Arizona SB 1062

Last updated

Arizona SB 1062 was an Arizona bill to amend an existing law to give any individual or legal entity an exemption from any state law if it substantially burdened their exercise of religion, including Arizona law requiring public accommodation.

Contents

It was one of several similar bills in U.S. state legislatures allowing individuals to refuse service based on religion, with some bills specifically protecting religious disapproval of same-sex marriage. [1] It was widely reported as targeting LGBT people, although Arizona law provides no protection against discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. [2] Critics noted that it would have broadly denied anyone service on religious grounds. Supporters argued that it was simply restoring the legal status of the right to free exercise of religion as intended by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. [3]

The bill was passed by the Republican-controlled state legislature and vetoed by Republican Governor Jan Brewer on February 26, 2014. [4] [5]

The national controversy surrounding the bill prompted Arizona State Senator Steve Gallardo to publicly come out as gay. [6] He referred to the bill as a "game changer," and noted the national controversy surrounding its passage, as prompting his decision. [7]

Background

The United States Supreme Court ruled in Employment Division v. Smith (1990) that a person may not defy neutral laws of general applicability, such as public accommodation laws, as an expression of religious belief. "To permit this," wrote Justice Scalia, "would make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land, and in effect to permit every citizen to become a law unto himself." He wrote that neutral laws of general applicability do not have to meet the standard of strict scrutiny, because such a requirement would create "a private right to ignore generally applicable laws". Strict scrutiny would require a law to be the least restrictive means of furthering a compelling government interest. The meaning of neutral law of general applicability was elaborated by the court in 1993. The US Congress responded by passing the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), requiring strict scrutiny when a neutral law of general applicability "substantially burden[s] a person's exercise of religion". When the Supreme Court ruled in 1997 that the RFRA was inapplicable to state laws, [3] some states passed their own Religious Freedom Restoration Acts, including the Arizona law that SB 1062 proposed to amend. The Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the federal RFRA as applied to federal statutes in Gonzales v. O Centro Espirita Beneficente Uniao do Vegetal in 2006.

Arizona lawmakers were concerned about a 2013 New Mexico Supreme Court ruling that weakened its state's RFRA, [8] which was passed as a religious exemption to its own public accommodation law prohibiting the denial of services based on a person's sexual orientation or gender identity. [8] Twenty-one states, not including Arizona, have similar public accommodation laws protecting sexual orientation. [8] The New Mexico Supreme Court ruled in Elane Photography v. Willock that the state's RFRA could not be invoked between two parties if the government was not a party to the legal proceedings. [8]

The bill was introduced by Senator Steve Yarbrough to amend a law currently giving religious assemblies or institutions a religious exemption from any law. The bill was passed by the Republican-controlled Senate on February 19, along party lines and passed by the state House on February 20. [1] [9] The vote tally in the Senate was 17 for, 13 against, and in the House, 33 for, 27 against. [9] On February 26, Governor Jan Brewer vetoed the bill after significant national attention. [4] [10] [11] [12] There are not enough votes in the legislature to override the veto. [13]

Following the veto, Senator Steve Gallardo, one of the bill's most strident opponents, came out as gay. He identified the day that the bill passed the Senate as a "game changer". [7]

Content

SB 1062 was intended to amend Section 41-1493 of the Arizona Revised Statutes, which prevents "any law, including state and local laws, ordinances, rules, regulations and policies" from "substantially burden[ing]" a person's exercise of religion, unless the burden is the least restrictive means of furthering a "compelling government interest". SB 1062 would have revised it by expanding the definition of person in the article from "a religious assembly or institution" to also include "any individual, association, partnership, corporation, church," "estate, trust, foundation or other legal entity", [14] and would have allowed for religious-freedom as a claim or defense in lawsuits "regardless of whether the government is a party to the proceeding." [14]

Criticism

While proponents said the bill was intended to protect the right of business owners to refuse services based on religious objections and was a direct response to the New Mexico Supreme Court's ruling in Elane Photography v. Willock [3] against a business that religiously objected to accommodating a same-sex wedding, critics, a few media outlets, and opponents argued that the intent was to allow businesses to refuse to serve the LGBT community, specifically in the cases of same-sex couples. [15] [16] Critics said that the bill would have allowed any business to discriminate against any group of people for any religious reason. [8] [17]

Businesses, civil rights groups, and gay rights groups had opposed the bill. [8] As state law already allows businesses to refuse services to anyone for any given reason, business owners noted that refusing services to LGBT people was currently allowed anyway. They would only be losing business by discriminating and do not need extra protections for something they cannot be sued for. [8] Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of the UC Irvine law school, argued that the bill was harmful and "sends a message that the state is bigoted." [8] Supporters of the bill included two conservative groups, the Center for Arizona Policy and the Alliance Defending Freedom, both of whom worked on the bill. [8] The Arizona Catholic Conference had called on its congregants to support the bill. [8] Three lawmakers who initially voted for the bill, including Senate Majority Whip Adam Driggs, had encouraged Governor Brewer to veto it. [18]

The National Football League stated that it was "following the issue in Arizona and will continue to do so should the bill be signed into law", prompting concerns from Arizona business leaders that signing of SB1062 would lead to the pulling of Super Bowl XLIX, similar to how Super Bowl XXVII was moved to Pasadena, California after a Martin Luther King Jr. Day ballot measure failed in Arizona's 1990 elections. The issue was rendered moot by the vetoing of the bill. [19]

Similar legislation in other states

Arizona SB 1062 was similar, at the time, to bills in five other states—South Dakota, Kansas, Idaho, Tennessee, Colorado, and Maine—that all failed or faced major setbacks as of February 2014. [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] Other bills centered on the same core issues are:

See also

Related Research Articles

Religious Freedom Restoration Act 1993 United States Law

The Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993, Pub. L. No. 103-141, 107 Stat. 1488, codified at 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb through 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb-4, is a 1993 United States federal law that "ensures that interests in religious freedom are protected." The bill was introduced by Congressman Chuck Schumer (D-NY) on March 11, 1993. A companion bill was introduced in the Senate by Ted Kennedy (D-MA) the same day. A unanimous U.S. House and a nearly unanimous U.S. Senate—three senators voted against passage—passed the bill, and President Bill Clinton signed it into law.

City of Boerne v. Flores, 521 U.S. 507 (1997), was a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of the United States concerning the scope of Congress's power of enforcement under Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment. The case also had a significant impact on historic preservation.

Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act

The Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA), Pub.L. 106–274 (text)(PDF), codified as 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc et seq., is a United States federal law that prohibits the imposition of burdens on the ability of prisoners to worship as they please and gives churches and other religious institutions a way to avoid zoning law restrictions on their property use. It also defines the term "religious exercise" to include "any exercise of religion, whether or not compelled by, or central to, a system of religious belief." RLUIPA was enacted by the United States Congress in 2000 to correct the problems of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) of 1993. The act was passed in both the House of Representatives and the Senate by unanimous consent in voice votes, meaning that no objection was raised to its passage, so no written vote was taken. The S. 2869 legislation was enacted into law by the 42nd President of the United States Bill Clinton on September 22, 2000.

Sherbert v. Verner, 374 U.S. 398 (1963), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment required the government to demonstrate both a compelling interest and that the law in question was narrowly tailored before it denied unemployment compensation to someone who was fired because her job requirements substantially conflicted with her religion.

Jan Brewer 22nd Governor of Arizona

Janice Kay Brewer is an American politician and author who was the 22nd governor of Arizona from 2009 to 2015. A member of the Republican Party, Brewer is the fourth woman to be Governor of Arizona. Brewer assumed the governorship as part of the line of succession, as determined by the Arizona Constitution, when Governor Janet Napolitano resigned to become U.S. Secretary of Homeland Security. Brewer had been Secretary of State of Arizona from January 2003 to January 2009.

Steve Michael Gallardo is an American politician from the state of Arizona. A member of the Democratic Party, Gallardo serves on the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors representing the 5th district. He previously served in the Arizona State Senate, representing the 13th district from 2011 through 2015 and in the Arizona House of Representatives from 2003 through 2009.

LGBT rights in Arizona

Lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) people in the U.S. state of Arizona may face legal challenges not experienced by non-LGBT residents. Same-sex sexual activity is legal in Arizona, and same-sex couples are able to marry and adopt. Nevertheless, the state provides only limited protections against discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity. Several cities, including Phoenix and Tucson, have enacted ordinances to protect LGBT people from unfair discrimination in employment, housing and public accommodations.

LGBT rights in Indiana

Lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) persons in the U.S. state of Indiana enjoy most of the same rights as other people. Same-sex marriage has been legal in Indiana since October 6, 2014, when the U.S. Supreme Court refused to consider an appeal in the case of Baskin v. Bogan.

LGBT rights in Kentucky

Lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) persons in the U.S. commonwealth of Kentucky have most of the same rights as non-LGBT persons have, but still face some legal challenges not experienced by other people. Same-sex sexual activity is legal in Kentucky. Same-sex couples and families headed by same-sex couples are not eligible for all of the protections available to opposite-sex married couples. On February 12, 2014, a federal judge ruled that the state must recognize same-sex marriages from other jurisdictions, but the ruling was put on hold pending review by the Sixth Circuit. Same sex-marriage is now legal in the state under the U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges. The decision, which struck down Kentucky's statutory and constitutional bans on same-sex marriages, and all other same sex marriage bans elsewhere in the country, was handed down on June 26, 2015.

State Religious Freedom Restoration Acts

State Religious Freedom Restoration Acts are state laws based on the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), a federal law that was passed almost unanimously by the U.S. Congress in 1993 and signed into law by President Bill Clinton. The laws mandate that religious liberty of individuals can only be limited by the "least restrictive means of furthering a compelling government interest". Originally, the federal law was intended to apply to federal, state, and local governments. In 1997, the U.S. Supreme Court in City of Boerne v. Flores held that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act only applies to the federal government but not states and other local municipalities within them. As a result, 21 states have passed their own RFRAs that apply to their individual state and local governments.

Steve Yarbrough (politician) American politician

Steven B. Yarbrough is an American politician. A Republican, he was the president of the Arizona Senate, and represented District 17 from January 14, 2013 to January 14, 2019. Yarbrough served in the Arizona State Legislature from January 2003 until January 2011 in the Arizona House of Representatives District 21 seat, then in the Arizona Senate in the District 21 seat from January 10, 2011 until January 14, 2013 for his first term in the Senate. This District was renumbered from 21 to 17 in 2012, although it remained substantially the same geographically.

Kansas House Bill 2453, also known as the Religious Freedom Act, is a piece of legislation proposed in the state of Kansas that would allow people to refuse to provide services in any way related to any relationship under the name "marriage, domestic partnership, civil union or similar arrangement" if their objection to doing so is based on their religious beliefs. Representative Charles Macheers (R-Shawnee) introduced the legislation on January 16, 2014. It passed in the House but was not taken up by the Kansas Senate.

Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., 573 U.S. 682 (2014), is a landmark decision in United States corporate law by the United States Supreme Court allowing privately held for-profit corporations to be exempt from a regulation its owners religiously object to, if there is a less restrictive means of furthering the law's interest, according to the provisions of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993. It is the first time that the Court has recognized a for-profit corporation's claim of religious belief, but it is limited to privately held corporations. The decision does not address whether such corporations are protected by the free exercise of religion clause of the First Amendment of the Constitution.

The Center for Arizona Policy (CAP) is a nonprofit conservative lobbying group based in Arizona. The organization advocates for the passage of socially conservative policies in the state. It also produces voter guides to encourage its supporters to elect conservative lawmakers. Over 100 bills supported by CAP have been signed into law in Arizona.

Virginia House Bill 1414 is proposed legislation introduced into the Virginia General Assembly on January 14, 2015 by Bob Marshall. The bill didn't pass. The bill would have enabled refusal of service to persons based on "same-sex "marriage" or homosexual behavior" by any public or private business in some way licensed by the state. Critics suggest that the law, if enacted, could be used by hospitals to turn away patients, restaurants to refuse to serve and to remove students from school and compared it to Jim Crow laws. The Virginia Christian Alliance emphasized their position that the bill is critical to clergy and that they "fear for their job" should the bill fail.

Indiana Senate Bill 101, titled the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), is a law in the U.S. state of Indiana, which allows individuals and companies to assert as a defense in legal proceedings that their exercise of religion has been, or is likely to be, substantially burdened.

Arkansas HB 1228, also known as the Conscience Protection Act and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, is a law in the state of Arkansas that aims to increase "judicial scrutiny" in cases involving religious beliefs. Opponents of the law say that it will allow for lawful discrimination of LGBT people. The law was passed by the Arkansas Senate on March 31, 2015. The next day, Governor Asa Hutchinson announced he would not sign the bill as written, instructing the legislature to make changes to its language. The final version was passed and signed into law as Act 975.

The First Amendment Defense Act is a bill introduced into the United States House of Representatives and United States Senate on June 17, 2015. The Senate sponsor of the bill is Mike Lee (R-Utah), and the House sponsor is Raúl Labrador (R-Idaho). The bill aims to prevent the federal government from taking action against a person on the basis that such person believes or acts in accordance with a religious belief or moral conviction that: (1) marriage is or should be recognized as the union of one man and one woman, or (2) sexual relations are properly reserved to such a marriage.

The Mississippi Religious Freedom Restoration Act is a 2014 act that states that "government should not substantially burden religious exercise without compelling justification. The act protects religious people from legal repercussions if they verbally condemn the lifestyle or actions of LGBT persons. Additionally, the bill expands the definition of an individual to include businesses, and so if a business owner thinks their religious beliefs would be violated by delivering service to an LGBT person, the Act allows them to deny them service, a move that some commentators have called "anti-gay segregation".

Little Sisters of the Poor Saints Peter and Paul Home v. Pennsylvania, 591 U.S. ___ (2020), was a United States Supreme Court case involving ongoing conflicts between the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) over the ACA's contraceptive mandate. The ACA exempts non-profit religious organizations from complying with the mandate, which for-profit religious organizations objected to.

References

  1. 1 2 Shadee Ashtari (February 20, 2014). "Ashtar, Shadee. Arizona Senate Passes Bill Allowing Discrimination On Basis Of Religious Freedom. Huffington Post. 02-20-2014". Huffingtonpost.com. Retrieved March 6, 2014.
  2. ↑ "Public Accommodation Discrimination". Arizona Attorney General. Archived from the original on November 3, 2013. Retrieved February 26, 2014.
  3. 1 2 3 "Religious Freedom Restoration Act: SB 1062". Center for Arizona Policy. Archived from the original on March 1, 2014. Retrieved February 25, 2014.
  4. 1 2 Santos, Fernanda (February 26, 2014). "Governor of Arizona Vetoes Bill on Denying Service to Gays". The New York Times . Retrieved February 26, 2014.
  5. ↑ Shoichet, Catherine E.; Abdullah, Halimah (February 26, 2014). "Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer vetoes controversial anti-gay bill, SB 1062". CNN News . Retrieved March 27, 2014.
  6. ↑ Arizona's Anti-Gay Bill Inspired This State Lawmaker To Come Out
  7. 1 2 Pitzl, Mary Jo (March 5, 2014). "Arizona Sen. Gallardo discloses he's gay". Arizona Central. Retrieved March 5, 2014.
  8. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Dave, Paresh (February 22, 2014). "Dave, Paresh. Q&A: What's behind Arizona plan to let businesses refuse to serve gays? Los Angeles Times. 02-22-2014". Los Angeles Times . Archived from the original on March 3, 2015. Retrieved March 6, 2014.
  9. 1 2 "Format Document". Azleg.gov. Archived from the original on March 5, 2014. Retrieved March 6, 2014.
  10. ↑ "Wingett Sanchez, Yvonne. SB 1062 forcing Brewer to consider issues tied to faith, discrimination. The Arizona Republic. 02-23-2014". Azcentral.com. Retrieved March 6, 2014.
  11. ↑ Bill Chappell; Mark Memmott (February 26, 2014). "Arizona Gov. Brewer Vetoes Controversial Bill". NPR. Retrieved February 26, 2014.
  12. ↑ Abdullah, Halimah (February 26, 2014). "Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer vetoes SB 1062". CNN. Retrieved February 26, 2014.
  13. ↑ Christie, Bob (February 26, 2014). "Arizona governor vetoes bill allowing religious reasons for refusing service to gays". StarTribune. Retrieved February 26, 2014.
  14. 1 2 "Text of the Senate Bill 1062" (PDF). Retrieved March 6, 2014.
  15. ↑ "Fischer, Howard. Bill allowing discrimination on religious grounds is offered. Arizona Daily Star. 01-16-2014". Azstarnet.com. January 16, 2014. Retrieved March 6, 2014.
  16. ↑ "Sanchez, Ray and Miguel Marquez. Arizona lawmakers pass controversial anti-gay bill. CNN/cnn.com. 02-21-2014". Cnn.com. Retrieved March 6, 2014.
  17. ↑ "Fischer, Howard. Arizona Senate: Business owners can cite religion to refuse service to gays. Arizona Daily Star. 02-19-2014". Azstarnet.com. February 19, 2014. Retrieved March 6, 2014.
  18. ↑ "Pitzl, Mary Jo. 3 GOP senators who voted for SB 1062 asking Brewer to veto bill. The Republic | azcentral.com. 02-24-2014". Azcentral.com. Retrieved March 6, 2014.
  19. ↑ Wilson, Ryan (February 25, 2014). "Business leaders worried bill could prompt NFL to relocate Super Bowl" . Retrieved February 27, 2014.
  20. ↑ Fuller, Jaime (February 24, 2014). "The Arizona 'religious rights' bill — and where the fight might move next". The Washington Post.
  21. ↑ Merevick, Tony (February 19, 2014). "In One Day, Bills Allowing Anti-LGBT Discrimination Fail In Four States". Buzz Feed.
  22. ↑ Merevick, Tony (February 19, 2014). "Arizona Senate Passes Bill Allowing Religious-Based Discrimination". Buzz Feed.
  23. ↑ "Maine Senate nixes bill aimed at protecting religious freedom; opponents say it's unnecessary". The Republic. February 18, 2014. Archived from the original on March 1, 2014. Retrieved February 25, 2014.
  24. ↑ Bookman, Jay (February 24, 2014). "Georgia may follow Arizona's anti-gay lead".
  25. ↑ "Religious freedom bills: The latest effort to counter advances in marriage equality – LGBTQ Nation". Lgbtqnation.com. Retrieved March 6, 2014.
  26. ↑ Fuller, Jaime. "The Arizona 'religious rights' bill — and where the fight might move next". Washingtonpost.com. Retrieved March 6, 2014.
  27. ↑ Vogellas, Ed (February 26, 2013). "Cegavske introduces Religious Freedom Act; called discriminatory in other states | Las Vegas Review-Journal". Reviewjournal.com. Retrieved March 6, 2014.
  28. ↑ "SB 192 – Nevada 2013 Regular Session". Open States. Retrieved March 6, 2014.
  29. ↑ "Constitutional Measure No. 3 – North Dakota June 2012". One Common Ground. Retrieved March 12, 2014.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.