Arizona SB 1062
Arizona SB 1062 was an Arizona bill to amend an existing law to give any individual or legal entity an exemption from any state law if it substantially burdened their exercise of religion, including Arizona law requiring public accommodation. It was one of several similar bills in U.S. state legislatures allowing individuals to refuse service based on religion, with some bills specifically protecting religious disapproval of same-sex marriage. It was widely reported as targeting LGBT people, although Arizona law provides no protection against discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. Critics noted that it would have  broadly denied anyone service on religious grounds. Supporters argued that it was simply restoring the legal status of the right to free exercise of religion as intended by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. The bill was passed by the Republican-controlled state legislature and vetoed by Republican Governor Jan Brewer on February 26, 2014. The national controversy surrounding the bill prompted Arizona State Senator Steve Gallardo to publicly come out as gay. He referred to the bill as a "game changer," and noted the national controversy surrounding its passage, as prompting his decision. Background. The United States  Supreme Court ruled in "Employment Division v. Smith" (1990) that a person may not defy "neutral laws of general applicability," such as public accommodation laws, as an expression of religious belief. "To permit this," wrote Justice Scalia, "would make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land, and in effect to permit every citizen to become a law unto himself." He wrote that neutral laws of general applicability do not have to meet the standard of strict scrutiny, because such a requirement would create "a private right to ignore generally applicable laws". Strict scrutiny would  require a law to be the least restrictive means of furthering a compelling government interest. The meaning of "neutral law of general applicability" was elaborated by the court in 1993. The US Congress responded by passing the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), requiring strict scrutiny when a neutral law of general applicability "substantially burden[s] a person's exercise of religion". When the Supreme Court ruled in 1997 that the RFRA was inapplicable to state laws, some states passed their own Religious Freedom Restoration Acts, including the Arizona law that SB 1062 proposed to amend. The Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality  of the federal RFRA as applied to federal statutes in "Gonzales v. O Centro Espirita Beneficente Uniao do Vegetal" in 2006. Arizona lawmakers were concerned about a 2013 New Mexico Supreme Court ruling that weakened its state's RFRA, which was passed as a religious exemption to its own public accommodation law prohibiting the denial of services based on a person's sexual orientation or gender identity. Twenty-one states, not including Arizona, have similar public accommodation laws protecting sexual orientation. The New Mexico Supreme Court ruled in "Elane Photography v. Willock" that the state's RFRA could not be  invoked between two parties if the government was not a party to the legal proceedings. The bill was introduced by Senator Steve Yarbrough to amend a law currently giving religious assemblies or institutions a religious exemption from any law. The bill was passed by the Republican-controlled Senate on February 19, along party lines and passed by the state House on February 20. The vote tally in the Senate was 17 for, 13 against, and in the House, 33 for, 27 against. On February 26, Governor Jan Brewer vetoed the bill after significant national attention. There are not enough votes  in the legislature to override the veto. Following the veto, Senator Steve Gallardo, one of the bill's most strident opponents, came out as gay. He identified the day that the bill passed the Senate as a "game changer". Content. SB 1062 was intended to amend Section 41-1493 of the Arizona Revised Statutes, which prevents "any law, including state and local laws, ordinances, rules, regulations and policies" from "substantially burden[ing]" a person's exercise of religion, unless the burden is the least restrictive means of furthering a "compelling government interest". SB 1062 would have revised it by expanding the  definition of "person" in the article from "a religious assembly or institution" to also include "any individual, association, partnership, corporation, church," "estate, trust, foundation or other legal entity", and would have allowed for religious-freedom as a claim or defense in lawsuits "regardless of whether the government is a party to the proceeding." Criticism. While proponents said the bill was intended to protect the right of business owners to refuse services based on religious objections and was a direct response to the New Mexico Supreme Court's ruling in "Elane Photography v. Willock" against a business that religiously objected to  accommodating a same-sex wedding, critics, a few media outlets, and opponents argued that the intent was to allow businesses to refuse to serve the LGBT community, specifically in the cases of same-sex couples. Critics said that the bill would have allowed any business to discriminate against any group of people for any religious reason. Businesses, civil rights groups, and gay rights groups had opposed the bill. As state law already allows businesses to refuse services to anyone for any given reason, business owners noted that refusing services to LGBT people was currently allowed anyway. They would only be  losing business by discriminating and do not need extra protections for something they cannot be sued for. Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of the UC Irvine law school, argued that the bill was harmful and "sends a message that the state is bigoted." Supporters of the bill included two conservative groups, the Center for Arizona Policy and the Alliance Defending Freedom, both of whom worked on the bill. The Arizona Catholic Conference had called on its congregants to support the bill. Three lawmakers who initially voted for the bill, including Senate Majority Whip Adam Driggs, had encouraged Governor Brewer to veto  it. The National Football League stated that it was "following the issue in Arizona and will continue to do so should the bill be signed into law", prompting concerns from Arizona business leaders that signing of SB1062 would lead to the pulling of Super Bowl XLIX, similar to how Super Bowl XXVII was moved to Pasadena, California after a Martin Luther King Jr. Day ballot measure failed in Arizona's 1990 elections. The issue was rendered moot by the vetoing of the bill. Similar legislation in other states. Arizona SB 1062 was similar, at the time, to bills in five  other states—South Dakota, Kansas, Idaho, Tennessee, Colorado, and Maine—that all failed or faced major setbacks . Other bills centered on the same core issues are: