ironphoenix (ironphoenix) wrote,


So, here's the meat of a Bill that has passed the legislature in Arizona, and is up to the Governor for approval or veto:

B. Except as provided in subsection C of this section, state action shall not substantially burden a person's exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability.
C. state action may substantially burden a person's exercise of religion only if the opposing party demonstrates that application of the burden to the person's exercise of religion in this particular instance is both:
1. In furtherance of a compelling governmental interest.
2. The least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.
F. For the purposes of this section, "state action" means any action by the government or the implementation or application of any law, including state and local laws, ordinances, rules, regulations and policies, whether statutory or otherwise, and whether the implementation or application is made or attempted to be made by the government or nongovernmental persons.

This Religious Freedom Bill gives people the freedom to do pretty much anything in the name of religion. Oh, and by the way, in the definitions section, "'Person' includes any individual, association, partnership, corporation, church, religious assembly or institution, estate, trust, foundation or other legal entity."

If this doesn't get vetoed, I'm not goin' to Arizona anytime soon.

Thanks to goldsquare for drawing my attention to this!
Tags: law
  • Post a new comment


    default userpic

    Your reply will be screened

    Your IP address will be recorded 

    When you submit the form an invisible reCAPTCHA check will be performed.
    You must follow the Privacy Policy and Google Terms of use.