The Truth About the Arizona Religious Freedom Bill That the Gay Lobby Doesn’t Want You to Know

Arizona Governor Jan Brewer

Some have claimed that a bill recently passed by the Arizona legislature would give businesses broad license to not serve someone for being gay. This claim, though, may be a misreading, according a CP legislative analysis. While the bill is an attempt to broaden who is covered under its religious freedom protections, in all cases it actually narrows when a religious belief could be used to refuse service.

Here are six important points to understand about the Arizona Religious Freedom Restoration Act:

1.  If Gov. Jan Brewer (R) signs it, the bill, S.B. 1062, would make some modifications to a 1999 Arizona law called the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA).

2.  Under current Arizona law, if a business wanted to discriminate against gays, they would not need this bill to be passed to do so. It is not currently illegal for a business to deny service to someone because they are gay. Some cities in Arizona have ordinances against it but there is no state law against it. If business owners in Arizona wanted to deny service to gays, they could do so in most of the state under current law.

3. Even though business owners across most of Arizona (and much of the United States) have the right to deny service to gays, they are not doing so. Opponents of the bill claim it would usher in an era of “Jim Crow for gays,” in which gays would be denied service at businesses across the state. If business owners really wanted to do this, though, they could already be doing it.

4. A RFRA law, either state or federal, does not give anyone the license to do anything they want based upon their religious beliefs. Rather, it says what needs to happen for the government to take away someone’s religious freedom. RFRA provides citizens with religious freedom protections, but that does not mean that everyone who claims their religious freedom is violated will win a court case using RFRA as their defense.

5. No business has ever successfully used RFRA, either a state RFRA or the federal RFRA, to defend their right to not serve gays. In fact, no business has even been before a court claiming to have that right.

6. Even if a business wanted to claim the right to not serve gays under RFRA, their claim would be even harder to defend under S.B. 1062. So, anyone who is concerned that someone may one day try to use RFRA to discriminate against gays should prefer the bill that was just passed over current law.

To understand these points, it first helps to understand the history of RFRA.

In 1993 a broad coalition of both conservatives and liberals came together in support of the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act. This law would tell the courts that the state may only violate someone’s religious freedom under certain conditions, and it is up to the government to show those conditions are met. Plus, having a law that is generally applicable (applies to all faiths and those with no faith), is not sufficient reason to deny someone religious freedom.

The law was passed by an overwhelming majority, a unanimous vote in the House and a 97 to three vote in the Senate, and signed by a Democratic president – Bill Clinton.

Later, though, the U.S. Supreme Court would rule, in Boerne vs. Flores (1996), that RFRA cannot be applied to state laws. States would have to pass their own RFRA if they wanted it to apply to their state and local laws, the Court said. So, many states did exactly that. Arizona was one of those states.

Arizona Senate OKs bill that protects one's religious beliefs

The Arizona Senate has passed a Republican-backed bill that expands the rights of people to assert their religious beliefs in refusing service to gays and others.

Democrats and civil rights groups opposed the bill being pushed by social conservatives, saying it would allow discriminatory actions by businesses.

But GOP Sen. Steve Yarbrough of Chandler says his push was prompted by a New Mexico case where the state Supreme Court allowed a gay couple to sue a photographer who refused to take pictures of their wedding. He says he's protecting religious rights.

The 33-27 vote by the House sends the legislation to Republican Gov. Jan Brewer and puts Arizona back at the forefront of a polarizing piece of legislation four years after the state enacted an immigration crackdown that caused a national furor.

Similar religious protection legislation has been introduced in Ohio, Mississippi, Idaho, South Dakota, Tennessee and Oklahoma, but Arizona's plan is the only one that has passed to date.

Democrats sponsored eight hostile amendments during Wednesday's debate that were rejected by Republicans who control the Senate.

A similar bill is making its way through the House.

Over 100 Pastors to Urge Support for Traditional Marriage

Detroit, Michigan – At a news conference in Detroit, Michigan, on February 24, 2014, over 100 pastors and Christian leaders from the City of Detroit and throughout the State of Michigan will join together at First

 Pastor Lennell Caldwell, of First Baptist World Changers

Baptist World Changers Church, 22575 West Eight Mile Road, Detroit, MI 48219, at 10:30am, in support of the Michigan Marriage Amendment that was passed by voters in 2004. The pastors will bring their collective voices in support of traditional marriage between one man and one woman as a federal bench trial, DeBoer vs. Snyder, is set to begin in Detroit on February 25, 2014, that will debate the 2004 marriage amendment as well as the state’s adoption law. “We, over 100 Pastors and Christian leaders from not only Detroit, but across the State of Michigan want to send a message that there are yet still pastors in city and State – in truth, the overwhelming majority of pastors -- who stand by both our Michigan Constitution and our Judeo Christian values,” said Pastor Lennell Caldwell, First Baptist World Changers. “We believe that marriage between one man and one woman creates the best possible environment for the health and wellness of children. While we agree that every American has a right to choose to live as he or she wants, no one is entitled to redefine marriage.” On February 25, 2014, Judge Bernard Friedman of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan will begin to preside over DeBoer vs. Snyder, a lawsuit that will address both the 2004 voter approved amendment to the Michigan Constitution that defines marriage between one man and one woman as well as the state adoption law. News media have indicated the trial is expected to last at least eight days. “We believe that the family structure is absolutely and eternally connected to human flourishing,” said Apostle Ellis Smith, Jubilee Church, Detroit."Moreover, children do far better when raised by a man and woman who are married, receiving the unconditional love and support of both their mother and father.” There are several vital points the pastors wish to highlight about God and marriage between one man and one woman: · God created marriage as a covenant between one man and one woman · God created marriage between one man and one woman to be the foundation for building a family · God created sexuality as an expression of unity between a man and a woman in the marriage covenant · God created the covenant of marriage between one man and one woman as a replication of the covenant between God and man. “The issue of marriage protection is not a matter of conservatism, liberalism, libertarianism, Democrat or Republican platforms, but is a matter of righteousness. It is a matter of Biblical principles,” concluded Rev. Dr. Roland A. Caldwell, Pastor of Burnette Inspirational Ministry. The pastors in support of this message are from The Baptist Pastors Fellowship, Westside Minister's Alliance, Concerned Pastors Fellowship Minister Alliance and others who are coming forward in support of support of Michigan's Marriage Protection Amendment.

Over 100 Pastors to Urge Support for Traditional Marriage WHAT: News conference to announce support for 2004 voter-approved Michigan Marriage Amendment that defines marriage between one man and one woman. WHO: More than 100 pastors and Christian leaders from Detroit and across the state. WHEN: February 24, 2014, at 10:30am WHERE: First Baptist World Changers Church, 22575 West Eight Mile Road, Detroit, MI 48219, WHY: On February 25, 2014, Judge Bernard Friedman of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan will begin to preside over DeBoer vs. Snyder, a lawsuit that will address both the 2004 voter approved amendment to the Michigan Constitution that defines marriage between one man and one woman as well as the state adoption law. News media have indicated the trial is expected to last at least eight days.

For more information contact: Contact: Juanita email: pastors4marriage@aol.com or Contact: Stacy Email: reviveus.us@aol.com Phone: 313-887-0942

Democrat Senators Push To Force Hobby Lobby To Go Against Religious Beliefs And Comply With Obamacare in Supreme Court

Democratic senators intervened Tuesday in the Supreme Court fight over whether ObamaCare can force the company Hobby Lobby to provide contraceptive coverage to workers, arguing that "secular" businesses should not be exempt from the mandate.

The 19 senators planned to file a brief before the court, which is still weeks away from considering the closely watched case. Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash., who planned to make her case on the Senate floor, adamantly defended the Obama administration's side.

  "What's at stake in this case before the Supreme Court is whether a CEO's personal beliefs can trump a woman's right to access free or low-cost contraception under the Affordable Care Act," she said in prepared remarks.

But Republican senators returned fire, jumping to Hobby Lobby's defense in a brief of their own.
"The ability to practice the faith we choose is one of our great constitutional rights. The Obama administration's contraceptive mandate stomps on that right," Sen. David Vitter said in a statement. He joined Sens. Ted Cruz, R-Texas; John Cornyn, R-Texas; and Mike Lee, R-Utah in the brief.

The dueling arguments come as the Supreme Court prepares to consider the case. The justices said in November they would take up the issue, which has divided the lower courts in the face of roughly 40 lawsuits from for-profit companies asking to be spared from having to cover some or all forms of contraception.

The Obama administration promotes the law's provision of a range of preventive care, free of charge, as a key benefit of the health care overhaul. Contraception is included in the package of cost-free benefits, which opponents say is an attack on the religious freedom of employers.

The court will consider two cases. One involves Hobby Lobby Inc., an Oklahoma City-based arts and crafts chain with 13,000 full-time employees. Hobby Lobby won in the lower courts.

The other case is an appeal from Conestoga Wood Specialties Corp., a Pennsylvania company that employs 950 people in making wood cabinets. Lower courts rejected the company's claims.

The court said the cases will be combined for arguments, probably in late March. A decision should come by late June.

The cases center on the provision of the law that requires most employers that offer health insurance to their workers to provide the range of preventive health benefits. In both instances, the Christian families that own the companies say that insuring some forms of contraception violates their religious beliefs.

The key issue is whether profit-making corporations may assert religious beliefs under the 1993 Religious Freedom Restoration Act or the First Amendment provision guaranteeing Americans the right to believe and worship as they choose.

The brief from Democratic senators on Tuesday argued that exempting for-profit businesses from the mandate would be "inconsistent" with that 1993 law.