Arizona passes “Citizens United”-type law protecting corporations’ “religious beliefs”

[rug]

2/21/2014 8:00am
by John Aravosis

A draconian new law, on its way to the governor of Arizona for her signature, would make businesses “people” for the purposes of claiming “religious discrimination” in the state.

The law, SB1062, would also dramatically expand the scope of current religious protections for individuals under Arizona state law, making potentially every state law unenforceable in court, should someone claim that enforcement of the law impinges on their religious beliefs.

This is a particular problem for gay and trans Arizonans, whose civil rights are protected in only a handful of cities, but not under any state (or federal) civil rights law. A restaurant could now claim that its religious beliefs are offended by serving someone gay, or a bank could say it has a religious problem with providing a loan to someone who is transgender.

In essence, the new law would undermine existing civil rights protections for gay and trans people in those cities – and that was in fact the original intent of the law, to permit discrimination against gays. But the law also potentially harms every Arizonan. Here’s why.

http://americablog.com/2014/02/arizona-passes-citizens-united-type-law-protecting-corporations-religious-beliefs.html

There's been a lot of commentary about this bill but this imo goes right to the heart of the issue.

This is quite literally Citizens United for religion.

[cbayer]

1. Holy crap, you have got to be kidding.

Does this not seem blatantly in violation of the constitution? I can't see how it could possibly stand.

Interestingly, they passed this on an unrecorded voice vote. That means that the degree by which it passed could not have been very narrow.

Any question about whether Brewer will sign it?

[rug]

2. She'll sign it in a flash.

[hrmjustin]

3. .

[cbayer]

4. I remember that event and was amazed at how cool he stayed.

Great 'toon!

[AtheistCrusader]

5. Never know. Maybe it'll be implemented on equal grounds.

Maybe I can cite the age of reason as grounds to refuse service to religious bigots?

[cbayer]

6. I don't think you could cite the age of reason, but I think

you could potentially make the case that it offends you to serve religious people and refuse to do it under this law.

There are always unintended consequences when they pass garbage like this.

[AtheistCrusader]

7. I agree, it could have hilariously unintended consequences.

It will also have the consequence of eating public $'s defending the law in court. Money that could be better spent on roads or something.

[cbayer]

8. You are right about that.

Arizona really needs to elect some new people. They have gone beyond ridiculous.

[edhopper]

9. What?

Aren't we suppose to be tolerant of other's beliefs?
Surely we shouldn't force people to do what the know is wrong.

[cbayer]

10. Hilarious you are.

[edhopper]

11. You just told me

I shouldn't say that anyone's beliefs are wrong.
So all these people who think homosexuality is an abomination should be let alone.
Just when they act on it like this should we object.
And only to the law, not the belief behind it.

[cbayer]

13. Where did I tell you that?

I never said anything remotely like that.

What I have said again and again is that as long as someone's beliefs don't impinge on the rights of or harm others, I see no reason to care wither way what they believe.

Of course we should not just leave alone people that are trying to pass legislation that harms or discriminates GLBT people.

And if they stand outside with signs that say "God hates fags", I object strongly, even though they have the right to do that, because it is harmful and hurtful.

What do you think we should do about people that just have these thoughts and never really act on them or harm anyone with them?

Seek them out and have them undergo an inquisition? Or just keep them out of our schools and government?

[edhopper]

15. Actively question their beliefs

and engage them in debate.
Something you think we shouldn't do either.

Because we shouldn't care what others believe.

"I don't give a shit what people believe as long as their belief don't impinge on the rights of or harm others.

If they want to believe in an active god with definite attributions, who am I to say whether they are right or wrong?

And who are you to say it?"

cbayer

[cbayer]

17. But that's nothing like telling you that you shouldn't say anyone's beliefs are wrong,

is it.

I said that if they want to believe in an active god with definite attributions, who am i or you to say whether they are right or wrong.

And that's exactly what I meant. You don't know if there is a god or not, let along whether that god might be active with definite attributes, so you can't say those beliefs are "wrong".

Now when it comes to whether people hold specific beliefs that harm or impinge on the rights of others, I have clearly said that that is a different matter.

I would include in that beliefs that paint all people of faith with the same broad brush in order to attack them.

You have a very bad habit of twisting others words around to say something that they don't. Expanding them to mean something else appears to be agenda driven on your part and not consistent with the reality of what is being said.

[rug]

12. You do realize this bill gives corporations, not humans, religious rights, don't you?

[cbayer]

14. That would not fit his agenda. He might have to realize that everyone here is

on the same side on this issue.

And we couldn't have that, could we?

[edhopper]

16. I was being

facetious.