This may have been discussed already, but since I'm a resident of Arizona, I'm putting my two cents worth in.
Been having a facebook discussion on this bill which amends existing legislation this morning. Actually, I first heard about this bill a couple of weeks ago, and have been reading it and re-reading it ever since.
Here's some examples
I’ve read the bill (its only two pages long), and while I don’t speak legalese, the general gist I get is that the bill gives anyone (or any business or whatever) the right to discriminate against ANYONE, by ANYONE, on the grounds that Person B’s beliefs or actions go counter to Person A’s religious beliefs. Its not just LGBT, its EVERYONE.
Example1: Sheriff Goodenough gets a call to come out to a house where a break-in was reported. When he gets there, he finds that the house belongs to a same-sex couple. With this law, he is protected BY LAW if he chooses not to accept a police report.
Example2: No-name ambulance company, a private company is run by a white supremacist. There is a horrible accident on the highway, and an Asian couple are injured. That owner can refuse to transport them because he believes that Asians are an abomination.
Example3: A Mormon couple decide to take a vacation to Sedona. During casual conversation with the owner of the inn, the owner finds out they are Mormon, and being a conservative-christian believer, cancels their reservation and asks that they leave because he will not knowingly allow Mormons on his property because he doesn’t believe they are Christians.
I just don’t understand why people are this way. Didn’t Jesus say that ‘As you do to the least of my brothers, you do unto me?’. Treating people equally should be one of the most important things a Christian can do, and yet it doesn’t seem this way. Its very disheartening to see that people are this way.
And here's the followup, responding to a comment that it doesn't work that way.
Take my ambulance example… SB1062: "Exercise of religion" means the practice or observance of religion, including the ability to act or refusal to act in a manner substantially motivated by a religious belief”. Injured party takes ambulance owner to court for damages. Owner asserts his religious defense, which is upheld by state law. Case dismissed. “A party who prevails in any action to enforce this article against a government shall recover attorney fees and costs.” If the couple fails to win the case, they have to pay the attorney costs of the person they sued. This by itself will be a substantial barrier to ever bringing a case to court.
For the sheriff example, it applies as well : "Government" includes this state and any agency or political subdivision of this state.” "Political subdivision" includes any county, city, including a charter city, town, school district, municipal corporation or special district, any board, commission or agency of a county, city, including a charter city, town, school district, municipal corporation or special district or any other local public agency.” Applies to the sheriff as well, since he is an elected county official.
In the vacation example, the owner would be well within his rights to not allow Mormons to stay due to religious beliefs. Although the law was written to target LGBT, it’s a small step to saying that same-sex couples go against my religion, to Mormons go against my religion. Or blacks, or Hispanics, or people with warts on their face (because that is a sign of them being witches and in league with the devil). In fact, given the breadth of this law, a homeowner could evict a tenant because they don’t follow the owner’s religious beliefs. Or a white-supremacist could kill a Jew, saying that it was in accordance with his Aryan religion. Could it happen? With this law, if religious belief is invoked, then there is nothing to stop it. At that point, it becomes a conflict with laws against murder vs this law, and this law says that as long as you act within your religious beliefs, you are safe.
It also extends personhood to non-humans: “"Person" includes a religious assembly or institution any individual, association, partnership, corporation, church, religious assembly or institution, estate, trust, foundation or other legal entity.” Can a corporation have a religious belief? Do the stockholders vote to decide on which religious beliefs the corporation will follow? I just don’t get that.