid political consultant who has done that job very well.

          1. I thought the Koch’s earned their money the old fashioned way (inheritance)?

            1. They inherited the business but improved and expanded it by, you know, managing it business successfully.

              Unlike Trust Fund Babies, such as the Kennedys or serial gigolos like John Kerry.

              1. That’s what I get for not refreshing

            2. They inherited a decent family business and grew it huge. “Earning by inheritance” is when you draw from a well-managed trust.

            3. “I thought the Koch’s earned their money the old fashioned way (inheritance)?”

              You thought they inherited the largest privately owned company on earth?

      2. I blame Bush

      3. blames the entire IRS scandal on the Koch Bros and Karl Rove.

        Their theory must be that if people would just keep their mouths shut about being abused by the IRS, there would be no scandal.

    3. “I wonder if shreek will echo verifiably false talking points.”

      That slime-bag will claim some ridiculously small number of people were ‘really affected’
      I hope the asshole breaks his neck from spinning that rapidly.

    4. So where, pray tell, does she claim the numbers came from?

      1. The CBO and…I dont remember who else.

        Cavuto did a bit on it before The Independants, playing both the clip of her saying that and then the one of her saying ‘success looks like 7 million sign ups.”.

  6. My own personal, cynical theory is that somebody started realizing it would allow Muslim-owned businesses to refuse to serve women who weren’t accompanied by men or not dressed “modestly”

    My own personal, cynical theory is that this is already allowed.

    1. The public accommodations law does cover sex and religion, so I can’t imagine they could.

      1. Muslims can pretty much do anything they want

        1. I used to be irritated at the progressive affinity for that religion, but now I think it is the only thing that is going to protect religious liberty in this country.

          1. Progressives don’t want their heads chopped off. They aren’t scared of passive Christians, that’s all.

            You have to stand up to progs, if you do, they cower like scared puppies.

            1. I don’t buy that. Progressives like to pat themselves on the back for being extra tolerant. It’s hard to tolerate Islam these days, so they get to feel extra smug about it. Christians are like the uber-whites; too easy to tolerate, and impossible to tolerate, therefore.

              “You have to stand up to progs, if you do, they cower like scared puppies.”

              Or just defriend you on Facebook.

              1. I think many progressives are just concerned about broad-brushing ‘muslims’ or ‘islam.’ They do cite Islamic things they do not like. I do not know many that, for example, do not denounce things like the women driving ban in Saudi Arabia.

        2. Except get on an airline unmolested or build a mosque without half the country throwing a shit fit.

    2. This happens in Minneapolis. Somali restaurants don’t serve single women, and women and men have to sit on opposite sides of the restaurant. It’s what they believe, and that’s cool, and we don’t go to their restaurants, and they’re cool with that.

      Problem. Freaking. Solved.

      1. What? Are you crazy?! You can’t just go around solving problems without government intervention. It’s anarchy, anarchy I tell you!

        1. It would be a bigger deal to the liberals around here if Somali food did taste like chewy, burnt assholes.

      2. Ethiopian restaurants don’t serve food at all!

        1. Neither did mess halls when I was in the service.

      3. So why can’t people be cool with other religions’ (i.e. infidels’) preferences? Have the Somalis been sprinkled with some PC repellent that Christer Fundies have no access to?

        1. It’s the lack of ROADZ

  7. “Troglodytes could already refuse to do business with gays, according to that. So the entire purpose of the law was grandstanding.”

    Whether existing law was sufficient to protect religious liberties is debatable at best. To date, gay power groups have focused on states that have set aside homosexuals as a privileged class. I expect that will change in 3…2…1…

    “Tell me again why the GOP loses elections.”

    They lose elections because they too often stand for limited government, allowing their opponents to cast them as troglodytes who hate gays and orphans.

    1. They lose elections because they too often stand for limited government, allowing their opponents to cast them as troglodytes who hate gays and orphans.

      You mean they don’t stand for limited government often enough right?

    2. …”They lose elections because they too often stand for limited government,”…

      Yeah, I’ve noticed…
      WHAT?!

      1. The unfortunate fact is that even if the Republicans run as statist fucks then the Dems will condemn as heartless budget cutters (see Romney, Mitt). This has been their m.o. since about Harding’s time.

        1. Right. I’m talking about the reason they lose elections, not what I think they should or should not do.

  8. Wow, John is not gonna be happy about this!

    http://www.PWND.com/tehgaiz

    1. I knew that spam bot is friends with John, I knew it!

  9. Also, Katy Perry is SO fucking cute. Shit.

    1. And she made a vid that pissed off Muslim fundys!
      I didn’t think much of her before that.

  10. …I suspect much celebration in the lesbian and gay community, even though, as I pointed out, they still don’t have any state protection from business discrimination

    Nor should they. Then again, we could force Muslim restaurants to serve pork, and require Jewish photographers to photograph azi rallies.

  11. If a Christian baker can refuse to sell wedding cakes, then maybe Muslim bakers should also be allowed to not sell cakes to women who aren’t modestly dressed or doesn’t wear head scarves?

    1. What if I wanted a Muslim baker to put a picture of an inadequately covered Christian women on a cake to take to a gay peyote ceremony?

      1. Dear Penthouse Forum, I never thought it could happen to me, but…

    2. Yes, yes they should.

  12. Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer just announced that she has vetoed Senate Bill 1062, which would have allowed a special, additional religious exemption to the state’s public accommodation laws, meaning businesses and individuals could decline to provide goods and services to customers on the basis of religious objections.

    No, it would not have “allowed a special, additional religious exemption to the state’s public accommodation laws.” The state’s RFRA *already* provides a limited, religious exemption, not just to the state’s public accommodation laws, but to *all* its laws. SB 1062 would not have created a new exemption, but would have clarified two things that the existing law didn’t make explicit: (1) that businesses (including kosher butchers, church-owned hospitals, Hobby Lobby, and, yes, photographers who don’t want to photograph same-sex weddings) can invoke that exemption; and (2) that the exemption may be invoked as a defense against private lawsuits that seek to enforce the state’s laws against a defendant, not just against state prosecutions and regulatory actions. (See http://www.azpolicy.org/media-…..a_RFRA.pdf )

    But I might as well save my breath to cool my porridge. Shackford has got an idea into his head, and no amount of citing the actual language of the bill will dissuade him.

    1. It’s different, tho, because gay.

  13. Why should Muslim bakers be required to sell pastries to immodestly dressed white women?

    If they want a Sharia-only bakeshop, that’s their personal business.

    1. And won’t it be ironic when the exact same lawmakers who so cared about religious freedom go apeshit if that were to ever happen.

      1. It will be equally ironic when progs sit on their hands.

        1. I can’t speak for all of us, but fuck religious people of any kind. Freedom of religion was the excuse given for anti-black bigotry and is being deployed in the same way now, and it’s all bullshit.

          Believing in magical people in the sky is not a license to ignore whatever aspects of civil law and order you don’t like.

          1. Until it actually happens, at which point you will be condescendingly explaining to us all how it is way different this time.

          2. So I’m guessing you opposed the Religious Freedom Restoration Act in 1993. Fuck those Native American Church members. If they want to smoke peyote, they can go to jail with the rest of the dope fiends.

            1. I favor freedom of thought, including freedom to think and say ridiculous nonsense and have it subject to the marketplace of ideas.

              I’m against using ridiculous nonsense as a woe-is-me excuse for legalized bigotry.

              1. And are you also against using ridiculous nonsense, such as the idea that God commanded you only to eat meat slaughtered in a certain law, to evade animal welfare laws that have the effect of outlawing kosher slaughterhouses. Or against using ridiculous nonsense, such as the idea that God told you to circumcise your make children on the eighth day after birth, to evade anticircumcision laws (if they ever get enacted, which I’m guessing they will sometime in the next 50 years)?

              2. “I favor freedom of thought, including freedom to think and say ridiculous nonsense and have it subject to the marketplace of ideas.”

                So you disagree that the freedom of association follows from this?

                “I’m against using ridiculous nonsense as a woe-is-me excuse for legalized bigotry.”

                Does bigotry require an excuse in order to be legal? One sentence ago you were talking about the marketplace of ideas, and all that cool stuff.

                1. Let me clarify. You are and should be free to be a bigoted moron, but you should not be free to provide a service to the public while acting upon that bigotry by denying service. Discrimination is harm. This is easily understood given this country’s painful history with the matter. If this country didn’t have so many unrepentant morons, maybe we’d never know just how harmful it can be, and your abstract freedom of association bullshit could trump it.

                  1. “This is easily understood given this country’s painful history with the matter.”

                    You mean your party’s legacy of enacting laws compelling people to live as slaves and compelling businesses to discriminate? That painful history? I understand that quite easily, but I don’t think the antidote to that legacy is to let your party enact more laws.

                    “If this country didn’t have so many unrepentant morons, maybe we’d never know just how harmful it can be, and your abstract freedom of association bullshit could trump it.”

                    Freedom of association is an abstraction to you? What other rights do we have that you regard as abstractions? Or is the very concept of liberty an abstraction, such that it should be abrogated whenever progressives have decided the “morons” are not “repentant” enough?

                    1. It’s all abstraction, and that balance of liberties we decide is best depends in part on the facts on the ground.

                    2. That’s a novel approach to the Constitution.

          3. I have always thought the religion was a two way street…..You can choose to be, or not to be.

      2. I’m guessing you aren’t aware of the work of principled supporters of religious liberty such as the Becket Fund, who support things like both the federal and state versions of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (as applied to businesses such as Hobby Lobby and charities such as Little Sisters of the Poor), *and* the rights of Muslims (see, e.g., http://www.becketfund.org/murfreesboro/ )

  14. “My own personal, cynical theory is that somebody started realizing it would allow Muslim-owned businesses to refuse to serve women who weren’t accompanied by men or not dressed “modestly” and then there will be panic about Shariah Law or something.”

    Keep beating up those strawmen, Shackford!

  15. It’s amazing the occasions libertarians suddenly love a law dreamed up by meddling legislatures.

    It’s motivated by blatant bigotry, is opposed by everyone including corporate America, the NFL, and even several of the legislators voted for it, is generally recognized as an embarrassment to the state pretty much everyone wish never happened…

    Libertarians love it!

    1. “It’s amazing the occasions libertarians suddenly love a law dreamed up by meddling legislatures.”

      Laws that protect people from government meddling are beloved by Libertarians. This only appears to be a sudden development if you don’t understand the philosophy.

      “It’s motivated by blatant bigotry,”

      It’s motivated by two lawsuits, against a baker and a photographer. Take away those lawsuits, and this bill never happens.

      “is opposed by everyone including corporate America, the NFL,”

      While Libertarians generally look to the National Football League for clarity and guidance when navigating issues of discrimination and religious freedom, we felt compelled to part ways on this particular issue.

      “is generally recognized as an embarrassment to the state pretty much everyone wish never happened…”

      It is generally recognized as an embarrassment because gay power groups won the message war. People ignorantly compared this to Jim Crow because the talking points told them to, and so it became about whether gay people should have the right to be gay.

      If you ask the average person whether a florist should face fines or imprisonment for refusing to service a gay ceremony, they will say “no”.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.