Submitted by Elaine Magliaro, Weekend Contributor
Mark Fiore said he was thankful that Governor Jan Brewer vetoed Arizona’s “religious freedom” bill last week. If the bill became law, Fiore said, it “would’ve given people carte blanche to discriminate against gay people (and others, for that matter).” Fiore also said what he found most baffling about the whole thing was the existence of a state legislature that would pass such a bill.
Elaine,
I believe that some of these states will pass their own discrimination laws once the heat dies down from the Arizona experience.
This was an effort by Arizona to protect people whose work is expressive in nature. This Arizona bill will have been superfluous anyway, one the SCOTUS reverses Elane Photography v. Willock next term.
States fight to push anti-gay bills. But will they pass?
02/20/14 –Updated 02/27/14
By Adam Serwer
http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/states-push-anti-gay-bills-will-they-pass
Excerpt:
The Supreme Court’s ruling striking down the Defense of Marriage Act last summer set off a chain reaction of federal judges ruling state bans on same-sex marriage bans as unconstitutional. But at the same time that same-sex marriage rights appear to be advancing, conservative legislators in more than a dozen states have been pushing for exceptions that would allow discrimination against gays and lesbians in the name of religious freedom.
The Rachel Maddow Show, 2/25/14, 11:04 PM ET
Anti-gay bills take GOP legislatures by storm
“Religious freedom is a shield, not a sword,” says Nick Worner of the Ohio ACLU, paraphrasing George H.W. Bush appointed federal Judge Carol Jackson. “It’s not religious freedom when you’re using it to hurt someone else.”…
Idaho: House bill 426 in Idaho would prevent the denial or revocation of a professional or occupational license for someone who refuses services to, or makes employment decisions based on their religious beliefs. That means not only could say, a doctor deny medical care to a patient or an architect refuse to build someone a house based on their “sincerely held religious beliefs or exercise of religion,” but the state would be unable to revoke their license for doing so.
Status: The state senate recently sent the bill back to committee, so the bill may be dead for the moment because in Idaho the legislature usually only meets until March. “There’s a good possibility this may be done,” Leo Morales of the Idaho ACLU said, as a result of a “combination of pressure from the community and legislators opposed to the bill.”
Georgia: Shortly after the Arizona bill was passed, a similar one began moving rapidly moving through the Georgia legislature. Like Arizona’s bill, it would allow broad religious exceptions to laws unless the state can prove that it is pursuing a “compelling interest” and it would allow someone being sued for discrimination to assert their religious views as a defense. Like Arizona, Georgia has no state laws banning discrimination against gays and lesbians but some cities and local jurisdictions do–and LGBT rights activists are worried that this bill would trump those local ordinances.
Status: Public opposition to the bill appears to have helped block it this session. An NPR affiliate in Atlanta reported that the Republican head of the state house judiciary committee said that he “can’t see it happening. It came in rather late in the session. Too many proponents and opponents.”
Kansas: For many Americans, it was Kansas’ proposal that first drew attention to the slate of religious freedom bills all over the country that would allow businesses to refuse to serve customers on the basis of sexual orientation. But critics say Kansas’ bill would go farther than that – by building its exemption around “sincerely held religious beliefs of the individual or religious entity regarding sex or gender,” straight people whose relationships don’t conform to those beliefs could find themselves discriminated against. An employer could also exempt an employee in such a relationship from benefits for married couples unless federal law says otherwise, and individual government employees could similarly refuse services – although the state government would be obligated to provide someone who was willing to provide the service in their stead. Supporters say the bill only creates exemptions for businesses if the service is related to same-sex wedding ceremonies or celebrations, but the wording of the bill is much broader.
Status: The bill is stalled in the Kansas state senate for now, but activists say it’s likely to return soon in some form. “I think they’re very committed to passing some kind of discriminatory bill and so they’re trying to do it in a way that doesn’t draw as much public notice or attention,” Eunice Rho of the ACLU said.
Elaine,
This cartoon would be hilarious if it wasn’t so true. The idea that states should be able to decide who can marry is the same question asked during the battle over slavery and Jim Crow laws. If anyone is allowed to discriminate against anyone, we are all injured and in danger.
randyjet, The Dem politicians apparently bathed in magic waters and were instantly cleansed of being bigots prior to 2012. After their epiphany, the “BIGOT, HOMOPHOBE” screaming really intensified. Of course, Dem politicians have a history of bathing in magic waters, Jim Crow and all.
NO Nick, those Dems didn’t bathe in magic waters, they simply became the GOP, and those folks did not bathe in even tepid GOP waters since many state GOPs refuse to have a Lincoln day celebration. Especially the South Carolina GOP which still hates Lincoln.
randyjet,
The “religious freedom” bill that Brewer vetoed wasn’t a gay marriage bill.
Not all states acknowledge same-sex marriage. Gays and lesbians should have the same rights as heterosexuals.
*****
Same-sex couples still face tax nightmares
By Blake Ellis
3/5/14
http://money.cnn.com/2014/03/05/pf/taxes/same-sex-taxes/
Excerpt:
Married same-sex couples finally have the right to file their federal taxes jointly this year. But for many of those living in states that don’t recognize their unions, this will be the most complicated and expensive tax season yet.
Dave Greenbaum, 43, expects to spend more money than he ever has before to get his taxes prepared this year. He and his husband Mike Silverman, 41, were legally married in California in 2008 but they now live in Kansas, where same-sex marriage isn’t recognized.
So now that the Defense of Marriage Act has been overturned and more than 1,000 federal spousal benefits have been extended to same-sex couples, Greenbaum and Silverman are able to file jointly at the federal level for the first time. But in Kansas, they will still need to file separate state returns.
That means their accountant will need to fill out a total of five returns — two separate state returns, one joint federal return, and two separate federal returns that won’t actually get filed to the government but will be used to calculate individual state liabilities.
Nick: Thanks. I feel better now.
One of the few areas I disagree with OS is that I can see no rational justification for having courts rule that the states have no right to define marriage. It does his case no good to brand those who oppose such marriages as bigots. I guess then that Obama, and the whole Democratic Party were bigots and homophobes up until 2012. It is like branding all those who oppose reparations for black Americans bigots and racists. It does not follow that one must be bigots and racists if one does not give in to the demands of some group.
I am quite glad that Brewer vetoed the stupid bill the AZ legislature passed and I agree with the SCOTUS ruling on the DOMA law since that law required blatant discrimination that could not withstand a rational basis test for not recognizing similar rights for a legally married gay couple to deny them the same rights as those who are legally married who are opposite sex unions. I also agree that New York state has the perfect right to grant same sex marriages by legislation. I think that civil unions are perfectly adequate to address the concerns of gays and would ALSO benefit others who are not gay with civil unions. I do not see the need for gay marriage law, unless the Family courts are so underworked that the judges need more work to keep them awake. Then the legislature will also have to pass new laws to deal with divorce problems specific only to gay marriages.
The bogus argument that gay marriage will lead to bestiality and other things are absurd. What is NOT absurd is that one can use these court rulings to justify making polygamy legal since the same arguments for allowing gay marriage have equal force as regards polygamy. If the state cannot restrict or define marriage, then it most certainly cannot do the same for polygamy and only bigots would deny them the same rights as gays. This is even more apparent when one recalls that gay marriage has NO previous legal history in the US while polygamy has that in the US. Indeed historically polygamy is the norm in most of history and many countries even today. So the fact is that polygamy is even more valid as a RIGHT than gay marriage is.
The fact is that gay are not barred from marriage since millions of gays have married persons of the opposite sex with no problem. It would be discrimination if a state passed a law requiring proof of being heterosexual and denying gays marriage to persons of the opposite sex. That would not pass the rational basis test since the state has no interest in denying gays the same rights as others to marry a person of the opposite sex and would be impermissible discrimination. Just as denying interracial marriage or cross religious marriages would be illegal as per the Loving decision. One cannot seriously apply Loving to invalidate marriage law since gay marriage had not even been THOUGHT of at the time of Loving. So Loving can ONLY be read as heterosexual marriage is a right. The proponents then have as their only defense, that our views have evolved and the judiciary has the right to substitute themselves as the legislature and order legislators to pass laws to conform to THEIR views. The judges thus declare their personal views to be of more consequence and validity than the legally elected representatives of the REAL community standards and of evolution of views. This flies in the face of judicial restraint, and simply applying existing laws to cases and resolving conflicts between them.
Justin, Capitalism has proven to be the best of bad choices.
Yes, Vegas is a much more healthy environment than Phoenix.
Chuck,
In 2010, the National Council of Teachers of English cancelled its 2012 annual convention that it had planned to hold in Phoenix, Arizona. The convention was held in Las Vegas instead…because of Arizona’s passage of S.B. 1070.
From NCTE
“NCTE Executive Committee Cancels 2012 Phoenix Convention
The 2012 NCTE Annual Convention will be held in Las Vegas, Nevada, November 14-19
“On August 9, 2010, NCTE cancelled its Annual Convention that had been scheduled to be held November 14-19, 2012, in Phoenix, Arizona. The NCTE Executive Committee determined that Arizona law S.B. 1070 made it inadvisable to hold the meeting. Through the law, conditions have been created which would undercut NCTE’s core value commitment to diversity and
present a risk for many members who might be detained for an immigration check should they be stopped by police, with or without a warrant, during their stay in the city.”
http://www.ncte.org/library/NCTEFiles/Press/NCTECancels2010PhoenixConvention_release.pdf
You don’t have to be a socialist to recognize that Capitalism is an evil system. Any system that has to walk on human beings to get ahead is evil.
Capitalism does work. Just take a look at Wall Street.
The socialists loathe to admit that capitalism works. Politics IS ABOUT PRESSURE. The pressure comes from ALL types of interest.
Dave,
I couldn’t agree more. One has to wonder, however, if Brewer would have vetoed the bill if she hadn’t gotten so much pressure from business interests.
Dave: agree. In a perfect world that may have been the case, but this is Capitalism. Money talks and B/S walks. Cash is King.
While it was altogether proper for business interests to point out the negative financial impact of the law, it is important not to lose sight of the point that it should have been vetoed even if there were no material impact.
Dr. Stanley, religion has poisoned people’s minds with the twisted belief that all LGBT people do all day is stay in bed engaging in lewd & lascivious acts.
One of the things that leaves me scratching my head is the strawman argument used by homophobic bigots who keep saying that if LGBT people are given the same rights straight people have, it will open the door to bestiality, incest, pedophilia and who knows what else.
As if those illegal activities will somehow be made legal by equal rights laws. And besides, straight people are in prison right now for doing those things.
I saw that the President of Alaska Airlines wrote a polite, but firm, letter to Governor Brewer urging her to veto the bill. He points out, correctly, that his company is in the business of transporting tourists, and if Arizona suddenly becomes a pariah for out of state visitors, it will affect the bottom line for the airline. American Airlines, Southwest Airlines and Delta officials also leaned on Governor Brewer to veto the bill for the same reason.
http://www.themudflats.net/archives/42107
http://seattletimes.com/html/travel/2022992370_arizonalawtravelxml.html
Reblogged this on U.S. Constitutional Free Press.