Arizona SB1062 Discrimination Law

[GTsail]

What's everyone's thoughts about Arizona's SB1062 bill?

http://www.cnn.com/2014/02/22/opinion/whitaker-arizona-law/index.html

http://www.cnn.com/2014/02/25/us/arizona-brewer-sb1062/index.html

Do you think that Arizona needs a new law allowing religious discrimination, or do you think that the Arizona Legislators have gone too far?

SB1062 specifically protects all individuals, businesses and religious institutions from discrimination lawsuits if they can show that their discriminatory actions were motivated by religious convictions.

Text of SB1062:

http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/51leg/2r/bills/sb1062p.pdf

Right now this bill is sitting on AZ Gov. Jan Brewer's desk awaiting her decision to sign or veto.

Edit update:
---------------
As subsequently posted by @R1600Turbo - AZ Gov. Jan Brewer has vetoed this bill:tup:

 

[orimarc]

How much does it take to go from "bill needs a signature from a Governor" to "bill becomes law and is usable on trials"? Because this just seems bat-poop crazy.

 

[Dotini]

this just seems bat-poop crazy.

Bingo!

 

[Danoff]

SB1062 specifically protects all individuals, businesses and religious institutions from discrimination lawsuits if they can show that their discriminatory actions were motivated by religious convictions.

Looks to me like it's not broad enough. They shouldn't have to show religious motivation.

 

[Zenith]

After reading that CNN article I have to ask... When did discrimination become a bad thing? I discriminate between foods based on what I know about them. I discriminate between people when I decide who I want to be my friends.

This bill? It's definitely done for the wrong reasons, but I'm not convinced that allowing religious people (or any people) to discriminate who they hire, who they give money to, or who they associate with is an inherently bad thing.

IMO, the bad part of the bill is saying that religion is a valid reason to discriminate rather than any reason.

Tree'd by Danoff.

 

[Dennisch]

What a brilliant bill. If that becomes a law, who can take that state's government ever serious again??

 

[GTsail]

After reading that CNN article I have to ask... When did discrimination become a bad thing?

Always?

The United States has been trying to reduce discrimination in various ways for 200 years. For example, the 15th Amendment to the US Constitution says that the right of citizens to vote shall not be abridged on account of race or color. Also, the 19th Amendment to the US Constitution specifically says that the right of citizens to vote shall not be denied on the account of their sex.

This bill? It's definitely done for the wrong reasons, but I'm not convinced that allowing religious people (or any people) to discriminate who they hire, who they give money to, or who they associate with is an inherently bad thing.

IMO, the bad part of the bill is saying that religion is a valid reason to discriminate rather than any reason.

Do you remember the Jim Crow laws?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Crow_Laws

These laws allowed racial discrimination at restaurants, schools, public transportation, etc.

Were these laws a benefit to African Americans?

Most of these Jim Crow laws were thrown out when Congress passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964, link:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964

Title 2 of the 1964 Act outlawed discrimination based on race, religion or national origin in hotels, motels, restaurants, theaters, and all other public accommodations engaged in interstate commerce.

I think that this Arizona law (SB1062) would be a huge step backwards, and would likely be used as cover to harm minorities of all sorts (racial/religion/sex/sexual orientation).

Respectfully,
GTsail

 

[LeMansAid]

I think I read somewhere that this is a solution trying to find a problem, and I think I might agree. I boycott businesses for all sorts of reasons, which can effectively say "discrimination right back at ya". The trouble is that that concept doesn't work so well when a person or business has a monopoly on a good or service.

 

[Exorcet]

Do you remember the Jim Crow laws?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Crow_Laws

These laws allowed racial discrimination at restaurants, schools, public transportation, etc.

Were these laws a benefit to African Americans?

They weren't the problem so much as the thinking behind them. A common example showing this is the women's gym vs the men's gym. No one cares about the former, but sometimes people say the latter is sexism. It's not, it's just a place that was intended to do business with one particular sex, there is no problem with that.

When I was in school there were plenty of minority clubs, I would see something like a "white gym" or "white restaurant" as a similar entity. Now what can't happen is that say, a black gym pays less taxes than a white gym for no reason besides the ethnicity of the people going there. There is also a problem if one gym harasses the other (which is not promoted by the law). But if someone wants to set up a place of business for one specific group, it's OK. The other groups will make their own business or go elsewhere.

Title 2 of the 1964 Act outlawed discrimination based on race, religion or national origin in hotels, motels, restaurants, theaters, and all other public accommodations engaged in interstate commerce.

I think that this Arizona law (SB1062) would be a huge step backwards, and would likely be used as cover to harm minorities of all sorts (racial/religion/sex/sexual orientation).

Respectfully,
GTsail

Discrimination is not harm, so crimes against people will still be crimes. Also regardless of what's legal or not people can choose what they like. I would not support a racist/sexist/whateverist business. It's quite possible that a legal business under that law would be forced to close down.

 

[Zenith]

Always?

The article said this:

Arizona set itself up for yet another self-inflicted political wound, international humiliation, costly boycotts and historical shame now that its legislature has passed a bill giving people the right to discriminate.

Discrimination based on race, sex, religion, sexuality is bad in my opinion. The author seems to be unaware that most discrimination is something people have a right to and do daily for good reasons.

The United States has been trying to reduce discrimination in various ways for 200 years. For example, the 15th Amendment to the US Constitution says that the right of citizens to vote shall not be abridged on account of race or color. Also, the 19th Amendment to the US Constitution specifically says that the right of citizens to vote shall not be denied on the account of their sex.

I agree with the 15th and 19th amendment. The Government should not be allowed to discriminate. They should have to treat everyone as equals (with a few exceptions such as minors.)

Do you remember the Jim Crow laws?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Crow_Laws

These laws allowed racial discrimination at restaurants, schools, public transportation, etc.

Were these laws a benefit to African Americans?

As far as public transportation and public schools, I agree that Jim Crow Laws were very unjust.

I do believe that, for instance, a private restaurant has the right to discriminate its customers. It is their service, their time, their money. I don't agree that they should discriminate based on race, gender, etc. but I believe it is their right to do so if they wish.

We had a good thread on this a while ago: Here.

Most of these Jim Crow laws were thrown out when Congress passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964, link:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964

Title 2 of the 1964 Act outlawed discrimination based on race, religion or national origin in hotels, motels, restaurants, theaters, and all other public accommodations engaged in interstate commerce.

And I don't believe that solved the problem. I think that it is impossible to crack down on a business that treats X race guests more poorly than Y race guests. I've seen racist/sexist businesses. They still exist and still discriminate in spite of the law.

I think that this Arizona law (SB1062) would be a huge step backwards, and would likely be used as cover to harm minorities of all sorts (racial/religion/sex/sexual orientation).

Respectfully,
GTsail

I agree with this for different reasons. This law effectively puts religious persons and organizations at an unfair advantage.

I boycott businesses for all sorts of reasons, which can effectively say "discrimination right back at ya". The trouble is that that concept doesn't work so well when a person or business has a monopoly on a good or service.

This is a legitimate concern, but in general I think that people underestimate the effect the would have by boycotting a business, especially if they make that boycott public. Not all boycotts will make a business change their ways, but boycotting a product affects the business' income. I do not eat Ben and Jerry's Ice Cream because they donate to anti-gun groups (that and how overpriced their ice cream is). I don't expect them to stop donating to anti-gun groups, and if they were to release a product that I liked enough, they could potentially buy out my loyalties with a good product. This is fair.

If we look at monopolies I would take Cable companies as an example. Many people are attempting to force "net neutrality" upon companies or stop them from throttling bandwidth, but the simple answer is to not buy products from people you think are evil. Unfortunately, cable companies are put in an unnatural state of power for a variety of reasons and competition is unnaturally difficult for companies that wouldn't be evil towards their customer base.

 

[Danoff]

Always?

The United States has been trying to reduce discrimination in various ways for 200 years. For example, the 15th Amendment to the US Constitution says that the right of citizens to vote shall not be abridged on account of race or color. Also, the 19th Amendment to the US Constitution specifically says that the right of citizens to vote shall not be denied on the account of their sex.


Do you remember the Jim Crow laws?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Crow_Laws

These laws allowed racial discrimination at restaurants, schools, public transportation, etc.

Were these laws a benefit to African Americans?

Most of these Jim Crow laws were thrown out when Congress passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964, link:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964

Title 2 of the 1964 Act outlawed discrimination based on race, religion or national origin in hotels, motels, restaurants, theaters, and all other public accommodations engaged in interstate commerce.

I think that this Arizona law (SB1062) would be a huge step backwards, and would likely be used as cover to harm minorities of all sorts (racial/religion/sex/sexual orientation).

Respectfully,
GTsail

Government isn't allowed to discriminate (equal protection under the law). Which is why Jim crow laws were tossed out, and why they shouldn't have needed a civil rights act to be tossed out. And nobody can be denied the right to vote because of equal protection.

Government can't discriminate, private businesses, can do whatever they want as long as they don't violate anyone's rights. And nobody has a right to have other people do business with them or employ them etc. etc.

 

[Imari]

I agree with the 15th and 19th amendment. The Government should not be allowed to discriminate. They should have to treat everyone as equals (with a few exceptions such as minors.)

This.

Trying to stop individuals from discriminating is like trying to hold back the tide. It's a necessary part of life. And this is true also for individuals doing business. If a wedding photographer doesn't want to do gay weddings, or black weddings, or weddings held outdoors, or whatever, that's their business. Last time I checked, an individual was free to set their own limits for what they were comfortable with, not be forced into situations just because they happen to be in a certain profession. That's the same logic that leads to date rape (but she was there and we'd already been out to dinner and she *should* have sex with me).

People are allowed to say no. I'm amazed it took a law to state this.

 

[Danoff]

People are allowed to say no. I'm amazed it took a law to state this.

Funny enough though, the law that states this actually does violate equal protection, because it singles out religious people and treats them differently than non-religious people. Religious people are allowed to discriminate for religious reasons, but someone who wants to discriminate for non-religious reasons is out of luck, that's unconstitutional.

But yea, there is a massive bright line between government and business here.

 

[TenEightyOne]

I think that this Arizona law (SB1062) would be a huge step backwards, and would likely be used as cover to harm minorities of all sorts (racial/religion/sex/sexual orientation).

Absolutely.

I haven't read the law yet but my understanding is that a defendant simply has to convince a court beyond reasonable doubt that they refused a service because it contravened their religious beliefs in their own mind?

Proving what's in someone's mind is difficult enough, proving what is/isn't correct religious doctrine even more so.

This law is bound to fail if you consider that laws are there to protect the overall good of society. From my own understanding of the situation this seems ludicrous.

 

[LeMansAid]

I think that this Arizona law (SB1062) would be a huge step backwards, and would likely be used as cover to harm minorities of all sorts (racial/religion/sex/sexual orientation).

There's quite a difference between not giving (not helping), and taking away (harming) though. I just feel for individuals discriminated against in isolated communities, where there may be a sole provider of a service.

 

[TenEightyOne]

There's quite a difference between not giving (not helping), and taking away (harming) though...

You can harm by simply taking an inactive, passive stance, surely? This law allows discrimination based on untested unprovable beliefs that a lot of people feel are outdated or misinterpreted.

You're right about discrimination in more isolated communities, that would be real problem under this law.

 

[Keef]

The only entities that shouldn't be allowed to discriminate are public ones, basically the government. Any private entities should be allowed to discriminate based on whatever criteria they want as an exercise of their property rights.

EDIT: That CNN article goes to show that you don't have to be smart to teach other people. All you have to do is get your work done on time, get Cs or better, and not get kicked out of the school your daddy is paying for. That Whitaker asshole clearly has no concept of property rights, otherwise he wouldn't be spewing such garbage through his fingertips.

 

[TenEightyOne]

The only entities that shouldn't be allowed to discriminate are public ones, basically the government. Any private entities should be allowed to discriminate based on whatever criteria they want as an exercise of their property rights.

So bars could refuse to serve women? Or a golf club could exclude black members? A lot of people have died trying to wipe that kind of view out of the world :\

More OT: Looking at the text of the amendement I wonder if Article C (superseding D as it does) might be invoked by a crafty Constitutional lawyer? State law has to inherit Federal law which indirectly could provide the burden to religious expression under test 1, furthering of a compelling governmental interest?

 

[Keef]

So bars could refuse to serve women? Or a golf club could exclude black members? A lot of people have died trying to wipe that kind of view out of the world :\

That bar is the property of the owner, like his house. If he doesn't want a certain type of person on his property, like his house, then he should be allowed to keep those people off his property. Does the law say that you have to let any ol' person into your house? No. It shouldn't say that you have to let anybody in your business, either.

Nowhere have a I said that discrimination is good. I just said it should be allowed because a property owner should have control over who enters his property, no exceptions.

State law has to inherit Federal law

Not true. State laws usually are in line with Federal laws but this law itself, as well as the whole marijuana situation, show that State and Federal laws can be completely different. The only reason they're tied together is because the Feds want you to think they have to be tied together so you don't go getting ideas that will threaten their control over State governments.

States also have the implied power to simply nullify a Federal law they don't agree with, ignoring it as if it doesn't exist, via the 10th amendment.

 

[Imari]

Funny enough though, the law that states this actually does violate equal protection, because it singles out religious people and treats them differently than non-religious people. Religious people are allowed to discriminate for religious reasons, but someone who wants to discriminate for non-religious reasons is out of luck, that's unconstitutional.

Oh I agree, that part is total BS.

I assume however that it would never hold up like that, because one can always claim that one's belief in the Flying Spaghetti Monster requires whatever discrimination that one wants. It's essentially a free pass for the non-religious to make up reasons why they are "required" to discriminate.

So bars could refuse to serve women? Or a golf club could exclude black members? A lot of people have died trying to wipe that kind of view out of the world :\

They're allowed to, yes.

You'll notice that nightclubs are notoriously picky about who they let in. It's exactly the same thing, but it's just an accepted practise.

 

[TenEightyOne]

That bar is the property of the owner, like his house. If he doesn't want a certain type of person on his property, like his house, then he should be allowed to keep those people off his property. Does the law say that you have to let any ol' person into your house? No. It shouldn't say that you have to let anybody in your business, either.

This is only my personal opinion, but that's disgusting that somebody can think like that in modern times

One want to sell stuff to one's friends, fine. One wants to open a business for whites only... one is scum.

EDIT: You changed to One to avoid any inference of personal scum-calling.

EDIT: @Imari , not on the basis of race or gender except when specifically licensed. Door staff are entitled to turn people away based on certain criteria where a social norm is expected. That isn't unreasonable, for example you wouldn't expect them to let a tramp in regardless of his race.

Keef actively supports whites-only business, personally I think that's wrong and disgusting.

 

[Keef]

This is only my personal opinion, but that's disgusting that somebody can think like that in modern times

You think it's disgusting that a property owner should have control over who and what happens on his property?

EDIT: @Imari , not on the basis of race or gender except when specifically licensed. Door staff are entitled to turn people away based on certain criteria where a social norm is expected. That isn't unreasonable, for example you wouldn't expect them to let a tramp in regardless of his race.

There is no way to prove that door staff turn people away based on certain criteria. There are laws, of course, but what they actually do is completely different. They don't keep track of statistics, either. @Imari is right that a club bouncer is probably the best example of protecting property by keeping certain people out.

EDIT: You changed to One to avoid any inference of personal scum-calling.

...

Keef actively supports whites-only business, personally I think that's wrong and disgusting.

I appreciate that you changed your language to avoid name-calling, and then stated that I support something that I do not. Talk about consistency. Where exactly did I state that I support such a thing?

 

[TenEightyOne]

I appreciate that you changed your language to avoid name-calling, and then stated that I support something that I do not. Talk about consistency. Where exactly did I state that I support such a thing?

I asked "So bars could refuse to serve women? Or a golf club could exclude black members?".

You replied, "That bar is the property of the owner, like his house. If he doesn't want a certain type of person on his property, like his house, then he should be allowed to keep those people off his property. Does the law say that you have to let any ol' person into your house? No. It shouldn't say that you have to let anybody in your business, either.

Nowhere have a I said that discrimination is good. I just said it should be allowed because a property owner should have control over who enters his property, no exceptions."

I don't have any problem with someone choosing who does or doesn't go into their house.

Trying to apply the same rules to a business is absolutely wrong. You can't use any indecent criteria to pick and choose customers. You can use decent socially acceptable criteria and even find examples of people like door staff who are in a position to abuse the law as you pointed out.

 

[Tornado]

A business is no less private property than a home is.

 

[TenEightyOne]

A business is no less private property than a home is.

So you don't require public liability insurance, you don't pay public tax, you don't pay business rates, you're not a public business? I have genuinely never met anyone in real life who takes the line that a business property is in some way like a home property?

If you have the kind of business that has an open front door (or phone line, or website) then you can not say who comes in and out of it unless they outrage the public decency or it clearly should not be in a certain place due to normal legal restrictions. That isn't just right in law, that's morally right. Segregation and apartheid are behind much of the world now.

If you have an invitation-only business of some kind then that is of course different dependent on how you publicly manage yourself.

 

[Keef]

I don't have any problem with someone choosing who does or doesn't go into their house.

Trying to apply the same rules to a business is absolutely wrong. You can't use any indecent criteria to pick and choose customers.

Why not? Surely there is a logical explanation to support your view.

 

[TenEightyOne]

Why not? Surely there is a logical explanation to support your view.

I can't conceive of a world where a bar owner could say he's not letting a family in because they're black.

What you're saying seems to suggest that there's no problem with that?

 

[CodeRedR51]

This law was veto'd tonight.

 

[Tornado]

So you don't require public liability insurance,

You don't always need it, no. It depends on your location and what service/good you are providing.

you don't pay public tax, you don't pay business rates,

You pay public taxes on your home too.

If you have the kind of business that has an open front door (or phone line, or website) then you can not say who comes in and out of it unless they outrage the public decency or it clearly should not be in a certain place due to normal legal restrictions.

This isn't expanding your point so much as repeating it.

That isn't just right in law, that's morally right. Segregation and apartheid are behind much of the world now.

Apartheid isn't even remotely comparable; and since you brought it up in the same breath as segregation I'm assuming you mean de jure segregation, which also isn't remotely comparable.

 

[Keef]

I can't conceive of a world where a bar owner could say he's not letting a family in because they're black.

What you're saying seems to suggest that there's no problem with that?

This doesn't sound like a logical explanation for your opinion.

So you don't require public liability insurance, you don't pay public tax, you don't pay business rates, you're not a public business? I have genuinely never met anyone in real life who takes the line that a business property is in some way like a home property?

I have a feeling you're not from the US so I'd like to clarify something. The word "public" in the US refers to government. These things are technically "owned" by everybody because the government runs them. That's what "public" means here. But "private" refers to something that is owned by an individual person. Your house is private property, as is your business.

I assume the reason you have no exposure to this idea is because you're not familiar with the American attitude toward private property. This is a core foundation of our country and government. It's an attitude that exists in very few places outside the US, honestly.

If you have the kind of business that has an open front door (or phone line, or website) then you can not say who comes in and out of it unless...

What if you leave the front door to your house open? Does that mean that people can come and go as they please?

That isn't just right in law, that's morally right.

Claiming that something is morally correct means I have to ask you for a logical explanation. Morality is based on logic and reason, not emotion. Just because something feels wrong doesn't mean it is, and just because something feels right doesn't mean it is.

EDIT: I'd like to clarify that segregation as it existed in the US through the mid 1900s was not just enacted by individual people but was enforced by the government. There's a very important difference between those two things. As I explained earlier, the government is a public entity - it governs everybody and therefore it must treat everybody the same. Government, logically, is not allowed to discriminate. But private individuals are. They don't govern anybody but themselves.