Political Forums  

Go Back   Defending The Truth Political Forum > Political Forum > Current Events

Current Events Current Events Forum - Latest political news and events


Thanks Tree1Thanks
  • 1 Post By excalibur
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old February 27th, 2014, 07:26 PM   #1
Banned
 
excalibur's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: The Milky Way
Posts: 24,581
Arizona 1062

AZ 1062

Gov. Brewer has vetoed what the Wall Street Journal calls a "service refusal" bill (an earlier WSJ headline had said "religious liberty"; the New York Daily News refers to it as a "controversial anti-gay" bill). In my view -- and, frankly, whatever the ultimate merits of the bill (which would have modified the state's RFRA-type bill, which is modeled on the federal RFRA, which was strongly supported by Sen. Kennedy and signed into law by Pres. Clinton) -- it is depressing to note the extent to which the proposal was mischaracterized and misrepresented, in many cases by commentators who should have known, and I suspect did know, better.

Here is a letter, authored by Prof. Douglas Laycock and signed by a number of other law-and-religion scholars (including Tom Berg, Doug Sisk, and me), which explains what the law would have, and would not have, done. As the letter points out, the bill would have "amend[ed] the Arizona RFRA to address two ambiguities that have been the subject of litigation under other RFRAs." Later:

"SB1062 does not say that businesses can discriminate for religious reasons. It says that business people can assert a claim or defense under RFRA, in any kind of case (discrimination cases are not even mentioned, although they would be included), that they have the burden of proving a substantial burden on a sincere religious practice, that the government or the person suing them has the burden of proof on compelling
government interest, and that the state courts in Arizona make the final decision.
"

Again, the bill has been vetoed, no doubt in response to the outcry -- itself driven largely by the mischaracterizations of the bill -- from business groups (and the N.F.L.). The debate about religious accommodations is changing strikingly.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

To read the entire letter click the above link and there is a link inside to a small pdf file.




Thanks from Jimmyb
excalibur is offline  
Old February 27th, 2014, 07:28 PM   #2
Senior Member
 
Jimmyb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Earth
Posts: 38,895
Quote:
Originally Posted by excalibur View Post
AZ 1062

Gov. Brewer has vetoed what the Wall Street Journal calls a "service refusal" bill (an earlier WSJ headline had said "religious liberty"; the New York Daily News refers to it as a "controversial anti-gay" bill). In my view -- and, frankly, whatever the ultimate merits of the bill (which would have modified the state's RFRA-type bill, which is modeled on the federal RFRA, which was strongly supported by Sen. Kennedy and signed into law by Pres. Clinton) -- it is depressing to note the extent to which the proposal was mischaracterized and misrepresented, in many cases by commentators who should have known, and I suspect did know, better.

Here is a letter, authored by Prof. Douglas Laycock and signed by a number of other law-and-religion scholars (including Tom Berg, Doug Sisk, and me), which explains what the law would have, and would not have, done. As the letter points out, the bill would have "amend[ed] the Arizona RFRA to address two ambiguities that have been the subject of litigation under other RFRAs." Later:

"SB1062 does not say that businesses can discriminate for religious reasons. It says that business people can assert a claim or defense under RFRA, in any kind of case (discrimination cases are not even mentioned, although they would be included), that they have the burden of proving a substantial burden on a sincere religious practice, that the government or the person suing them has the burden of proof on compelling
government interest, and that the state courts in Arizona make the final decision.
"

Again, the bill has been vetoed, no doubt in response to the outcry -- itself driven largely by the mischaracterizations of the bill -- from business groups (and the N.F.L.). The debate about religious accommodations is changing strikingly.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

To read the entire letter click the above link and there is a link inside to a small pdf file.




The scholars were a broad based spectrum of supporters for the bill.
Jimmyb is offline  
Old February 28th, 2014, 01:49 AM   #3
Talent on loan from god
 
Camelot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Ohio
Posts: 27,820
Just stupid semantics. You lost again. Deal with it.
Camelot is offline  
Old February 28th, 2014, 10:43 AM   #4
Senior Member
 
Jimmyb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Earth
Posts: 38,895
Quote:
Originally Posted by Camelot View Post
Just stupid semantics. You lost again. Deal with it.
Who lost what?
Jimmyb is offline  
Reply

  Defending The Truth Political Forum > Political Forum > Current Events

Tags
1062, arizona



Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Governor Brewer Vetos Controversial House Bill 1062 skews13 Current Events 2 February 26th, 2014 05:56 PM
Opinion: Arizona law -- the best they could do? CNN Current Events 4 August 3rd, 2010 01:08 PM
Arizona Shootout Immigration 0 December 31st, 1969 04:00 PM
Arizona Rancher Immigration 0 December 31st, 1969 04:00 PM
Opinion: Arizona law -- the best they could do? Current Events 0 December 31st, 1969 04:00 PM


Facebook Twitter RSS Feed



Copyright © 2005-2013 Defending The Truth. All rights reserved.