Can someone confirm this about AZ's SB 1062

[Xithras]

A coworker actually read the text of the law and is claiming that it exempts both businesses and individuals from complying with any state law, municipal codes, or county and local ordinance that infringes on their religious beliefs.

So, under this law, if I join one of the Naturist faiths, I can walk around downtown Phoenix stark naked because my religious beliefs overrule any state or city codes requiring me to wear clothing. Or if I join an end-times cult, I can carry a loaded firearm anywhere I want without a permit because my religious beliefs trump state gun regulations.

Or if I join one of those Mormon cults that allows me to marry a half dozen 14 year old girls, I can now do so because my religious beliefs will trump BOTH the states age of consent AND polygamy laws.


Is this actually correct? A couple of quick googles seems to support his claim, but I haven't found the actual text of the law anywhere.

[Tripper11]

1. Here you go....

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

[Xithras]

3. It looks like he's "mostly" right.

The definition has been clearly rewritten to include individuals as well as businesses. Sections B & C prevent the government from burdening the practice of religion unless the state can show a "compelling governmental interest". They could probably do so with a polygamist marrying a bunch of teenagers, but it might be tougher for the government to prevail against nudists and cultists who technically aren't "harming" anyone.

It's interesting to see that the law actually doesn't give the person carte blanche to do whatever they want though. It simply allows them to use religious freedom as a defense against prosecution. A polygamist CAN marry a group of 14 year olds, but the state CAN arrest him for it. He will simply be allowed to use his religious freedom in his defense, but he'll have to convince a judge and jury to agree with him. I'd understood that the laws simply wouldn't apply at all, and it doesn't look like that's the case.

[onenote]

6. The state would have no trouble establishing a compelling interest against public nudity.

Just as the government has established that there is a compelling interest in restricting (time and manner) or prohibiting certain indecent or obscene speech or conduct.

[RKP5637]

2. I don't know the specific answer to your question, but to me, this sets the precedent for

religion to override any law, because one feels discriminated against. In short, to me, if a state wants to bring back segregation, they can say serving people of color offends religion. Or, similarly, they can tell a black person they will not serve them because they think they are gay. To me, enough with this religious bullshit in this country. Some feel their religion is persecuted? Well DUH !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! It should be !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Xithras]

4. Someone should point out to the RW'ers that the law also makes Sharia legal in Arizona.

If a bunch of Muslims wanted to move into a small town and set up a Sharia court system, there isn't much the rest of the state could do about it. Under this law, the state wouldn't be allowed to pass a law capable of stopping them.

Point this out to your friendly neighborhood fundie and watch their heads explode.

[RKP5637]

9. Exactly! They think the entire world ascribes to their pinheaded religion. It's a two way

street fundie knuckle dragger fools!

[onenote]

5. I don't think it would allow you to ignore public decency laws

Under the revised statute a claim that enforcement of a particular law unreasonably burdens one's free exercise of religion can be trumped by a claim that enforcement of the law is "in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest" and is "the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest."

I have no doubt that the state would and could contend that there is compelling state interest in preventing people from walking around in public without clothes and that there is no less restrictive means of furthering that interest than enforcing laws that make it illegal for you to walk around naked.

Same thing for your other claims. The state could and would claim that there is a compelling state interest in not having people carry loaded firearms without a permit or in not marrying a half doze fourteen year old girls.

[Xithras]

7. The state can "claim" anything they want.

The law permits the exemption to be used as a defense against prosecution. Under the verbiage of the law, you merely need to prove that A) Your nudity is part of a genuinely held religious belief. And B) that the states compelling governmental interest is NOT real. Note that the law says "Governmental Interest" and not "Public Interest". Using those words, the state would be forced to prove how your nudity negatively impacts the government.

I suspect that the government could easily make the case in a polygamy accusation (protecting the interests of children), but I think the argument for banninglegalized nudity and other things that don't cause direct harm to the government or to others would be MUCH harder to make.

Statutory laws, including public indecently laws, were explicitly and clearly included in the scope of the new law.

[onenote]

8. The governmental interest test would be met in a heartbeat here.

The courts have consistently held that the state has a compelling interest in regulating nudity, even when it is an expressive act. Where such laws run into conflict with the Constitution is where the regulation is overbroad. Thus it is okay to prohibit public activity that will result in members of the public, including children, from uninvited exposure to nudity. It is not okay, however, to totally ban nude dancing in an establishment that is only open to adults. The state's compelling interest in protecting against exposure to nudity thus would not justify a bar on nudists from establishing a private campground where they met and conducted their "religious" activities in the nude. But it unddoubtedly would be justify a ban on those nudists walking around in public.

If you don't believe me, I invite to strip naked and walk down main street with a sign painted on your chest stating your opposition to Ted Cruz and when you're arrested, claim that you were engaging in an expressive act that can only be made illegal under the First Amendment if the state has a compelling state interest to prevent your action. Think you're going to win that case?

[Xithras]

10. The courts have also upheld a compelling interest in regulating discrimination.

The entire point of this law is that it undermines the states ability to assert a compelling interest when those interests conflict with religious freedom.

It's hard to imagine that the state would be able to display a compelling interest in regulating nudity, but would NOT be able to display a compelling interest in regulating discrimination against its own citizens. The law was crafted specifically to undermine the states ability to assert "compelling interest" in cases where that interest conflicts with religion.

So why would they be able to assert a compelling interest in regard to nudity, but be unable to do so in regard to discrimination, if both occur as the result of a genuinely held religious belief?

[Gothmog]

11. This law is poorly worded

Texas has a similar law that only applies to governmental agencies http://www.democraticunderground.com/107815595 The Texas law is different from this law in that respect. The concept that governmental regulations can restrict a constitutional right must meet these standards is the same standard that has been in effect for a while. Under applicable federal court decisions and the Arizona law, one can only restrict a constitutional right if that limitation:

1. In furtherance of a compelling governmental interest.
2. The least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.

This is the same standard that is in the Texas law. The only difference is that the Texas law is limited to governmental agencies and the Arizona law applies to everyone including private individuals