Arizona passes bill protecting religious freedom of business owners

[Cow Poke]

A "correction" to the article mentioned in the OP......

Source: addition to article cited

An article on Thursday, February 20, 2014 stated that the bill would allow business owners to discriminate against gays. That is incorrect. The bill clarifies the conditions in which a person's religious freedom may be infringed. If passed, the bill would actually make it more difficult for a business owner to claim they have a legal right to discriminate against gays due to their religious beliefs because the business owner would have a greater burden of proof under the rewritten law than under existing law.

© Copyright Original Source

[Jedidiah]

We don't need no stinkin' facts. Vituperation is the point of the objections.

[Sam]

A "correction" to the article mentioned in the OP......

Source: addition to article cited

An article on Thursday, February 20, 2014 stated that the bill would allow business owners to discriminate against gays. That is incorrect. The bill clarifies the conditions in which a person's religious freedom may be infringed. If passed, the bill would actually make it more difficult for a business owner to claim they have a legal right to discriminate against gays due to their religious beliefs because the business owner would have a greater burden of proof under the rewritten law than under existing law.

© Copyright Original Source

The business owner doesn't have a burden of proof other than to attest that serving a gay person is 1) against her sincere religious beliefs and 2) serving a gay person constitutes an "unreasonable burden" on the practice of that person's religious practice. The bill does not make it more difficult for business owners to claim a legal right to discriminate, as the purpose of the bill is to make it easier for business owners to avoid legal liability when discriminating!

--Sam

[Cow Poke]

We don't need no stinkin' facts. Vituperation is the point of the objections.

Maybe some pepto bismol would help?

[Paprika]

Here's a sign that Arizona restaurants can use. Be sure to change "white" to whatever preferred group will be discriminated against.

[ATTACH=CONFIG]323[/ATTACH]

Why, Outis, so quickly descending into trolling?

[Cow Poke]

The business owner doesn't have a burden of proof other than to attest that serving a gay person is 1) against her sincere religious beliefs and 2) serving a gay person constitutes an "unreasonable burden" on the practice of that person's religious practice. The bill does not make it more difficult for business owners to claim a legal right to discriminate, as the purpose of the bill is to make it easier for business owners to avoid legal liability when discriminating!

--Sam

Sam,

This whole thing is a reaction (perhaps an overreaction) to the fact that there have been lawsuits like Elane Photography and Hobby Lobby.

Here's a pretty good discussion, I think, without a lot of unnecessary hyperventilating....



Oh... I'm going to use TWO exclamation points to prove that my post is more important than yours!!!


(ooops -- THREE exclamation points)

[Outis]

Why, Outis, so quickly descending into trolling?

...And a time to every purpose under heaven.

[Sam]

Sam,

This whole thing is a reaction (perhaps an overreaction) to the fact that there have been lawsuits like Elane Photography and Hobby Lobby.

Here's a pretty good discussion, I think, without a lot of unnecessary hyperventilating....



Oh... I'm going to use TWO exclamation points to prove that my post is more important than yours!!!


(ooops -- THREE exclamation points)

None of that has anything to do with the quote you cited. Specifically, this:

-------
"If passed, the bill would actually make it more difficult for a business owner to claim they have a legal right to discriminate against gays due to their religious beliefs because the business owner would have a greater burden of proof under the rewritten law than under existing law."
-------

And that quote is just untrue, as is evident when reading the bill or, really, any of the commentary actually discussing what the bill contains. What the bill is a reaction to or what mechanism it uses to reduce the legal liability for discrimination isn't pertinent to the veracity of the quoted claim. And the fact is that this bill does not place a greater burden of proof on business owners to discriminate. This indemnifies business owners from any state lawsuits that arise from their discriminatory actions, just as long as they say they are acting upon a sincere religious belief. It would then place the burden of proof upon the state government or the party suffering discrimination to show that the belief wasn't sincere, that the government has a compelling interest in intervening and that the intervention is the least restrictive (to the business owner) path available.

There's just no possible way to construe this bill as making it harder

[Cow Poke]

None of that has anything to do with the quote you cited. Specifically, this:

Relax, Sam --- I was just pointing out that there was an addition to the cite in the OP. An amendment to the bottom. Which is why I said...
"A "correction" to the article mentioned in the OP......"

I didn't even comment on it -- just made that observation. Sheeeesh.

-------
"If passed, the bill would actually make it more difficult for a business owner to claim they have a legal right to discriminate against gays due to their religious beliefs because the business owner would have a greater burden of proof under the rewritten law than under existing law."
-------

And that quote is just untrue, as is evident when reading the bill or, really, any of the commentary actually discussing what the bill contains. What the bill is a reaction to or what mechanism it uses to reduce the legal liability for discrimination isn't pertinent to the veracity of the quoted claim. And the fact is that this bill does not place a greater burden of proof on business owners to discriminate. This indemnifies business owners from any state lawsuits that arise from their discriminatory actions, just as long as they say they are acting upon a sincere religious belief. It would then place the burden of proof upon the state government or the party suffering discrimination to show that the belief wasn't sincere, that the government has a compelling interest in intervening and that the intervention is the least restrictive (to the business owner) path available.

There's just no possible way to construe this bill as making it harder

I'm not arguing, Sam..... I just was drawing attention to the "correction". And, as I stated, I didn't even comment on it.

[Outis]

This indemnifies business owners from any state lawsuits that arise from their discriminatory actions, just as long as they say they are acting upon a sincere religious belief.

Come to think of it, and I may be incorrect, but I don't think the courts have ever even attempted to discern if a religious belief was "sincere" or not, with the possible exception of a tax case (and even that they were looking at the outward accoutrements of the religion, not the putative sincerity of the claimant).

[Sam]

Relax, Sam --- I was just pointing out that there was an addition to the cite in the OP. An amendment to the bottom. Which is why I said...
"A "correction" to the article mentioned in the OP......"

I didn't even comment on it -- just made that observation. Sheeeesh.



I'm not arguing, Sam..... I just was drawing attention to the "correction". And, as I stated, I didn't even comment on it.

OK > Consider my post to be a correction of cited addition, in that case. Still had to be corrected, one way or another.

As for relaxing . . . I would, you know, but that's when the hypnagogic hallucinations start creeping in . . . and that's how they getcha.

[Cow Poke]

Come to think of it, and I may be incorrect, but I don't think the courts have ever even attempted to discern if a religious belief was "sincere" or not, with the possible exception of a tax case (and even that they were looking at the outward accoutrements of the religion, not the putative sincerity of the claimant).

Yoder vs. Wisconsin is a notable exception, where the Supreme Court, upholding the Yoder's religious objection to public education, ruled, among other things...

Source: Yoder vs. Wisconsin

Not all beliefs rise to the demands of the religious clause of the First Amendment. There needs to be evidence of true and objective religious practices, instead of an individual making his or her standards on such matters. The Amish way of life is one of deep religious convictions that stems from the Bible. It is determined by their religion, which involves their rejection of worldly goods and their living in the Biblical simplicity. The modern compulsory secondary education is in sharp conflict with their way of life.

© Copyright Original Source

I think it's fair, when claiming a religions objection, that one's lifestyle should be considered as to their consistency with their religious claims.

[Sam]

Come to think of it, and I may be incorrect, but I don't think the courts have ever even attempted to discern if a religious belief was "sincere" or not, with the possible exception of a tax case (and even that they were looking at the outward accoutrements of the religion, not the putative sincerity of the claimant).

[Cow Poke]

OK > Consider my post to be a correction of cited addition, in that case. Still had to be corrected, one way or another.

As for relaxing . . . I would, you know, but that's when the hypnagogic hallucinations start creeping in . . . and that's how they getcha.

I should have pointed out more clearly, Sam, in my initial post, that I was NOT "commenting" on or agreeing with the "correction" --- just that it was there.

[Sam]

Here it is: United States v. Seeger