Arizona’s controversial new bill SB 1062 protects religious freedoms

By Chellie Cervone - Posted: Feb 24, 2014 at 4:55 am

Photo of cross. Should religious freedoms apply to businessowners?

(Photo: Web Design Burn)

Arizona’s controversial new bill SB 1062, is it that bad?

Arizona, home of love him or hate him Sheriff Joe Arpaio, has passed a bill SB 1062 authorizing religious freedoms.

SB 1062 permits business owners the right to refuse service based on his or her religious beliefs and ensures that the business owner cannot be sued for discrimination.

What’s so wrong with that? Last time we checked this is America?

Jobs from Indeed

jobs by

Currently, business’ can currently refuse service to people for not wearing shoes or a tie, or for wearing shorts but they can’t refuse service based on their religious beliefs without the threat of being sued.

Should business owners have the right to refuse service to anyone they choose based on their religious beliefs or any other reason?

Vocal supporters of gay rights are vehemently against the bill and believes it targets them.

Gay rights is a hot topic right now with the entire institution of marriage changing, but it does not mean that every law that is passed has to do with gay rights?

The LA Times cited a great example to illustrate that the law does not simply target the LGBT community.

They used the example of the Westboro Baptist Church, a group that pickets funerals to promote their ideologies.

Westboro is considered by many to be a hate group. While some of their targets have included gays, the hate-filled group targets Jews and pickets military funerals.

The group has even stomped on the American Flag.

What if members of Westboro came into your place of business, be it a bakery or a perhaps a family owed restaurant, and you refused to service them because your religious beliefs teach you not to hate? Should that be your right as a business owner based on your religious beliefs?

There are many other examples to illustrate that SB 1062 does not impact only gay people.

Consider these examples,

A pro-abortion group comes into your bakery business to order 20 cakes with the slogan, “We support abortion,”and you as a business owner are religiously opposed to abortion.

Your modern religious beliefs support marriage between any two individuals, of any sex, but your religious beliefs are firmly rooted in the belief that plural marriage is wrong, and a man and his five wives-to-be want to purchase wedding bands at your jewelry store, or have their ceremony at your place of business

A group of Muslin extremists who believe and promote extreme tactics such as bombings and assassinations for achieving Islamic goals walks into your sign business and wants you to print up 1000 flyers that say, “Allah is the only God. We will do whatever it takes,”, and you as a Christian business owner do not believe this and want to refuse the business.

Should you be allowed to refuse the business based upon your religious beliefs?

If a person is refused service, by any type of business based upon religious beliefs due to SB 1062, or for any reason, would it be more effective for the person to simply take their business to a place where it is welcome and appreciated, and then voice their opinion of the business socially since social media can make or break or business?

Better yet, there might be increased business opportunities to open businesses that target a specific clientele.

Is the bill really discriminatory, or does it open the door to further government intrusion in private lives?

Consumers have the right to patronize, or not patronize a business. Should business owners have that same right?

Is a bill even necessary?

Maybe the long arm of the government will expand ever further.

Let’s pass some more bills, in addition to SB 1069.

What’s next? In light of equality, should a bill be passed guaranteeing consumers, based upon their religious beliefs, the right to obtain whatever they want whenever and wherever they want?

Close all nightclubs because that violates religious beliefs.

Ditto for all sex shops.

What about expensive restaurants? They must be closed too because, based on religious beliefs, members of the clergy take a vow of poverty and now they are being discriminated against.

Oh, but wait, then the atheists will have an issue and sue.

Let’s close Starbucks because they serve coffee and tea, too, which some religions are opposed to.

Let’s just close everything and let the government take care of it.

You see where this is going. Backwards.

How far will you allow the arm of the government expand?