Nuevas recetas

Restaurante rechazó el servicio al senador detrás del proyecto de ley 'No digas gay'

Restaurante rechazó el servicio al senador detrás del proyecto de ley 'No digas gay'


We are searching data for your request:

Forums and discussions:
Manuals and reference books:
Data from registers:
Wait the end of the search in all databases.
Upon completion, a link will appear to access the found materials.

Un restaurante de Tennessee expulsó a la senadora Stacey Campfield porque el dueño 'no quería su odio en mi restaurante'

El restaurante de Tennessee The Bistro at the Bijou se convirtió recientemente en una estrella de las redes sociales después de expulsar a la senadora estatal Stacey Campfield debido a su agenda anti-gay.

El senador encabezó una Proyecto de ley "No digas gay" que "prohíbe la enseñanza o el suministro de materiales sobre la sexualidad humana distintos de la heterosexualidad en los grados K-8 de las escuelas públicas".

Cuando Campfield intentó almorzar en The Bistro, la dueña Martha Boggs le pidió que se fuera. "Espero que Stacy [sic] Campfield ahora sepa qué pasa si [sic] siente que la descriminan injustamente [sic]", escribió en Facebook. correo que ahora tiene más de 2000 me gusta.

"Le pedí que saliera del restaurante para defender a la comunidad gay y hacerle saber lo que se siente al ser discriminado", dijo Boggs. WBIR.

El senador Campfield habló con Buzzfeed sobre el incidente, diciendo: "Entré allí y la señora comenzó a insultarme y no quiso atenderme". Afirma que no tiene ningún problema con los homosexuales porque su negocio ha alquilado a homosexuales, parejas mestizas, parejas negras, "y casi todos los grupos que puedas imaginar han estado en mi oficina".

Campfield también llegó a los titulares por afirmar que hay una "glorificación" de la homosexualidad en los medios de comunicación, además de decir que es "virtualmente - no completamente, pero virtualmente - imposible contraer el SIDA a través del sexo heterosexual". El Centros para el Control y la Prevención de EnfermedadesSin embargo, dice que el sexo vaginal "es la forma más común de transmisión del virus en gran parte del mundo".

El Daily Byte es una columna regular dedicada a cubrir noticias y tendencias alimentarias interesantes en todo el país. Haz clic aquí para columnas anteriores.


Las empresas de Arizona ya pueden negarse a servir a los homosexuales: SB1062 explicó

Es una pequeña solución para proteger el libre ejercicio de la religión o un proyecto de ley "sin pastel para los gays" que invitaría a las empresas a discriminar, según con quién se hable.

La legislación, SB 1062, reforzaría el derecho del propietario de un negocio a defender el rechazo del servicio a alguien cuando el propietario cree que hacerlo violaría la práctica y observancia de la religión. Los partidarios lo llaman un proyecto de ley de "libertad religiosa".

Mientras la gobernadora de Arizona, Jan Brewer, sopesa la posibilidad de convertir la medida en ley, aquí hay un vistazo a lo que trata la propuesta.

¿Por qué se propuso la SB 1062?

En agosto pasado, la Corte Suprema de Nuevo México dictaminó que una empresa de fotografía discriminó a una pareja del mismo sexo cuando en 2006 se negó a filmar la ceremonia de compromiso civil de la pareja.

La ley de Nuevo México prohíbe específicamente que un alojamiento público denegue servicios a alguien basándose en la orientación sexual o identidad de género de esa persona. Veintiún estados tienen leyes similares, según Human Rights Campaign.

Arizona no es uno de ellos. Pero los legisladores estatales estaban preocupados por la implementación de otra ley: la Ley de Restauración de la Libertad Religiosa.

Arizona y Nuevo México se encuentran entre los 26 estados que, junto con el gobierno federal, reconocen la esencia de la Ley de Restauración de la Libertad Religiosa, dijo Joe LaRue, abogado de Alliance Defending Freedom que ayudó a redactar la SB 1062.

La ley impide que una ley imponga una "carga sustancial" a las creencias religiosas de una persona.

LaRue dijo que ha sido utilizado por personas unas 200 veces en todo el país desde 1993 para argumentar en la corte que no tienen que hacer algo que exige la ley porque la acción interfiere con su religión.

La ley fue invocada por los fotógrafos de Nuevo México. Pero en ese caso, un tribunal dictaminó por primera vez que la ley no podía invocarse en una demanda entre dos partes privadas, dijo LaRue. Los fotógrafos han pedido a la Corte Suprema de Estados Unidos que escuche una apelación.

“El problema es que la Corte Suprema de Nuevo México creó una laguna jurídica de que si el gobierno no es parte en un procedimiento legal, la Ley de Restauración de la Libertad Religiosa no puede usarse como defensa”, dijo LaRue.

¿Por qué la necesidad si la ley solo está amenazada en Nuevo México?

“La libertad es demasiado importante para dejarla al azar”, dijo LaRue.

“Existe una ley que prohíbe la discriminación en los lugares públicos por motivos de religión en Arizona. Supongamos que soy una panadería y que en mi pueblo aquí en Arizona, la Iglesia Bautista de Westboro viene a hacer un piquete en el funeral de un soldado, y me dicen que haga un pastel. Quieren que diga: "Dios odia". 'Y esa terrible palabra que usan.

“Ofendería mi dignidad. No quiero dar voz a ese horrible mensaje. En este momento, podrían demandarme por discriminar en función de sus creencias religiosas. Si los tribunales de Arizona siguieran el camino de los tribunales de Nuevo México, perdería y, si me atacaban, podría perder mi negocio debido a los daños que tendría que pagar. Nunca podría hacer valer mi defensa de la Ley de Restauración de la Libertad Religiosa porque está disponible solo si el gobierno me está procesando ".

El profesor de derecho de la Universidad de Arizona, Toni Massaro, dijo que muchos legisladores de Arizona probablemente temen que el gobierno federal o los tribunales amplíen los derechos de los homosexuales y otros derechos de manera que restrinjan la libertad religiosa.

¿Qué hace SB 1062?
“Están enmendando la ley de Arizona de una manera que dejaría en claro que cubre negocios y les permite usar la ley de libertad religiosa como defensa si alguien los demanda por discriminación por orientación sexual”, dijo Massaro.

Sería la primera enmienda de su tipo a las leyes de libertad religiosa en el país, dijo Erwin Chemerinsky, decano de la facultad de derecho de UC Irvine.

Aún así, según los expertos legales, incluso si los fotógrafos en Nuevo México o la hipotética panadería en Arizona pudieran usar la libertad religiosa como defensa por su negativa al servicio, tendrían que demostrar que sinceramente tenían creencias religiosas que eran serias. afectado.

"Los tribunales serán los árbitros finales entre el equilibrio de la libertad de los clientes y las creencias religiosas de los propietarios", dijo Massaro.

Los expertos legales también dijeron que la SB 1062 es redundante porque, según la ley de Arizona, los homosexuales no tienen protecciones especiales en los negocios y lugares públicos. En otras palabras, las empresas no necesitan protección para algo por lo que no pueden ser demandadas.

De hecho, la atención que despierta esta medida podría causarles más problemas.

“Este tipo de esfuerzo legislativo puede tener un efecto boomerang para movilizar un esfuerzo nacional para prohibir la discriminación por orientación sexual en los lugares públicos”, dijo.

¿Cómo equilibra el gobierno todo esto?

“Por un lado, la Constitución establece el libre ejercicio de la religión”, dijo Massaro. “El gobierno tiene que hacer eso, pero si va demasiado lejos al otorgar derechos, comienza a establecer la religión y a otorgar a los actores religiosos derechos que conducen al favoritismo religioso. Tiene que navegar entre ellos ".

Agregó que, dados los casos ante la Corte Suprema, no hay dudas sobre si las empresas deben proporcionar cobertura médica para la anticoncepción como parte de Obamacare, que se están planteando dudas sobre el equilibrio adecuado entre la autonomía religiosa y el derecho de una persona a los servicios.

“La Ley de Derechos Civiles de 1875 requería que las empresas estadounidenses prestasen servicios independientemente de la raza”, dijo. “¿Cuál es la diferencia entre ese siglo XIX, que terminamos, y este debate? Para algunas personas, está resucitando el viejo debate sobre si debería haber límites al derecho de un actor comercial a no servir ".

“La ley [en Arizona] ya dice que tienes derecho a discriminar a gays y lesbianas”, dijo Chemerinsky. "Las empresas tienen una razón más sólida para no discriminar porque significaría que perderían negocios".

Y muchos propietarios de negocios lo han notado, diciendo que no discriminan y que no necesitan más protección.

"Es dañino porque envía un mensaje de que el estado es intolerante", dijo Chemerinsky.

La medida fue copatrocinada por tres senadores republicanos, y 50 de los 53 legisladores republicanos votaron a favor. Dos grupos conservadores ayudaron a trabajar en la medida: el Center for Arizona Policy y Defending Freedom Alliance. La Conferencia Católica de Arizona ha instado a los feligreses a respaldar la medida.

¿Quién está en contra de la SB 1062?

Líderes empresariales, grupos de libertades civiles y grupos de derechos de los homosexuales se han opuesto a la SB 1062. El alcalde de Phoenix, Greg Stanton, advirtió que reviviría la impresión de que Arizona es intolerante y daña la economía del estado.

También se oponen a la SB 1062 varios candidatos republicanos que buscan reemplazar a Brewer como gobernador en las elecciones de este año. Entre los oponentes se encuentran el secretario de Estado Ken Bennett, el tesorero estatal Doug Ducey, la abogada Christine Jones, el ex ejecutivo de atención médica John Molina y el alcalde de Mesa Scott Smith. Otros dos no han intervenido, y un tercero lo votó en la Legislatura, según AP.


Las empresas de Arizona ya pueden negarse a servir a los homosexuales: SB1062 explicó

Es una pequeña solución para proteger el libre ejercicio de la religión o un proyecto de ley "sin pastel para los gays" que invitaría a las empresas a discriminar, según con quién se hable.

La legislación, SB 1062, reforzaría el derecho del propietario de un negocio a defender el rechazo del servicio a alguien cuando el propietario cree que hacerlo violaría la práctica y observancia de la religión. Los partidarios lo llaman un proyecto de ley de "libertad religiosa".

Mientras la gobernadora de Arizona, Jan Brewer, sopesa la posibilidad de convertir la medida en ley, aquí hay un vistazo a lo que trata la propuesta.

¿Por qué se propuso la SB 1062?

En agosto pasado, la Corte Suprema de Nuevo México dictaminó que una empresa de fotografía discriminó a una pareja del mismo sexo cuando en 2006 se negó a filmar la ceremonia de compromiso civil de la pareja.

La ley de Nuevo México prohíbe específicamente que un alojamiento público denegue servicios a alguien basándose en la orientación sexual o identidad de género de esa persona. Veintiún estados tienen leyes similares, según Human Rights Campaign.

Arizona no es uno de ellos. Pero los legisladores estatales estaban preocupados por la implementación de otra ley: la Ley de Restauración de la Libertad Religiosa.

Arizona y Nuevo México se encuentran entre los 26 estados que, junto con el gobierno federal, reconocen la esencia de la Ley de Restauración de la Libertad Religiosa, dijo Joe LaRue, abogado de Alliance Defending Freedom que ayudó a redactar la SB 1062.

La ley impide que una ley imponga una "carga sustancial" a las creencias religiosas de una persona.

LaRue dijo que ha sido utilizado por personas unas 200 veces en todo el país desde 1993 para argumentar en la corte que no tienen que hacer algo que exige la ley porque la acción interfiere con su religión.

La ley fue invocada por los fotógrafos de Nuevo México. Pero en ese caso, un tribunal dictaminó por primera vez que la ley no podía invocarse en una demanda entre dos partes privadas, dijo LaRue. Los fotógrafos han pedido a la Corte Suprema de Estados Unidos que escuche una apelación.

“El problema es que la Corte Suprema de Nuevo México creó una laguna jurídica de que si el gobierno no es parte en un procedimiento legal, la Ley de Restauración de la Libertad Religiosa no puede usarse como defensa”, dijo LaRue.

¿Por qué la necesidad si la ley solo está amenazada en Nuevo México?

“La libertad es demasiado importante para dejarla al azar”, dijo LaRue.

“Existe una ley que prohíbe la discriminación en los lugares públicos por motivos de religión en Arizona. Supongamos que soy una panadería y que en mi pueblo aquí en Arizona, la Iglesia Bautista de Westboro viene a hacer un piquete en el funeral de un soldado, y me dicen que hornee un pastel. Quieren que diga: "Dios odia". 'Y esa terrible palabra que usan.

“Ofendería mi dignidad. No quiero dar voz a ese horrible mensaje. En este momento, podrían demandarme por discriminar en función de sus creencias religiosas. Si los tribunales de Arizona siguieran el camino de los tribunales de Nuevo México, perdería y, si me atacaban, podría perder mi negocio debido a los daños que tendría que pagar. Nunca podría hacer valer mi defensa de la Ley de Restauración de la Libertad Religiosa porque está disponible solo si el gobierno me está procesando ".

El profesor de derecho de la Universidad de Arizona, Toni Massaro, dijo que muchos legisladores de Arizona probablemente temen que el gobierno federal o los tribunales amplíen los derechos de los homosexuales y otros derechos de manera que restrinjan la libertad religiosa.

¿Qué hace SB 1062?
“Están enmendando la ley de Arizona de una manera que dejaría en claro que cubre negocios y les permite usar la ley de libertad religiosa como defensa si alguien los demanda por discriminación por orientación sexual”, dijo Massaro.

Sería la primera enmienda de su tipo a las leyes de libertad religiosa en el país, dijo Erwin Chemerinsky, decano de la facultad de derecho de UC Irvine.

Aún así, según los expertos legales, incluso si los fotógrafos en Nuevo México o la hipotética panadería en Arizona pudieran usar la libertad religiosa como defensa por su negativa al servicio, tendrían que demostrar que sinceramente tenían creencias religiosas que eran serias. afectado.

"Los tribunales serán los árbitros finales entre el equilibrio de la libertad de los clientes y las creencias religiosas de los propietarios", dijo Massaro.

Los expertos legales también dijeron que la SB 1062 es redundante porque, según la ley de Arizona, los homosexuales no tienen protecciones especiales en los negocios y lugares públicos. En otras palabras, las empresas no necesitan protección para algo por lo que no pueden ser demandadas.

De hecho, la atención que despierta esta medida podría causarles más problemas.

“Este tipo de esfuerzo legislativo puede tener un efecto boomerang para movilizar un esfuerzo nacional para prohibir la discriminación por orientación sexual en los lugares públicos”, dijo.

¿Cómo equilibra el gobierno todo esto?

“Por un lado, la Constitución establece el libre ejercicio de la religión”, dijo Massaro. “El gobierno tiene que hacer eso, pero si va demasiado lejos al otorgar derechos, comienza a establecer la religión y a otorgar a los actores religiosos derechos que conducen al favoritismo religioso. Tiene que navegar entre ellos ".

Agregó que, dados los casos ante la Corte Suprema, no hay dudas sobre si las empresas deben proporcionar cobertura médica para la anticoncepción como parte de Obamacare, que se plantean dudas sobre el equilibrio adecuado entre la autonomía religiosa y el derecho de una persona a los servicios.

“La Ley de Derechos Civiles de 1875 requería que las empresas estadounidenses prestasen servicios independientemente de la raza”, dijo. “¿Cuál es la diferencia entre ese siglo XIX, que terminamos, y este debate? Para algunas personas, está resucitando el viejo debate sobre si debería haber límites al derecho de un actor comercial a no servir ".

“La ley [en Arizona] ya dice que tienes derecho a discriminar a gays y lesbianas”, dijo Chemerinsky. "Las empresas tienen una razón más sólida para no discriminar porque significaría que perderían negocios".

Y muchos propietarios de negocios lo han notado, diciendo que no discriminan y que no necesitan más protección.

"Es dañino porque envía un mensaje de que el estado es intolerante", dijo Chemerinsky.

La medida fue copatrocinada por tres senadores republicanos, y 50 de los 53 legisladores republicanos votaron a favor. Dos grupos conservadores ayudaron a trabajar en la medida: el Center for Arizona Policy y Defending Freedom Alliance. La Conferencia Católica de Arizona ha instado a los feligreses a respaldar la medida.

¿Quién está en contra de la SB 1062?

Líderes empresariales, grupos de libertades civiles y grupos de derechos de los homosexuales se han opuesto a la SB 1062. El alcalde de Phoenix, Greg Stanton, advirtió que reviviría la impresión de que Arizona es intolerante y daña la economía del estado.

También se oponen a la SB 1062 varios candidatos republicanos que buscan reemplazar a Brewer como gobernador en las elecciones de este año. Entre los oponentes se encuentran el secretario de Estado Ken Bennett, el tesorero estatal Doug Ducey, la abogada Christine Jones, el ex ejecutivo de atención médica John Molina y el alcalde de Mesa Scott Smith. Otros dos no han intervenido, y un tercero lo votó en la Legislatura, según AP.


Las empresas de Arizona ya pueden negarse a servir a los homosexuales: SB1062 explicó

Es una pequeña solución para proteger el libre ejercicio de la religión o un proyecto de ley "sin pastel para los gays" que invitaría a las empresas a discriminar, según con quién se hable.

La legislación, SB 1062, reforzaría el derecho del propietario de un negocio a defender el rechazo del servicio a alguien cuando el propietario cree que hacerlo violaría la práctica y observancia de la religión. Los partidarios lo llaman un proyecto de ley de "libertad religiosa".

Mientras la gobernadora de Arizona, Jan Brewer, sopesa la posibilidad de convertir la medida en ley, aquí hay un vistazo a lo que trata la propuesta.

¿Por qué se propuso la SB 1062?

En agosto pasado, la Corte Suprema de Nuevo México dictaminó que una empresa de fotografía discriminó a una pareja del mismo sexo cuando en 2006 se negó a filmar la ceremonia de compromiso civil de la pareja.

La ley de Nuevo México prohíbe específicamente que un alojamiento público denegue servicios a alguien basándose en la orientación sexual o identidad de género de esa persona. Veintiún estados tienen leyes similares, según Human Rights Campaign.

Arizona no es uno de ellos. Pero los legisladores estatales estaban preocupados por la implementación de otra ley: la Ley de Restauración de la Libertad Religiosa.

Arizona y Nuevo México se encuentran entre los 26 estados que, junto con el gobierno federal, reconocen la esencia de la Ley de Restauración de la Libertad Religiosa, dijo Joe LaRue, abogado de Alliance Defending Freedom que ayudó a redactar la SB 1062.

La ley impide que una ley imponga una "carga sustancial" a las creencias religiosas de una persona.

LaRue dijo que ha sido utilizado por personas unas 200 veces en todo el país desde 1993 para argumentar en la corte que no tienen que hacer algo que exige la ley porque la acción interfiere con su religión.

La ley fue invocada por los fotógrafos de Nuevo México. Pero en ese caso, un tribunal dictaminó por primera vez que la ley no podía invocarse en una demanda entre dos partes privadas, dijo LaRue. Los fotógrafos han pedido a la Corte Suprema de Estados Unidos que escuche una apelación.

“El problema es que la Corte Suprema de Nuevo México creó una laguna jurídica de que si el gobierno no es parte en un procedimiento legal, la Ley de Restauración de la Libertad Religiosa no puede usarse como defensa”, dijo LaRue.

¿Por qué la necesidad si la ley solo está amenazada en Nuevo México?

“La libertad es demasiado importante para dejarla al azar”, dijo LaRue.

“Existe una ley que prohíbe la discriminación en los lugares públicos por motivos de religión en Arizona. Supongamos que soy una panadería y que en mi pueblo aquí en Arizona, la Iglesia Bautista de Westboro viene a hacer un piquete en el funeral de un soldado, y me dicen que haga un pastel. Quieren que diga: "Dios odia". 'Y esa terrible palabra que usan.

“Ofendería mi dignidad. No quiero dar voz a ese horrible mensaje. En este momento, podrían demandarme por discriminar en función de sus creencias religiosas. Si los tribunales de Arizona siguieran el camino de los tribunales de Nuevo México, perdería y si me atacaban, podría perder mi negocio debido a los daños que tendría que pagar. Nunca podría hacer valer mi defensa de la Ley de Restauración de la Libertad Religiosa porque está disponible solo si el gobierno me está procesando ".

El profesor de derecho de la Universidad de Arizona, Toni Massaro, dijo que muchos legisladores de Arizona probablemente temen que el gobierno federal o los tribunales amplíen los derechos de los homosexuales y otros derechos de manera que restrinjan la libertad religiosa.

¿Qué hace SB 1062?
“Están enmendando la ley de Arizona de una manera que dejaría en claro que cubre negocios y les permite usar la ley de libertad religiosa como defensa si alguien los demanda por discriminación por orientación sexual”, dijo Massaro.

Sería la primera enmienda de su tipo a las leyes de libertad religiosa en el país, dijo Erwin Chemerinsky, decano de la facultad de derecho de UC Irvine.

Aún así, según los expertos legales, incluso si los fotógrafos en Nuevo México o la hipotética panadería en Arizona pudieran usar la libertad religiosa como defensa por su negativa al servicio, tendrían que demostrar que sinceramente tenían creencias religiosas que eran serias. afectado.

"Los tribunales serán los árbitros finales entre el equilibrio de la libertad de los clientes y las creencias religiosas de los propietarios", dijo Massaro.

Los expertos legales también dijeron que la SB 1062 es redundante porque, según la ley de Arizona, los homosexuales no tienen protecciones especiales en los negocios y lugares públicos. En otras palabras, las empresas no necesitan protección para algo por lo que no pueden ser demandadas.

De hecho, la atención que despierta esta medida podría causarles más problemas.

“Este tipo de esfuerzo legislativo puede tener un efecto boomerang para movilizar un esfuerzo nacional para prohibir la discriminación por orientación sexual en los lugares públicos”, dijo.

¿Cómo equilibra el gobierno todo esto?

“Por un lado, la Constitución establece el libre ejercicio de la religión”, dijo Massaro. “El gobierno tiene que hacer eso, pero si va demasiado lejos al otorgar derechos, comienza a establecer la religión y a otorgar a los actores religiosos derechos que conducen al favoritismo religioso. Tiene que navegar entre ellos ".

Agregó que, dados los casos ante la Corte Suprema, no hay dudas sobre si las empresas deben proporcionar cobertura médica para la anticoncepción como parte de Obamacare, que se están planteando dudas sobre el equilibrio adecuado entre la autonomía religiosa y el derecho de una persona a los servicios.

“La Ley de Derechos Civiles de 1875 requería que las empresas estadounidenses prestasen servicios independientemente de la raza”, dijo. “¿Cuál es la diferencia entre ese siglo XIX, que terminamos, y este debate? Para algunas personas, está resucitando el viejo debate sobre si debería haber límites al derecho de un actor comercial a no servir ".

“La ley [en Arizona] ya dice que tienes derecho a discriminar a gays y lesbianas”, dijo Chemerinsky. "Las empresas tienen una razón más sólida para no discriminar porque significaría que perderían negocios".

Y muchos propietarios de negocios lo han notado, diciendo que no discriminan y que no necesitan más protección.

"Es dañino porque envía un mensaje de que el estado es intolerante", dijo Chemerinsky.

La medida fue copatrocinada por tres senadores republicanos, y 50 de los 53 legisladores republicanos votaron a favor. Dos grupos conservadores ayudaron a trabajar en la medida: el Center for Arizona Policy y Defending Freedom Alliance. La Conferencia Católica de Arizona ha instado a los feligreses a respaldar la medida.

¿Quién está en contra de la SB 1062?

Líderes empresariales, grupos de libertades civiles y grupos de derechos de los homosexuales se han opuesto a la SB 1062. El alcalde de Phoenix, Greg Stanton, advirtió que reviviría la impresión de que Arizona es intolerante y daña la economía del estado.

También se oponen a la SB 1062 varios candidatos republicanos que buscan reemplazar a Brewer como gobernador en las elecciones de este año. Entre los opositores se encuentran el secretario de Estado Ken Bennett, el tesorero estatal Doug Ducey, la abogada Christine Jones, el ex ejecutivo de atención médica John Molina y el alcalde de Mesa Scott Smith. Otros dos no han intervenido, y un tercero lo votó en la Legislatura, según AP.


Las empresas de Arizona ya pueden negarse a servir a los homosexuales: SB1062 explicó

Es una pequeña solución para proteger el libre ejercicio de la religión o un proyecto de ley "sin pastel para los gays" que invitaría a las empresas a discriminar, según con quién se hable.

La legislación, SB 1062, reforzaría el derecho del propietario de un negocio a defender el rechazo del servicio a alguien cuando el propietario cree que hacerlo violaría la práctica y observancia de la religión. Los partidarios lo llaman un proyecto de ley de "libertad religiosa".

Mientras la gobernadora de Arizona, Jan Brewer, sopesa la posibilidad de convertir la medida en ley, aquí hay un vistazo a lo que trata la propuesta.

¿Por qué se propuso la SB 1062?

En agosto pasado, la Corte Suprema de Nuevo México dictaminó que una empresa de fotografía discriminó a una pareja del mismo sexo cuando en 2006 se negó a filmar la ceremonia de compromiso civil de la pareja.

La ley de Nuevo México prohíbe específicamente que un alojamiento público denegue servicios a alguien basándose en la orientación sexual o identidad de género de esa persona. Veintiún estados tienen leyes similares, según Human Rights Campaign.

Arizona no es uno de ellos. Pero los legisladores estatales estaban preocupados por la implementación de otra ley: la Ley de Restauración de la Libertad Religiosa.

Arizona y Nuevo México se encuentran entre los 26 estados que, junto con el gobierno federal, reconocen la esencia de la Ley de Restauración de la Libertad Religiosa, dijo Joe LaRue, abogado de Alliance Defending Freedom que ayudó a redactar la SB 1062.

La ley impide que una ley imponga una "carga sustancial" a las creencias religiosas de una persona.

LaRue dijo que ha sido utilizado por personas unas 200 veces en todo el país desde 1993 para argumentar en la corte que no tienen que hacer algo que exige la ley porque la acción interfiere con su religión.

La ley fue invocada por los fotógrafos de Nuevo México. Pero en ese caso, un tribunal dictaminó por primera vez que la ley no podía invocarse en una demanda entre dos partes privadas, dijo LaRue. Los fotógrafos han pedido a la Corte Suprema de Estados Unidos que escuche una apelación.

“El problema es que la Corte Suprema de Nuevo México creó una laguna jurídica de que si el gobierno no es parte en un procedimiento legal, la Ley de Restauración de la Libertad Religiosa no puede usarse como defensa”, dijo LaRue.

¿Por qué la necesidad si la ley solo está amenazada en Nuevo México?

“La libertad es demasiado importante para dejarla al azar”, dijo LaRue.

“Existe una ley que prohíbe la discriminación en los lugares públicos por motivos de religión en Arizona. Supongamos que soy una panadería y que en mi pueblo aquí en Arizona, la Iglesia Bautista de Westboro viene a hacer un piquete en el funeral de un soldado, y me dicen que hornee un pastel. Quieren que diga: "Dios odia". 'Y esa terrible palabra que usan.

“Ofendería mi dignidad. No quiero dar voz a ese horrible mensaje. En este momento, podrían demandarme por discriminar en función de sus creencias religiosas. Si los tribunales de Arizona siguieran el camino de los tribunales de Nuevo México, perdería y, si me atacaban, podría perder mi negocio debido a los daños que tendría que pagar. Nunca podría hacer valer mi defensa de la Ley de Restauración de la Libertad Religiosa porque está disponible solo si el gobierno me está procesando ".

El profesor de derecho de la Universidad de Arizona, Toni Massaro, dijo que muchos legisladores de Arizona probablemente temen que el gobierno federal o los tribunales amplíen los derechos de los homosexuales y otros derechos de manera que restrinjan la libertad religiosa.

¿Qué hace SB 1062?
“Están enmendando la ley de Arizona de una manera que dejaría en claro que cubre negocios y les permite usar la ley de libertad religiosa como defensa si alguien los demanda por discriminación por orientación sexual”, dijo Massaro.

Sería la primera enmienda de su tipo a las leyes de libertad religiosa en el país, dijo Erwin Chemerinsky, decano de la facultad de derecho de UC Irvine.

Aún así, según los expertos legales, incluso si los fotógrafos en Nuevo México o la hipotética panadería en Arizona pudieran usar la libertad religiosa como defensa por su negativa al servicio, tendrían que demostrar que sinceramente tenían creencias religiosas que eran serias. afectado.

"Los tribunales serán los árbitros finales entre el equilibrio de la libertad de los clientes y las creencias religiosas de los propietarios", dijo Massaro.

Los expertos legales también dijeron que la SB 1062 es redundante porque, según la ley de Arizona, los homosexuales no tienen protecciones especiales en los negocios y lugares públicos. En otras palabras, las empresas no necesitan protección para algo por lo que no pueden ser demandadas.

De hecho, la atención que despierta esta medida podría causarles más problemas.

“Este tipo de esfuerzo legislativo puede tener un efecto boomerang para movilizar un esfuerzo nacional para prohibir la discriminación por orientación sexual en los lugares públicos”, dijo.

¿Cómo equilibra el gobierno todo esto?

“Por un lado, la Constitución establece el libre ejercicio de la religión”, dijo Massaro. “El gobierno tiene que hacer eso, pero si va demasiado lejos al otorgar derechos, comienza a establecer la religión y a otorgar a los actores religiosos derechos que conducen al favoritismo religioso. Tiene que navegar entre ellos ".

Agregó que, dados los casos ante la Corte Suprema, no hay dudas sobre si las empresas deben proporcionar cobertura médica para la anticoncepción como parte de Obamacare, que se están planteando dudas sobre el equilibrio adecuado entre la autonomía religiosa y el derecho de una persona a los servicios.

“La Ley de Derechos Civiles de 1875 requería que las empresas estadounidenses prestasen servicios independientemente de la raza”, dijo. “¿Cuál es la diferencia entre ese siglo XIX, que terminamos, y este debate? Para algunas personas, está resucitando el viejo debate sobre si debería haber límites al derecho de un actor comercial a no servir ".

“La ley [en Arizona] ya dice que tienes derecho a discriminar a gays y lesbianas”, dijo Chemerinsky. "Las empresas tienen una razón más sólida para no discriminar porque significaría que perderían negocios".

Y muchos propietarios de negocios lo han notado, diciendo que no discriminan y que no necesitan más protección.

"Es dañino porque envía un mensaje de que el estado es intolerante", dijo Chemerinsky.

La medida fue copatrocinada por tres senadores republicanos, y 50 de los 53 legisladores republicanos votaron a favor. Dos grupos conservadores ayudaron a trabajar en la medida: el Center for Arizona Policy y Defending Freedom Alliance. La Conferencia Católica de Arizona ha instado a los feligreses a respaldar la medida.

¿Quién está en contra de la SB 1062?

Líderes empresariales, grupos de libertades civiles y grupos de derechos de los homosexuales se han opuesto a la SB 1062. El alcalde de Phoenix, Greg Stanton, advirtió que reviviría la impresión de que Arizona es intolerante y daña la economía del estado.

También se oponen a la SB 1062 varios candidatos republicanos que buscan reemplazar a Brewer como gobernador en las elecciones de este año. Entre los oponentes se encuentran el secretario de Estado Ken Bennett, el tesorero estatal Doug Ducey, la abogada Christine Jones, el ex ejecutivo de atención médica John Molina y el alcalde de Mesa Scott Smith. Otros dos no han intervenido, y un tercero lo votó en la Legislatura, según AP.


Las empresas de Arizona ya pueden negarse a servir a los homosexuales: SB1062 explicó

Es una pequeña solución para proteger el libre ejercicio de la religión o un proyecto de ley "sin pastel para los gays" que invitaría a las empresas a discriminar, según con quién se hable.

La legislación, SB 1062, reforzaría el derecho del propietario de un negocio a defender el rechazo del servicio a alguien cuando el propietario cree que hacerlo violaría la práctica y observancia de la religión. Los partidarios lo llaman un proyecto de ley de "libertad religiosa".

Mientras la gobernadora de Arizona, Jan Brewer, sopesa la posibilidad de convertir la medida en ley, aquí hay un vistazo a lo que trata la propuesta.

¿Por qué se propuso la SB 1062?

En agosto pasado, la Corte Suprema de Nuevo México dictaminó que una empresa de fotografía discriminó a una pareja del mismo sexo cuando en 2006 se negó a filmar la ceremonia de compromiso civil de la pareja.

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. But state lawmakers were concerned about the implementation of another law: the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.

Arizona and New Mexico are among 26 states that, along with the federal government, recognize the gist of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, said Joe LaRue, an attorney at the Alliance Defending Freedom who helped draft SB 1062.

The act prevents a law from placing a “substantial burden” on an individual’s religious beliefs.

LaRue said it has been used by people about 200 times nationwide since 1993 to argue in court that they don’t have to do something the law requires because the action interferes with their religion.

The law was invoked by the New Mexico photographers. But in that case, a court ruled for the first time that the law could not be invoked in a lawsuit between two private parties, LaRue said. The photographers have asked the U.S. Supreme Court to hear an appeal.

“The problem is the New Mexico Supreme Court created a loophole that if government is not party to a legal proceeding, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act cannot be used as a defense,” LaRue said.

Why the need if the law is only under threat in New Mexico?

“Freedom is too important to leave to chance,” LaRue said.

“There is a law that bans discrimination at public accommodations based on religion in Arizona. Let’s pretend that I’m a bakery and that in my town here in Arizona, Westboro Baptist Church comes to picket a funeral of a soldier, and they tell me to bake a cake. They want it to say, ‘God hates . ’ and that terrible word they use.

“It would offend my dignity. I don’t want to give voice to that horrible message. Right now, they could sue me for discriminating based on their religious beliefs. If the Arizona courts went the way of the New Mexico courts, I would lose and if they targeted me, I could lose my business because of the damages I’d have to pay out. I would never be able to assert my Religious Freedom Restoration Act defense because it’s available only if the government is prosecuting me.”

University of Arizona law professor Toni Massaro said many Arizona lawmakers likely fear that either the federal government or the courts will expand gay rights and other rights in ways that would restrict religious freedom.

What does SB 1062 do?
“They are amending Arizona law in a way that would make clear it covers businesses and allows them to use the religious freedom law as a defense if someone would sue them for sexual orientation discrimination,” Massaro said.

It would be a first-of-its-kind amendment to religious freedom laws in the country, said Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of the UC Irvine law school.

Still, according to legal experts, even if the photographers in New Mexico or the hypothetical bakery in Arizona were able to use religious freedom as a defense for their refusal of service, they would need to prove that they had sincerely held religious beliefs that were seriously affected.

“The courts will be the ultimate arbiters between balance of freedom of customers and religious beliefs of owners,” Massaro said.

Legal experts also said SB 1062 is redundant because, under Arizona law, gays have no special protections at businesses and public accommodations. In other words, businesses don’t need protection for something they can’t be sued for.

In fact, the attention brought by this measure might cause more problems for them.

“This sort of legislative effort may have a boomerang effect to mobilize a national effort to ban sexual orientation discrimination at public accommodations,” she said.

How does government balance all of this?

“On the one hand, the Constitution provides free exercise of religion,” Massaro said. “Government has to do that, but if it goes too far in providing rights, it starts establishing religion and giving religious actors rights that lead to religious favoritism. It has to navigate between those.”

She added that there’s no question given the cases before the Supreme Court -- about whether businesses must provide health coverage for contraception as part of Obamacare -- that questions are being raised about the proper balance between religious autonomy and an individual’s right to services.

“The Civil Rights Act of 1875 required American business to serve regardless of race,” she said. “What’s the difference between that 19th century -- which we’ve ended -- and this debate? For some people, it’s resurrecting the old debate about whether there should be limits on a commercial actor’s right to not serve.”

“The law [in Arizona] already says you have a right to discriminate against gays and lesbians,” Chemerinsky said. “Businesses have stronger reason not to discriminate because it would mean they would lose business.”

And plenty of business owners have noted just that, saying they don’t discriminate and they don’t need more protection.

“It’s harmful because it sends a message that the state is bigoted,” Chemerinsky said.

The measure was cosponsored by three Republican senators, and 50 out of 53 Republican lawmakers voted for it. Two conservative groups helped work on the measure: the Center for Arizona Policy and Defending Freedom Alliance. The Arizona Catholic Conference has urged congregants to back the measure.

Who is against SB 1062?

Business leaders, civil liberties groups and gay rights groups have opposed SB 1062. Phoenix Mayor Greg Stanton warned that it would revive the impression that Arizona is intolerant, damaging the state’s economy.

Also opposing SB 1062 are several Republican candidates seeking to replace the termed-out Brewer as governor in this year’s election. Among the opponents are Secretary of State Ken Bennett, State Treasurer Doug Ducey, attorney Christine Jones, former healthcare executive John Molina and Mesa Mayor Scott Smith. Two others have not weighed in, and a third voted for it in the Legislature, according to the AP.


Arizona businesses already can refuse to serve gays: SB1062 explained

It’s either a small fix to protect the free exercise of religion or a “no cake for gays” bill that would invite businesses to discriminate, depending on whom you talk to.

The legislation, SB 1062, would bolster a business owner’s right to defend refusing service to someone when the owner believes doing so would violate their the practice and observance of religion. Supporters call it a “religious freedom” bill.

As Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer weighs whether to sign the measure into law, here’s a look at what the proposal is all about.

Why was SB 1062 proposed?

Last August, the New Mexico Supreme Court ruled that a photography company discriminated against a same-sex couple when in 2006 it refused to shoot the couple’s civil-commitment ceremony.

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. But state lawmakers were concerned about the implementation of another law: the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.

Arizona and New Mexico are among 26 states that, along with the federal government, recognize the gist of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, said Joe LaRue, an attorney at the Alliance Defending Freedom who helped draft SB 1062.

The act prevents a law from placing a “substantial burden” on an individual’s religious beliefs.

LaRue said it has been used by people about 200 times nationwide since 1993 to argue in court that they don’t have to do something the law requires because the action interferes with their religion.

The law was invoked by the New Mexico photographers. But in that case, a court ruled for the first time that the law could not be invoked in a lawsuit between two private parties, LaRue said. The photographers have asked the U.S. Supreme Court to hear an appeal.

“The problem is the New Mexico Supreme Court created a loophole that if government is not party to a legal proceeding, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act cannot be used as a defense,” LaRue said.

Why the need if the law is only under threat in New Mexico?

“Freedom is too important to leave to chance,” LaRue said.

“There is a law that bans discrimination at public accommodations based on religion in Arizona. Let’s pretend that I’m a bakery and that in my town here in Arizona, Westboro Baptist Church comes to picket a funeral of a soldier, and they tell me to bake a cake. They want it to say, ‘God hates . ’ and that terrible word they use.

“It would offend my dignity. I don’t want to give voice to that horrible message. Right now, they could sue me for discriminating based on their religious beliefs. If the Arizona courts went the way of the New Mexico courts, I would lose and if they targeted me, I could lose my business because of the damages I’d have to pay out. I would never be able to assert my Religious Freedom Restoration Act defense because it’s available only if the government is prosecuting me.”

University of Arizona law professor Toni Massaro said many Arizona lawmakers likely fear that either the federal government or the courts will expand gay rights and other rights in ways that would restrict religious freedom.

What does SB 1062 do?
“They are amending Arizona law in a way that would make clear it covers businesses and allows them to use the religious freedom law as a defense if someone would sue them for sexual orientation discrimination,” Massaro said.

It would be a first-of-its-kind amendment to religious freedom laws in the country, said Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of the UC Irvine law school.

Still, according to legal experts, even if the photographers in New Mexico or the hypothetical bakery in Arizona were able to use religious freedom as a defense for their refusal of service, they would need to prove that they had sincerely held religious beliefs that were seriously affected.

“The courts will be the ultimate arbiters between balance of freedom of customers and religious beliefs of owners,” Massaro said.

Legal experts also said SB 1062 is redundant because, under Arizona law, gays have no special protections at businesses and public accommodations. In other words, businesses don’t need protection for something they can’t be sued for.

In fact, the attention brought by this measure might cause more problems for them.

“This sort of legislative effort may have a boomerang effect to mobilize a national effort to ban sexual orientation discrimination at public accommodations,” she said.

How does government balance all of this?

“On the one hand, the Constitution provides free exercise of religion,” Massaro said. “Government has to do that, but if it goes too far in providing rights, it starts establishing religion and giving religious actors rights that lead to religious favoritism. It has to navigate between those.”

She added that there’s no question given the cases before the Supreme Court -- about whether businesses must provide health coverage for contraception as part of Obamacare -- that questions are being raised about the proper balance between religious autonomy and an individual’s right to services.

“The Civil Rights Act of 1875 required American business to serve regardless of race,” she said. “What’s the difference between that 19th century -- which we’ve ended -- and this debate? For some people, it’s resurrecting the old debate about whether there should be limits on a commercial actor’s right to not serve.”

“The law [in Arizona] already says you have a right to discriminate against gays and lesbians,” Chemerinsky said. “Businesses have stronger reason not to discriminate because it would mean they would lose business.”

And plenty of business owners have noted just that, saying they don’t discriminate and they don’t need more protection.

“It’s harmful because it sends a message that the state is bigoted,” Chemerinsky said.

The measure was cosponsored by three Republican senators, and 50 out of 53 Republican lawmakers voted for it. Two conservative groups helped work on the measure: the Center for Arizona Policy and Defending Freedom Alliance. The Arizona Catholic Conference has urged congregants to back the measure.

Who is against SB 1062?

Business leaders, civil liberties groups and gay rights groups have opposed SB 1062. Phoenix Mayor Greg Stanton warned that it would revive the impression that Arizona is intolerant, damaging the state’s economy.

Also opposing SB 1062 are several Republican candidates seeking to replace the termed-out Brewer as governor in this year’s election. Among the opponents are Secretary of State Ken Bennett, State Treasurer Doug Ducey, attorney Christine Jones, former healthcare executive John Molina and Mesa Mayor Scott Smith. Two others have not weighed in, and a third voted for it in the Legislature, according to the AP.


Arizona businesses already can refuse to serve gays: SB1062 explained

It’s either a small fix to protect the free exercise of religion or a “no cake for gays” bill that would invite businesses to discriminate, depending on whom you talk to.

The legislation, SB 1062, would bolster a business owner’s right to defend refusing service to someone when the owner believes doing so would violate their the practice and observance of religion. Supporters call it a “religious freedom” bill.

As Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer weighs whether to sign the measure into law, here’s a look at what the proposal is all about.

Why was SB 1062 proposed?

Last August, the New Mexico Supreme Court ruled that a photography company discriminated against a same-sex couple when in 2006 it refused to shoot the couple’s civil-commitment ceremony.

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. But state lawmakers were concerned about the implementation of another law: the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.

Arizona and New Mexico are among 26 states that, along with the federal government, recognize the gist of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, said Joe LaRue, an attorney at the Alliance Defending Freedom who helped draft SB 1062.

The act prevents a law from placing a “substantial burden” on an individual’s religious beliefs.

LaRue said it has been used by people about 200 times nationwide since 1993 to argue in court that they don’t have to do something the law requires because the action interferes with their religion.

The law was invoked by the New Mexico photographers. But in that case, a court ruled for the first time that the law could not be invoked in a lawsuit between two private parties, LaRue said. The photographers have asked the U.S. Supreme Court to hear an appeal.

“The problem is the New Mexico Supreme Court created a loophole that if government is not party to a legal proceeding, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act cannot be used as a defense,” LaRue said.

Why the need if the law is only under threat in New Mexico?

“Freedom is too important to leave to chance,” LaRue said.

“There is a law that bans discrimination at public accommodations based on religion in Arizona. Let’s pretend that I’m a bakery and that in my town here in Arizona, Westboro Baptist Church comes to picket a funeral of a soldier, and they tell me to bake a cake. They want it to say, ‘God hates . ’ and that terrible word they use.

“It would offend my dignity. I don’t want to give voice to that horrible message. Right now, they could sue me for discriminating based on their religious beliefs. If the Arizona courts went the way of the New Mexico courts, I would lose and if they targeted me, I could lose my business because of the damages I’d have to pay out. I would never be able to assert my Religious Freedom Restoration Act defense because it’s available only if the government is prosecuting me.”

University of Arizona law professor Toni Massaro said many Arizona lawmakers likely fear that either the federal government or the courts will expand gay rights and other rights in ways that would restrict religious freedom.

What does SB 1062 do?
“They are amending Arizona law in a way that would make clear it covers businesses and allows them to use the religious freedom law as a defense if someone would sue them for sexual orientation discrimination,” Massaro said.

It would be a first-of-its-kind amendment to religious freedom laws in the country, said Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of the UC Irvine law school.

Still, according to legal experts, even if the photographers in New Mexico or the hypothetical bakery in Arizona were able to use religious freedom as a defense for their refusal of service, they would need to prove that they had sincerely held religious beliefs that were seriously affected.

“The courts will be the ultimate arbiters between balance of freedom of customers and religious beliefs of owners,” Massaro said.

Legal experts also said SB 1062 is redundant because, under Arizona law, gays have no special protections at businesses and public accommodations. In other words, businesses don’t need protection for something they can’t be sued for.

In fact, the attention brought by this measure might cause more problems for them.

“This sort of legislative effort may have a boomerang effect to mobilize a national effort to ban sexual orientation discrimination at public accommodations,” she said.

How does government balance all of this?

“On the one hand, the Constitution provides free exercise of religion,” Massaro said. “Government has to do that, but if it goes too far in providing rights, it starts establishing religion and giving religious actors rights that lead to religious favoritism. It has to navigate between those.”

She added that there’s no question given the cases before the Supreme Court -- about whether businesses must provide health coverage for contraception as part of Obamacare -- that questions are being raised about the proper balance between religious autonomy and an individual’s right to services.

“The Civil Rights Act of 1875 required American business to serve regardless of race,” she said. “What’s the difference between that 19th century -- which we’ve ended -- and this debate? For some people, it’s resurrecting the old debate about whether there should be limits on a commercial actor’s right to not serve.”

“The law [in Arizona] already says you have a right to discriminate against gays and lesbians,” Chemerinsky said. “Businesses have stronger reason not to discriminate because it would mean they would lose business.”

And plenty of business owners have noted just that, saying they don’t discriminate and they don’t need more protection.

“It’s harmful because it sends a message that the state is bigoted,” Chemerinsky said.

The measure was cosponsored by three Republican senators, and 50 out of 53 Republican lawmakers voted for it. Two conservative groups helped work on the measure: the Center for Arizona Policy and Defending Freedom Alliance. The Arizona Catholic Conference has urged congregants to back the measure.

Who is against SB 1062?

Business leaders, civil liberties groups and gay rights groups have opposed SB 1062. Phoenix Mayor Greg Stanton warned that it would revive the impression that Arizona is intolerant, damaging the state’s economy.

Also opposing SB 1062 are several Republican candidates seeking to replace the termed-out Brewer as governor in this year’s election. Among the opponents are Secretary of State Ken Bennett, State Treasurer Doug Ducey, attorney Christine Jones, former healthcare executive John Molina and Mesa Mayor Scott Smith. Two others have not weighed in, and a third voted for it in the Legislature, according to the AP.


Arizona businesses already can refuse to serve gays: SB1062 explained

It’s either a small fix to protect the free exercise of religion or a “no cake for gays” bill that would invite businesses to discriminate, depending on whom you talk to.

The legislation, SB 1062, would bolster a business owner’s right to defend refusing service to someone when the owner believes doing so would violate their the practice and observance of religion. Supporters call it a “religious freedom” bill.

As Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer weighs whether to sign the measure into law, here’s a look at what the proposal is all about.

Why was SB 1062 proposed?

Last August, the New Mexico Supreme Court ruled that a photography company discriminated against a same-sex couple when in 2006 it refused to shoot the couple’s civil-commitment ceremony.

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. But state lawmakers were concerned about the implementation of another law: the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.

Arizona and New Mexico are among 26 states that, along with the federal government, recognize the gist of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, said Joe LaRue, an attorney at the Alliance Defending Freedom who helped draft SB 1062.

The act prevents a law from placing a “substantial burden” on an individual’s religious beliefs.

LaRue said it has been used by people about 200 times nationwide since 1993 to argue in court that they don’t have to do something the law requires because the action interferes with their religion.

The law was invoked by the New Mexico photographers. But in that case, a court ruled for the first time that the law could not be invoked in a lawsuit between two private parties, LaRue said. The photographers have asked the U.S. Supreme Court to hear an appeal.

“The problem is the New Mexico Supreme Court created a loophole that if government is not party to a legal proceeding, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act cannot be used as a defense,” LaRue said.

Why the need if the law is only under threat in New Mexico?

“Freedom is too important to leave to chance,” LaRue said.

“There is a law that bans discrimination at public accommodations based on religion in Arizona. Let’s pretend that I’m a bakery and that in my town here in Arizona, Westboro Baptist Church comes to picket a funeral of a soldier, and they tell me to bake a cake. They want it to say, ‘God hates . ’ and that terrible word they use.

“It would offend my dignity. I don’t want to give voice to that horrible message. Right now, they could sue me for discriminating based on their religious beliefs. If the Arizona courts went the way of the New Mexico courts, I would lose and if they targeted me, I could lose my business because of the damages I’d have to pay out. I would never be able to assert my Religious Freedom Restoration Act defense because it’s available only if the government is prosecuting me.”

University of Arizona law professor Toni Massaro said many Arizona lawmakers likely fear that either the federal government or the courts will expand gay rights and other rights in ways that would restrict religious freedom.

What does SB 1062 do?
“They are amending Arizona law in a way that would make clear it covers businesses and allows them to use the religious freedom law as a defense if someone would sue them for sexual orientation discrimination,” Massaro said.

It would be a first-of-its-kind amendment to religious freedom laws in the country, said Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of the UC Irvine law school.

Still, according to legal experts, even if the photographers in New Mexico or the hypothetical bakery in Arizona were able to use religious freedom as a defense for their refusal of service, they would need to prove that they had sincerely held religious beliefs that were seriously affected.

“The courts will be the ultimate arbiters between balance of freedom of customers and religious beliefs of owners,” Massaro said.

Legal experts also said SB 1062 is redundant because, under Arizona law, gays have no special protections at businesses and public accommodations. In other words, businesses don’t need protection for something they can’t be sued for.

In fact, the attention brought by this measure might cause more problems for them.

“This sort of legislative effort may have a boomerang effect to mobilize a national effort to ban sexual orientation discrimination at public accommodations,” she said.

How does government balance all of this?

“On the one hand, the Constitution provides free exercise of religion,” Massaro said. “Government has to do that, but if it goes too far in providing rights, it starts establishing religion and giving religious actors rights that lead to religious favoritism. It has to navigate between those.”

She added that there’s no question given the cases before the Supreme Court -- about whether businesses must provide health coverage for contraception as part of Obamacare -- that questions are being raised about the proper balance between religious autonomy and an individual’s right to services.

“The Civil Rights Act of 1875 required American business to serve regardless of race,” she said. “What’s the difference between that 19th century -- which we’ve ended -- and this debate? For some people, it’s resurrecting the old debate about whether there should be limits on a commercial actor’s right to not serve.”

“The law [in Arizona] already says you have a right to discriminate against gays and lesbians,” Chemerinsky said. “Businesses have stronger reason not to discriminate because it would mean they would lose business.”

And plenty of business owners have noted just that, saying they don’t discriminate and they don’t need more protection.

“It’s harmful because it sends a message that the state is bigoted,” Chemerinsky said.

The measure was cosponsored by three Republican senators, and 50 out of 53 Republican lawmakers voted for it. Two conservative groups helped work on the measure: the Center for Arizona Policy and Defending Freedom Alliance. The Arizona Catholic Conference has urged congregants to back the measure.

Who is against SB 1062?

Business leaders, civil liberties groups and gay rights groups have opposed SB 1062. Phoenix Mayor Greg Stanton warned that it would revive the impression that Arizona is intolerant, damaging the state’s economy.

Also opposing SB 1062 are several Republican candidates seeking to replace the termed-out Brewer as governor in this year’s election. Among the opponents are Secretary of State Ken Bennett, State Treasurer Doug Ducey, attorney Christine Jones, former healthcare executive John Molina and Mesa Mayor Scott Smith. Two others have not weighed in, and a third voted for it in the Legislature, according to the AP.


Arizona businesses already can refuse to serve gays: SB1062 explained

It’s either a small fix to protect the free exercise of religion or a “no cake for gays” bill that would invite businesses to discriminate, depending on whom you talk to.

The legislation, SB 1062, would bolster a business owner’s right to defend refusing service to someone when the owner believes doing so would violate their the practice and observance of religion. Supporters call it a “religious freedom” bill.

As Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer weighs whether to sign the measure into law, here’s a look at what the proposal is all about.

Why was SB 1062 proposed?

Last August, the New Mexico Supreme Court ruled that a photography company discriminated against a same-sex couple when in 2006 it refused to shoot the couple’s civil-commitment ceremony.

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. But state lawmakers were concerned about the implementation of another law: the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.

Arizona and New Mexico are among 26 states that, along with the federal government, recognize the gist of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, said Joe LaRue, an attorney at the Alliance Defending Freedom who helped draft SB 1062.

The act prevents a law from placing a “substantial burden” on an individual’s religious beliefs.

LaRue said it has been used by people about 200 times nationwide since 1993 to argue in court that they don’t have to do something the law requires because the action interferes with their religion.

The law was invoked by the New Mexico photographers. But in that case, a court ruled for the first time that the law could not be invoked in a lawsuit between two private parties, LaRue said. The photographers have asked the U.S. Supreme Court to hear an appeal.

“The problem is the New Mexico Supreme Court created a loophole that if government is not party to a legal proceeding, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act cannot be used as a defense,” LaRue said.

Why the need if the law is only under threat in New Mexico?

“Freedom is too important to leave to chance,” LaRue said.

“There is a law that bans discrimination at public accommodations based on religion in Arizona. Let’s pretend that I’m a bakery and that in my town here in Arizona, Westboro Baptist Church comes to picket a funeral of a soldier, and they tell me to bake a cake. They want it to say, ‘God hates . ’ and that terrible word they use.

“It would offend my dignity. I don’t want to give voice to that horrible message. Right now, they could sue me for discriminating based on their religious beliefs. If the Arizona courts went the way of the New Mexico courts, I would lose and if they targeted me, I could lose my business because of the damages I’d have to pay out. I would never be able to assert my Religious Freedom Restoration Act defense because it’s available only if the government is prosecuting me.”

University of Arizona law professor Toni Massaro said many Arizona lawmakers likely fear that either the federal government or the courts will expand gay rights and other rights in ways that would restrict religious freedom.

What does SB 1062 do?
“They are amending Arizona law in a way that would make clear it covers businesses and allows them to use the religious freedom law as a defense if someone would sue them for sexual orientation discrimination,” Massaro said.

It would be a first-of-its-kind amendment to religious freedom laws in the country, said Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of the UC Irvine law school.

Still, according to legal experts, even if the photographers in New Mexico or the hypothetical bakery in Arizona were able to use religious freedom as a defense for their refusal of service, they would need to prove that they had sincerely held religious beliefs that were seriously affected.

“The courts will be the ultimate arbiters between balance of freedom of customers and religious beliefs of owners,” Massaro said.

Legal experts also said SB 1062 is redundant because, under Arizona law, gays have no special protections at businesses and public accommodations. In other words, businesses don’t need protection for something they can’t be sued for.

In fact, the attention brought by this measure might cause more problems for them.

“This sort of legislative effort may have a boomerang effect to mobilize a national effort to ban sexual orientation discrimination at public accommodations,” she said.

How does government balance all of this?

“On the one hand, the Constitution provides free exercise of religion,” Massaro said. “Government has to do that, but if it goes too far in providing rights, it starts establishing religion and giving religious actors rights that lead to religious favoritism. It has to navigate between those.”

She added that there’s no question given the cases before the Supreme Court -- about whether businesses must provide health coverage for contraception as part of Obamacare -- that questions are being raised about the proper balance between religious autonomy and an individual’s right to services.

“The Civil Rights Act of 1875 required American business to serve regardless of race,” she said. “What’s the difference between that 19th century -- which we’ve ended -- and this debate? For some people, it’s resurrecting the old debate about whether there should be limits on a commercial actor’s right to not serve.”

“The law [in Arizona] already says you have a right to discriminate against gays and lesbians,” Chemerinsky said. “Businesses have stronger reason not to discriminate because it would mean they would lose business.”

And plenty of business owners have noted just that, saying they don’t discriminate and they don’t need more protection.

“It’s harmful because it sends a message that the state is bigoted,” Chemerinsky said.

The measure was cosponsored by three Republican senators, and 50 out of 53 Republican lawmakers voted for it. Two conservative groups helped work on the measure: the Center for Arizona Policy and Defending Freedom Alliance. The Arizona Catholic Conference has urged congregants to back the measure.

Who is against SB 1062?

Business leaders, civil liberties groups and gay rights groups have opposed SB 1062. Phoenix Mayor Greg Stanton warned that it would revive the impression that Arizona is intolerant, damaging the state’s economy.

Also opposing SB 1062 are several Republican candidates seeking to replace the termed-out Brewer as governor in this year’s election. Among the opponents are Secretary of State Ken Bennett, State Treasurer Doug Ducey, attorney Christine Jones, former healthcare executive John Molina and Mesa Mayor Scott Smith. Two others have not weighed in, and a third voted for it in the Legislature, according to the AP.


Arizona businesses already can refuse to serve gays: SB1062 explained

It’s either a small fix to protect the free exercise of religion or a “no cake for gays” bill that would invite businesses to discriminate, depending on whom you talk to.

The legislation, SB 1062, would bolster a business owner’s right to defend refusing service to someone when the owner believes doing so would violate their the practice and observance of religion. Supporters call it a “religious freedom” bill.

As Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer weighs whether to sign the measure into law, here’s a look at what the proposal is all about.

Why was SB 1062 proposed?

Last August, the New Mexico Supreme Court ruled that a photography company discriminated against a same-sex couple when in 2006 it refused to shoot the couple’s civil-commitment ceremony.

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. But state lawmakers were concerned about the implementation of another law: the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.

Arizona and New Mexico are among 26 states that, along with the federal government, recognize the gist of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, said Joe LaRue, an attorney at the Alliance Defending Freedom who helped draft SB 1062.

The act prevents a law from placing a “substantial burden” on an individual’s religious beliefs.

LaRue said it has been used by people about 200 times nationwide since 1993 to argue in court that they don’t have to do something the law requires because the action interferes with their religion.

The law was invoked by the New Mexico photographers. But in that case, a court ruled for the first time that the law could not be invoked in a lawsuit between two private parties, LaRue said. The photographers have asked the U.S. Supreme Court to hear an appeal.

“The problem is the New Mexico Supreme Court created a loophole that if government is not party to a legal proceeding, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act cannot be used as a defense,” LaRue said.

Why the need if the law is only under threat in New Mexico?

“Freedom is too important to leave to chance,” LaRue said.

“There is a law that bans discrimination at public accommodations based on religion in Arizona. Let’s pretend that I’m a bakery and that in my town here in Arizona, Westboro Baptist Church comes to picket a funeral of a soldier, and they tell me to bake a cake. They want it to say, ‘God hates . ’ and that terrible word they use.

“It would offend my dignity. I don’t want to give voice to that horrible message. Right now, they could sue me for discriminating based on their religious beliefs. If the Arizona courts went the way of the New Mexico courts, I would lose and if they targeted me, I could lose my business because of the damages I’d have to pay out. I would never be able to assert my Religious Freedom Restoration Act defense because it’s available only if the government is prosecuting me.”

University of Arizona law professor Toni Massaro said many Arizona lawmakers likely fear that either the federal government or the courts will expand gay rights and other rights in ways that would restrict religious freedom.

What does SB 1062 do?
“They are amending Arizona law in a way that would make clear it covers businesses and allows them to use the religious freedom law as a defense if someone would sue them for sexual orientation discrimination,” Massaro said.

It would be a first-of-its-kind amendment to religious freedom laws in the country, said Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of the UC Irvine law school.

Still, according to legal experts, even if the photographers in New Mexico or the hypothetical bakery in Arizona were able to use religious freedom as a defense for their refusal of service, they would need to prove that they had sincerely held religious beliefs that were seriously affected.

“The courts will be the ultimate arbiters between balance of freedom of customers and religious beliefs of owners,” Massaro said.

Legal experts also said SB 1062 is redundant because, under Arizona law, gays have no special protections at businesses and public accommodations. In other words, businesses don’t need protection for something they can’t be sued for.

In fact, the attention brought by this measure might cause more problems for them.

“This sort of legislative effort may have a boomerang effect to mobilize a national effort to ban sexual orientation discrimination at public accommodations,” she said.

How does government balance all of this?

“On the one hand, the Constitution provides free exercise of religion,” Massaro said. “Government has to do that, but if it goes too far in providing rights, it starts establishing religion and giving religious actors rights that lead to religious favoritism. It has to navigate between those.”

She added that there’s no question given the cases before the Supreme Court -- about whether businesses must provide health coverage for contraception as part of Obamacare -- that questions are being raised about the proper balance between religious autonomy and an individual’s right to services.

“The Civil Rights Act of 1875 required American business to serve regardless of race,” she said. “What’s the difference between that 19th century -- which we’ve ended -- and this debate? For some people, it’s resurrecting the old debate about whether there should be limits on a commercial actor’s right to not serve.”

“The law [in Arizona] already says you have a right to discriminate against gays and lesbians,” Chemerinsky said. “Businesses have stronger reason not to discriminate because it would mean they would lose business.”

And plenty of business owners have noted just that, saying they don’t discriminate and they don’t need more protection.

“It’s harmful because it sends a message that the state is bigoted,” Chemerinsky said.

The measure was cosponsored by three Republican senators, and 50 out of 53 Republican lawmakers voted for it. Two conservative groups helped work on the measure: the Center for Arizona Policy and Defending Freedom Alliance. The Arizona Catholic Conference has urged congregants to back the measure.

Who is against SB 1062?

Business leaders, civil liberties groups and gay rights groups have opposed SB 1062. Phoenix Mayor Greg Stanton warned that it would revive the impression that Arizona is intolerant, damaging the state’s economy.

Also opposing SB 1062 are several Republican candidates seeking to replace the termed-out Brewer as governor in this year’s election. Among the opponents are Secretary of State Ken Bennett, State Treasurer Doug Ducey, attorney Christine Jones, former healthcare executive John Molina and Mesa Mayor Scott Smith. Two others have not weighed in, and a third voted for it in the Legislature, according to the AP.


Ver el vídeo: Homeless man refused a meal at restaurant l First broadcast 052314 (Mayo 2022).