Arizona Senate Passes Bill Allowing Religious-Based Discrimination

[cbayer]

http://www.buzzfeed.com/tonymerevick/arizona-senate-passes-bill-allowing-religious-based-discrimi

The bill, which opponents say opens LGBT people to discrimination, now travels to the state house where it is expected to pass. Arizona Democrats say the bill “conflates discrimination with religious freedom.”
posted on February 19, 2014 at 7:16pm EST
Tony Merevick
BuzzFeed Staff


Arizona Sen. Steve Yarbrough. AP Photo/Ross D. Franklin, file

The Arizona Senate voted Wednesday to approve legislation that would expand religious freedom — a measure opponents say would create a “separate unequal class” and allow discrimination against LGBT people.

Senators in the state voted 17-13 on the measure, Senate Bill 1062, advancing it to the state’s House, despite the sudden failure of similar legislation in four other states on Tuesday.

Specifically, the bill would prevent the state from taking action against individuals and businesses who refuse services to people or groups based on their religious beliefs if such enforcement would “substantially burden” the free exercise of their religion.

A companion bill is expected to pass in the House in the coming days, according to the Arizona Senate Democratic Caucus, which opposes the bill because it “conflates discrimination with religious freedom.”

more at link

[hrmjustin]

1. Disgrace!

[DetlefK]

2. "Substantial burden" can be ripped apart in court in 5 minutes:

"Are you wearing mixed fibers? Have you ever shaved? Do you have a special chair in your household for when your wife is menstruating? When was the last time you sacrificed an animal to Yahweh? Have you ever eaten pork?

Your honor, serving a gay couple wouldn't substantially burden his free exercise of religion because he already deliberately refuses to exercise at least 5 parts of his religion, merely because they are inconvenient to him."

[cbayer]

3. Agree, plus I think this is blatantly unconstitutional.

They look more desperate all the time and I hope that the inevitable court challenges will take this down swiftly.

[HockeyMom]

4. No Wedding cakes for Remarried Straight Couples?

Let me see your annulment papers before we bake for "sinners"? Did these legislators think about that one? Hey, that might even affect THEM!

[cbayer]

9. Agree - unintended consequences could be quite a problem here.

Plus I think it's unconstitutional and will not stand for long.

[Goblinmonger]

5. But Christianity is the reason we have gay marriage

I read it somewhere on the intertubes.

[trotsky]

6. Yeah, I learned that today too!

Must be those evil atheists that have been fighting it all along.

[stopbush]

7. More discrimination fueled by Christianity.

"Religion poisons everything." - Hitchens

[cbayer]

8. Hate and bigotry poison everything, whether it be religiously

or non-religiously motivated.

And Hitchens inability to see the good things that religion, religious groups and individual believers do might reach the level of bigotry, imo.

[trotsky]

10. Hitchens did not have that inability, cbayer.

Perhaps the straw-Hitchens that you prefer to imagine existed did, the one born out of your intense anger and white-hot hatred for vocal critics of religion.

The real Hitchens instead attacked the idea that religious belief automatically made one morally superior:

"Name me an ethical statement made or an action performed by a believer that could not have been made or performed by a non-believer." - Christopher Hitchens

Well? Want to kick Hitchens' corpse and give an example proving him wrong? Go right ahead.

[stopbush]

12. The "good" things about religion? Hitchens nailed that one, too:

"Here is my challenge: name one ethical statement made, or one ethical action performed, by a believer that could not have been uttered or done by a nonbeliever. And here is my second challenge: can you think of a wicked statement made, or an evil action performed, precisely because of religious faith? The second question is easy to answer, is it not? The first awaits a convincing reply. By what right, then, do the faithful assume this irritating mantle of righteousness? They have as much to apologize for as to explain." - Christopher Hitchens

[cbayer]

13. I'm not sure that the argument that certain good things that come from religion

can also come from places other than religion is a very good one. It doesn't negate the statement that good things come from religion.

I can think of wicked statements and evil actions performed because of religious faith and in the absence of religious faith.

Those that assume an irritating mantle of righteousness are irritating whether they are righteous about their beliefs or lack of beliefs. And, imo, Hitchens was very righteous about his lack of beliefs, as well as some other rather horrible political positions he held.

He also had as much to apologize for as to explain.

[stopbush]

14. Really? You believe that there are ethical words to be said or deeds to be done that can ONLY

be done if inspired/directed by religion? That is Hitchens' challenge, BTW. The challenge is not what you've misconstrued it to be in your latest reply.

[cbayer]

16. No and I didn't say anything remotely like that, did I?

Hitchen's doesn't challenge me. His dogma can't be refuted because dogma never can be.

[trotsky]

17. "It doesn't negate the statement that good things come from religion."

That's because it's not intended to. Again, you have this visceral hatred that seems to taint your ability to understand what the objects of your hatred are actually saying.

It is intended to negate the statement that good things can ONLY come from religion.

And it does that, astoundingly well.