Kristie O’Brien, Democratic candidate for the Arizona State Senate, wrote an article on how detrimental S.B. 1602 is for Arizona and our country. Her article is below.
(To learn more about how you can help her and the campaign contact kristie@OBrienforAZSenate.com or (480) 729-2647
(480) 729-2647. Follow her on Facebook at Kristie O’Brien for AZ Senate or on Twitter @KristieOBrienAZ).
Imagine you walk into your small town pharmacy to pick up your monthly birth control prescription only to be told you will have to get it filled somewhere else from now on. Or perhaps, you and your partner have driven hundreds of miles to take in the grand Arizona scenery, only to find you are turned away from your lodging – the hotel refuses to serve members of the LGBT community. Or perhaps, you walk into a restaurant only to find a sign saying they do not serve unaccompanied women, Jews, or God forbid, Atheists as it is against the owner’s religious beliefs. Sounds like stories we would only hear from repressive regimes, not the United States of America, right? Wrong.
In another case of the far right being so wrong, Republican Arizona State Senator Steven Yarbrough introduced SB1062 in January.This so-called “religious freedom bill” allows the above discriminatory scenarios to be protected from civil lawsuit under Arizona law.
SB1062 was inspired by a lawsuit in New Mexico. In 2006, well before New Mexico would legally recognize same-sex marriage, Elaine Huguenin, a photographer, declined to photograph the same-sex commitment ceremony of Vanessa Willock. Huguenin claimed participating in the event would violate her religious beliefs. Willock filed an administrative complaint before the New Mexico Human Rights Commission alleging that Elane Photography had violated the state public accommodations statute by discriminating based on sexual orientation. On December 19, 2013, the New Mexico Supreme Court redefined marriage to include same-sex marriage.
So Arizona’s wedding photographers, bakeries and inns must be inundated with requests from the LGBT community, right? Wrong. Arizona does not legally recognize marriage equality. Instead, this legislation is part of a nationwide GOP movement.
In fact, Governor Bobby Jindal, in a speech on February 13, 2014, at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Foundation and Library stated “Governors and state legislators must embark on a nationwide effort at state level to pr otect the rights of believers of all faiths. Today, many states already have stronger protections for religious liberty than the federal Constitution provides.” The true motive is to make human rights subservient to a state “religious freedom” law that is stronger than the protections afforded under federal law.
Arizona becomes a critical battleground because it lacks a public accommodation law barring discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity. Public accommodations laws protect discrimination from occurring in public places such as hotels, restaurants, and movie theaters. Arizona also does not legally recognize same-sex marriage. However, the free exercise of religion remains well protected from the First Amendment. If this bill is enacted, Arizona’s LGBT community will not have the same legal opportunity to challenge discrimination as in other notable cases. It should also be noted that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 may protect discrimination on racial grounds but does not extend to sexual orientation. It is also worth noting, Arizona has not ratified the Equal Rights Amendment of 1972 affording equal protection to women.
Aside from preventing any human rights defense to discrimination, the bill also goes a step further in changing the legal definition of a “person” under Arizona law. SB1062 defines a person as “any individual, association, partnership, corporation, church, religious assembly or institution, estate, trust, foundation or other legal entity,” thus building upon the legal definition of a “person” held in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, No. 08-205. This expanded definition seeks to prevent a defense that a for-profit business or any other entity cannot hold “religious convictions.” (U.S. Supreme Court likely to address in Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby).
The bill is steadily making its way through the Arizona legislature. It is likely to end up on Governor Jan Brewer’s desk as did a similar bill last year. That bill, however, was vetoed as a part of her Medicaid expansion. It is unclear what she will do this year.
So, the next time you are on a flight to Arizona, don’t be surprised if the captain announces, “Ladies and gentlemen, we will be landing shortly, please set your watches back 50 years!”