NO, THIS IS NOT JIM CROW FOR GAYS — UNDERSTANDING ARIZONA S.B. 1062

The Arizona legislature has passed S.B. 1066. It amends a 1999 Arizona law called the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA). It does so in an attempt to strengthen the ability of vendors to follow their religious conscience by, for example, declining to provide services at gay weddings. The text of the legislation can be found here.

The legislation has generated much criticism. The two most recent Republican presidential candidates have urged Governor Brewer not to sign the bill. Various big businesses have done the same. Even the National Football League, that bastion of enlightenment, has weighed in. This is no small matter given that Arizona likes to host the Super Bowl. Must religious freedom pay for Richie Incognito’s sins?

I’m confident that a broad consensus exists on the issues raised (or allegedly raised) by S.B. 1066. First, it seems fundamentally wrong to deny someone service at, say, a restaurant or a gas station because of his or her sexual orientation (although doing so is not currently banned by Arizona state law). Likewise, it seems fundamentally wrong for a photographer to refuse to take, say, a passport photo of a person because of his or her sexual orientation.

But second, it also seems fundamentally wrong to require a photographer who believes, based on sincere religious conviction, that gay marriage is immoral to participate in a gay marriage celebration by photographing it. Indeed, it is odd (and telling) that any gay couple would want their sacred ceremony to be chronicled by someone who finds the event morally reprehensible. Such a photographer is unlikely to capture the spirit of the occasion.

S.B. 1062 is being portrayed as vindicating the second of these propositions at the expense of the first. If so, Gov. Brewer shouldn’t sign it. Instead she should, in effect, send the legislature back to the drawing board to craft a bill that better balances the two concerns — basic fairness for gays and religious freedom for religious believers.

But as I understand S.B. 1062, it does a good job of balancing these concerns. A RFRA law like Arizona’s is not a license to discriminate against gays based upon religious beliefs. Indeed, according to this analysis, no business has ever successfully used either a state RFRA or the federal RFRA to defend their right to not serve gays.

Via: Powerline

Continue Reading....

AZ Gov. Brewer Prevaricates on ‘Anti-LGBT’ Bill: ‘I’ll Do the Right Thing for Arizona’

CNN’s Dana Bash pressed Arizona Governor Jan Brewer Monday night as to her plans for SB 1062, a bill that would allow businesses to refuse service to members of the LGBT community, and one that many, including the state’s two Republicans senators and some of the lawmakers who voted for the bill, have urged the governor to veto.

“We have been following it,” Brewer said. “I will make my decision in the near future. I have until Friday or Saturday morning to determine that.”

Bash asked if the pressure from Arizona’s business community, concerned about the economic impact of the bill, would have any effect on her decision.

“I have a history of deliberating and having open dialogue on bills that are controversial, to listen to both sides of those issues,” Brewer said. “I welcome the input and information that they can provide to me. And certainly I am pro-business. That is what’s turning our economy around. So I appreciate their input, as I appreciate the other side.”

RELATED: Anderson Cooper Tears into AZ Pol over ‘Anti-Gay’ Law: ‘You’re Seriously Blaming the Media?!’

Bash tried another tack, asking if Brewer had any gut feeling, not as a governor but “as a person, as a woman,” what she would do about the bill.

“You know, I am a woman,” Brewer said. “I don’t rely a whole lot on my gut. I have to look at what it says and what the law says and take that information and do the right thing. I can assure you as always I will do the right thing for the state of Arizona.”

Via: Mediaite.com

Continue Reading.....

ABC, NBC Highlight ‘Growing Outrage’ Over Arizona Religious Freedom Bill

The Arizona legislature just passed legislation allowing private businesses to be protected from legal action for practicing their religion. The bill, the Religious Freedom and Restoration Act, allows private businesses the right to practice their religious beliefs and refuse service to anyone, such as a gay couple, if they believe it would violate their religious conscience.

On Saturday February 22, both ABC and NBC framed the new legislation in opposition of religious freedom, with NBC’s Lester Holt calling the bill “controversial” and how “opponents dubbed it the right to discriminate bill.” [See video below.]

ABC World News host David Muir offered only a quick news brief on the story, but that was enough to show the network’s agenda. Muir peddled how there was “growing outrage over a new law that allows businesses to turn away gay customers if it violates their religious beliefs.” Muir did briefly mention that Governor Jan Brewer (R-A.Z.) hadn’t decided whether or not to support the bill before going on to highlight the opponents of the religious freedom bill:

Meantime, some businesses already deciding tonight. This pizzeria in Tucson now saying they won't turn away gays, but instead, legislators who passed the bill. 

While NBC’s Nightly News did provide a more complete story on the Arizona law, it still framed the segment against the religious freedom argument. Host Lester Holt introduced the segment, calling the legislation a “controversial bill” before turning to reporter Joe Fryer for a full story.

Fryer began his report by peddling the liberal line that the bill was “controversial” before hyping how “100 angry protesters sounded off outside the capital. They're upset with legislation that would allow business owners based on their religious beliefs to deny service to gays and lesbians.” For his part, Fryer did provide two sound bites from supporters of the Arizona bill, but the NBC News reporter surrounded them with rhetoric opposing the legislation.

Fryer then went on to use two cases, one in Oregon and one in Washington State to promote the agenda of the religious freedom bill’s opponents:

They point to laws around the country like Washington State where a flower shop was sued after not providing flowers for a same-sex marriage. And Oregon where last month the state ruled a bakery violated the civil rights of a lesbian couple after refusing to make their wedding cake.

Nowhere in the segment did Fryer explain why a Christian bakery may object to baking a cake for a gay wedding because it violated their religious convictions. Instead, he used the case as not an example of religious freedom but rather an argument against the Arizona bill.

After providing two brief clips from the bill’s supporters, Fryer claimed that “business is what may suffer, some argue if the bill becomes law.” The NBC reporter continued to promote the anti-religious freedom argument and showcased how “A pizza shop in Tucson is so upset with the bill it posted this sign: we reserve the right to refuse service to Arizona legislators. This comes nearly four years after Arizona passed a controversial immigration law that was signed by Governor Jan Brewer.”

ABC and NBC seem perfectly content arguing on behalf of the bill’s opponents and jumped on the left’s “outrage” and “controversial” nature of the bill rather than adequately include the religious freedom side of the debate.

Via: Newsbusters.com
Continue Reading....

How 40 Congressmen Are Challenging Obamacare

The Supreme Court may have ruled once on the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, better known as Obamacare, but the debate about the law’s constitutionality is far from settled.

Forty members of the House of Representatives, led by Trent Franks (R–AZ), have filed an amicus brief in the latest case challenging the constitutionality of the Obama Administration’s crowning achievement (or failure, depending on your perspective). The lawsuit claims that the Obamacare legislation violates Article I, Section 7, Clause 1 of the Constitution, otherwise known as the Origination Clause.

In last year’s surprising and oft-criticized opinion in NFIB v. Sebelius, the Supreme Court upheld the act under Congress’s authority “To lay and collect Taxes” under the Spending Clause of the Constitution. Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for the majority, found that, despite the plain text of the statute, the individual mandate was actually a tax and not a penalty.

The Origination Clause provides: “All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives.” Our Founding Fathers understood that the power to tax, if abused, involved the power to destroy. They viewed the Origination Clause as a safeguard for liberty by insisting that the power to initiate new taxes should be left with the lawmakers who were most directly accountable to voters—members of the House, who are elected every two years in local districts.

Via: The Foundry

Continue Reading....

Illegal immigrants blockade Atlanta office to halt deportations

Illegal immigrants blockaded a federal office that handles deportations in Atlanta Tuesday morning, and soon after a group of 12 illegal immigrants in Chicago chained themselves to the wheels of a bus they said was headed to the airport to finish deport people.

The moves mark the latest escalation in a campaign by activists to pressure President Obama to use his executive authority to stop almost all deportations. They argue he’s targeting rank-and-file illegal immigrants rather than those with criminal records.

---

SEE ALSO: Biden: Feds easing Panamanians’ entry into U.S.

---

The activists targeted the Chicago bus in part because it had two high-profile illegal immigrants who have been the subject of an effort to halt their deportation: Octavio Nava-Cabrera, who was put into deportation proceedings after being arrested in a traffic stop, and Brigido Acosta Luis, who the activists said has two U.S. citizen daughters.

Late last week the Obama administration said it would allow illegal immigrant relatives of U.S. troops and veterans to apply for “parole in place,” which would allow them to remain in the country — and the activists Tuesday said they want the same considerations for all illegal immigrants.

“Undocumented, unafraid,” the Atlanta protesters chanted. “No papers, no fear.”

The protests were part of the Not One More campaign, which has staged similar protests in Arizona, California and Louisiana, broadcasting the action on the web.

Via: Washington Times

Continue Reading....