bureaucracybusters

Posts Tagged ‘NUREMBERG LAWS’

THE CRUELTY IS THE MESSAGE: PART THREE (END)

In Bureaucracy, History, Law, Law Enforcement, Politics, Social commentary on July 30, 2025 at 12:10 am

Even natural-born American citizens—such as Kenny Laynez—now risk arrest and detention by overzealous agents of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). 

On May 2, Florida Highway Patrol officers and Border Patrol agents stopped the 18-year-old landscaper and his three coworkers—one of them his mother—as they drove past luxury buildings to a job in Palm Beach County. 

They—with the exception of Laynez’ mother—were arrested and taken to the Riviera Beach facility.

After almost four hours, a female officer asked him to unlock his cellphone, saying that she needed to see if he had filmed videos of the arrest.

Which, in fact, he had.

Laynez refused to open it—and she threatened to press charges if he didn’t.

But then a supervisor appeared and said that Laynez wasn’t supposed to be in that room because he is a U.S. citizen. 

After Laynez was released six hours later, he still had the video on his cellphone. He shared this—to back up his account—with the Palm Beach Post, part of the USA TODAY Network. 

Laynez pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor charge of obstruction without violence simply to get the incident over with. He entered a pretrial diversion program on June 4. The state will drop the charges July 30 if he completes the program by then.

His coworkers—as illegal aliens—were transferred to the Krome Detention Center in Miami. They  are free on bail but fear arrest if they appear in court. 

 * * * * *

There’s a reason for such cruelty—the same one that existed for Jews in Nazi Germany before World War II.  

Contrary to popular belief, Adolf Hitler didn’t initially decide to exterminate the Jews—in Germany or throughout the rest of Europe. He simply wanted to evict them from Germany. And he employed a wide range of methods to convince them to leave.

Adolf Hitler

The infamous Nuremberg Laws, for example, stripped Jews of German citizenship, forbade marriage between Jews and non-Jews, and barred them from such professions as the judiciary, teaching, law, medicine, acting, music and journalism.   

Jewish shops were picketed by members of Hitler’s menacing Stormtroopers, often holding signs that read: “DON’T BUY FROM JEWS.” 

Between 1933, when the Nazi regime came to power, and the start of World War II in 1939. approximately 282,000 Jews emigrated from Germany. Those who couldn’t—or wouldn’t—leave faced increasing brutalities and deprivations—ultimately culminating in the Holocaust.  

Like Adolf Hitler, President Donald Trump is sending a message to Hispanics—both illegal aliens and legal citizens: “Get out! There is no place for you in the sort of America I am creating.”

And many are no doubt leaving before they can be abused and arrested.

Another similarity between the Hitler and Trump regimes: Both are marked by their attempts to maintain secrecy over their secret police operations.

Donald Trump

For example: On December 7, 1941, Hitler issued the “Nacht und Nebel” (“Night and Fog”) decree. It allowed German authorities to abduct individuals in occupied territories who were accused of “endangering German security.”

Thus, they effectively vanished without a trace.

The same motive lies behind the mania of ICE officers to confiscate cellphones and erase any footage taken of the tactics they use in making arrests. 

Their agents are almost universally masked, heavily-armed, wearing military-style clothing, and descend on their unarmed targets in overwhelming numbers. 

If their targets hesitate, attempt to leave, or do not answer the questions to the satisfaction of the agents, they are detained, sometimes tackled, handcuffed, and/or taken into custody. 

The 1991 police beating of motorist Rodney King and the 2020 police murder of George Floyd aroused national fury and led to widespread rioting. Thus, ICE seeks to hide its often brutal, even unlawful tactics from public scrutiny.

The legal battle over ICE agents wearing masks - YouTube

ICE officers

Eight years ago, Trump invoked an obscure authority, Section 212(f) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, to “suspend the entry” of nationals of multiple Muslim-majority nations. Two versions of the ban were initially struck down in court, but the Supreme Court upheld a third version.

This stayed in effect until President Joseph Biden terminated it in 2021.

Upon taking office again on January 20, Trump reinstated his Court-authorized travel ban, targeting 19 countries and potentially blocking more than 125,000 people each year from entering the United States—either temporarily or permanently.

Tellingly, those are countries whose populations are Islamic, African, Hispanic or Asian—not white, English-speaking ones:

  • Afghanistan
  • Burma
  • Chad
  • Republic of the Congo
  • Equatorial Guinea
  • Eritrea
  • Haiti
  • Iran
  • Libya
  • Somalia
  • Sudan
  • Yemen
  • Burundi
  • Cuba
  • Laos
  • Sierra Leone
  • Togo
  • Turkmenistan
  • Venezuela

Additionally, Trump has fired more than 50 immigration judges—from senior leaders to new appointees.  

Republicans officially claim immigrants are welcome “if they come in legally.” But in reality they seek to expel illegal immigrants and block those who wish to enter legally.

Demographers estimate that around 2045, white people will become a minority in the United States. This is being driven by two factors: a declining white population and increasing minority populations. 

During the 2016 Presidential campaign, many of Trump’s supporters held up signs or wore T-shirts reading: ‘MAKE AMERICA WHITE AGAIN.”  

That, ultimately, is the goal that Trump is now vigorously pursuing. 

THE CRUELTY IS THE MESSAGE: PART TWO (OF THREE)

In Bureaucracy, History, Law, Law Enforcement, Politics, Social commentary on July 29, 2025 at 12:42 am

On July 2, the American Civil Liberties Union filed a lawsuit against the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and its sub-agency, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE):  

The Trump administration claims this is a crackdown on “the worst of the worst.” But according to the ACLU lawsuit the majority of those “stopped and arrested in the raids have not been targeted in any meaningful sense of the word at all, except on the basis of their skin color and occupation.

“Those who have borne the brunt of Defendants’ heavy-handed pattern of unlawful conduct include day laborers, car wash workers, farm workers, street vendors, service workers, caregivers and others who form the lifeblood of communities across Southern California.

“Over a thousand residents in [Los Angeles] have already been impacted, including a shocking (though hardly surprising) number of U.S. citizens and individuals lawfully present in the country.”

On May 2, Florida Highway Patrol officers and Border Patrol agents stopped 18-year-old landscaper Kenny Laynez and three coworkers—one of them his mother—as they drove past luxury buildings to a job in Palm Beach County.

An officer rolled down a tinted window and signaled to his mother—who was driving—to pull over. The officer asked where they were headed. Laynez said they were going to work and the officer took his mother’s license and the truck’s registration and insurance.

The officer returned and said his mother’s license was suspended.

The officer asked if they were “illegal.”

Laynez said they were not, although two of his co-workers—Esdras and Marroquin—were, and asked what that had to do with the license.

A van pulled up and more armed agents swarmed the truck. A female officer approached his window and ordered them in Spanish to shut off their phones.

Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) | Homeland Security

Instead, Laynez—assuming that something ominous was going to happen—started recording with his phone: 

OFFICER (in Spanish): Who in here is illegal? Whoever takes longer to answer will get more charges and spend more time in jail.

One of the co-workers—Esdras—raised his hand.  

A male officer ordered them to open the door.

LAYNEZ: Wait, hold up. You don’t have the right to do that.

OFFICER (laughing): I don’t have a right?

He reached inside the car and opened the door. An agent grabbed Esdras by the hair and placed his neck in the crook of his arm.

ICE Claims Agents Need to Wear Masks Due to Assaults. Here's the Truth | The New Republic

Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents

Another agent pulled Marroquin out by the leg and tightened his hands around his neck.

Laynez stepped out of the carbut an officer who had ordered him to get on the ground pushed him from behind, twisted his arms and forced him to kneel on the pavement.

Esdras stood rigidly as three officers tried to force him to the ground. They told him in English to lie down, while Laynez urged him in Spanish not to resist.

An officer pulled out a yellow Taser and fired twice into Esdras’ stomach, slamming him to the pavement.

An agent forced Laynez to lie on the pavement. An officer later ordered Laynez to stand up

LAYNEZ: I am not going to get up because you are going to do to me whatever you were doing to Esdras. That is not how you arrest people.

OFFICER:  Be quiet.

LAYNEZ:  I’ve got the right to talk. I was born and raised here.

OFFICER: You have no rights here. You are a “Migo,” brother.

An officer said that Laynez’s coworker was resisting arrest, so he should be charged: “He was being a dick right now. That is why we tased.”

The agents confirmed Laynez’s mother had legal status and issued her a ticket for driving with a suspended license. Before leaving, an officer held her driver’s license to her face and tore it in half.

Although the officers were shown a picture of Laynez’ Social Security card, they arrested him. 

He was taken to the Riviera Beach facility. About four hours later, he was taken to another room. A female officer asked for his birthdate three times, although he had written it down to another officer. Then she produced a ziplocked bag with his phone, wallet and headphones.

She asked him to unlock it, adding that she needed to see if he had filmed videos of the arrest.

Laynez refused to open it and set it down on the table. The officer said they would wait until he opened it, and threatened to press charges if he didn’t unlock his phone.

But then a supervisor appeared and said that Laynez wasn’t supposed to be in that room because he is a U.S. citizen. The supervisor took Laynez’s fingerprints and said it was only to leave a record that he had been in the facility. 

Then he told Laynez he must sign some paperwork and appear in court. 

The arrest report stated that Laynez was being charged with nonviolent police obstruction. But the police report doesn’t mention that Laynez resisted. 

Laynez pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor charge of obstruction without violence simply to get the incident over with. He entered a pretrial diversion program on June 4. The state will drop the charges on July 30 if he completes the program by then.

THE CRUELTY IS THE MESSAGE: PART ONE (OF THREE)

In Bureaucracy, History, Law, Law Enforcement, Politics, Social commentary on July 28, 2025 at 12:17 am

On July 2, the American Civil Liberties Union filed a lawsuit against the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and its sub-agency, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE):

“Since early June, this District [Los Angeles] has been under siege.

“Masked federal agents, sometimes dressed in military-style clothing, have conducted indiscriminate immigration operations, flooding street corners, bus stops, parking lots, agricultural sites, day laborer corners, and other places, setting up checkpoints, and entering businesses, interrogating residents as they are working, looking for work, or otherwise trying to go about their daily lives, and taking people away. 

“The raids in this District follow a common, systematic pattern. Individuals with brown skin are approached or pulled aside by unidentified federal agents, suddenly and with a show of force, and made to answer questions about who they are and where they are from.

“If they hesitate, attempt to leave, or do not answer the questions to the satisfaction of the agents, they are detained, sometimes tackled, handcuffed, and/or taken into custody. In these interactions, agents typically have no prior information about the individual and no warrant of any kind.

American Civil Liberties Union - Ballotpedia

“If agents make an arrest, contrary to federal law, they do not make any determination of whether a person poses a risk of flight before a warrant can be obtained. Also contrary to federal law, the agents do not identify themselves or explain why the individual is being arrested.  

“Further, apparently to accommodate the sharp rise in arrests, the government has resorted to keeping individuals at what is supposed to be a short term processing center and ICE basement holding area in downtown Los Angeles, known as “B-18,” often for days.

“In these dungeon-like facilities, conditions are deplorable and unconstitutional. The government has also unlawfully deprived those arrested of access to counsel. Under such conditions, some of those arrested are pressured into accepting voluntary departure.”

Contrast this behavior with the way Mafia “Boss of all Bosses” John Gotti was arrested on December 11, 1990, when FBI agents and NYPD detectives raided the Ravenite Social Club in Manhattan.

They had arrest warrants for Gotti, boss of the Gambino Mafia Family, and his two lieutenants: Sammy “The Bull” Gravano, his underboss, or second-in-command, and Frankie Locascio, his Consigliere, or adviser.

Moreover, there was no mistaking that these were legitimate law enforcement agents: They wore jackets emblazoned with “FBI” or “NYPD,” showed their credentials, and didn’t hide their faces behind masks.

John Gotti

And when the three Mafiosi were taken to the Metropolitan Correctional Center, in Manhattan, New York City, they were allowed to call their attorneys.

Every nation has the right to control its borders and decide who has the right to enter—and under what conditions. But nations that pride themselves on adhering to the law should be held accountable with their law enforcement agencies flagrantly and routinely violate it. 

On July 11, Thomas Homan, the designated “Border Czar” for Donald Trump’s second presidency, said during an interview on Fox News: “People need to understand ICE officers and Border Patrol don’t need probable cause to walk up to somebody, briefly detain them, and question them.

“They just need the totality of the circumstances. They just got through our observation, you know, get articulable facts based on their location, their occupation, their physical appearance, their actions.” 

Thomas Homan

This contradicted a statement made in court that week by Thomas Giles, the assistant director of ICE, that the standard for making arrests “is we need to determine probable cause and determine alienage.” 

“And there you have it,” wrote Senator Alex Padilla (D-Calif.), who on June 12 was roughed up by security forces while trying to ask Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem questions at a press event.

“Under the Trump Administration, ICE and Border Patrol are being empowered to stop and question you based solely on how you look. No probable cause. No real reason. Just your ‘physical appearance.’ That’s not justice—it’s profiling.” 

Even natural-born American citizens—such as Kenny Laynez—now risk arrest and detention by overzealous ICE agents.

According to the lawsuit filed by the ACLU, the reason for this is: “The government is aware that its actions are unconstitutional and contrary to officers’ training, but deliberately persists because this system allows it to coerce removals, avoid public accountability, and ultimately—given the limited bed space at longer-term detention facilities in the area—keep arrest numbers high.

“Federal immigration enforcement is constrained by law. But since the federal government began its mass immigration enforcement operations in [Los Angeles] on June 6, 2025, all of these legal requirements have given way to one overriding consideration: numbers, pure numbers. Quantity over quality.

”In late May, the White House and the Department of Homeland Security imposed a quota of 3,000 immigration-related arrests per day—with ‘consequences for not hitting arrest targets.’ In order to reach this target, White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller directed high-level officials to change their approach to stops and arrests in the field.

“Agents and officers, according to him, should no longer conduct targeted operations based on investigations. Instead, they should ‘just go out there and arrest [unauthorized noncitizens] by rounding up people in public spaces like ‘Home Depot’ and ‘7-Eleven’ convenience stores.”

THE POLITICS OF DISCRIMINATION

In Business, History, Law, Politics, Social commentary on February 3, 2015 at 12:05 am

Christmas was fast approaching in 2014.  So Republicans in the Michgan House of Representatives decided to honor the spirit of “peace on earth, good will toward men” in their own special way.

They passed a bill legalizing religious discrimination.

“The Religious Freedom Restoration Act” passed on partisan lines–59 Republicans to 50 Democrats–on December 4, 2014.

It next goes to the Senate, and, if passed there, to Republican Governor Rick Snyder. It isn’t known if he would sign it.

The bill would allow anyone to refuse service to anyone under the claim that their “religious beliefs” had been affronted.

And the State government would be legally prevented from intervening if a person claimed that his/her “deeply-held religious beliefs” was the reason for acting–or not acting–in a certain way.

Thus:

  • An emergency room doctor could refuse service to a gay or lesbian needing medical care.
  • A pharmacist could refuse to fill a doctor’s prescription for birth control, or HIV medication.
  • A DMV clerk could refuse to give a driver’s license to someone who’s divorced.
  • A school teacher could refuse to mentor the children of a same-sex couple.
  • An employer could deny equal pay to women.

The bill seems modeled on a proposed law that the Republican House and Senate in Arizona sent to Governor Jan Brewer in 2014.

Under threat of a nationwide boycott of Arizona if the bill became law, Brewer vetoed it.

Supporters of the bill claim they aren’t seeking a license to discriminate, only to live by the tenets of their religious beliefs withouot government interference.

But opponents see it differently.  Among these is Lonnie Scott, executive director of Progress Michigan.

“The idea that we need to ‘restore’ religious freedom–rights that are already enshrined in the U.S. Constitution–is a farce created by conservative lawmakers for the sole purpose of appeasing their far-right donors and the religious-right.

“This extreme bill attempts to solve a problem that does not exist, promotes discrimination and does nothing to make Michigan a better place to live,” Scott said in a statement.

This is certainly not the first time Right-wing zealots have sought to enshrine religious discrimination in law.

On September 15, 1935, the Nazis–who had taken power in Germany in 1933–introduced a series of anti-Semetic laws at their annual Nuremberg rally.

Adolf Hitler addressing a Nuremberg Rally of the Nazi Party

Under the Nuremberg laws:

  • Marriages between Jews and German citizens were forbidden.
  • Extramarital relations between Jews and German citizens were forbidden.
  • Jews were forbidden to employ female German citizens under the age of 45 as domestic workers.
  • Jews were banned from employment as attorneys, doctors or journalists.
  • Jews were forbidden to use state hospitals.
  • Jews could not be educated by the state past the age of 14.
  • Jews were forbidden to enter public libraries, parks and beaches.
  • The names of Jewish soldiers were to be expunged from war memorials.

With anti-Semitism now codified in German law, the foundations for the coming Holocaust were firmly laid. The “Religious Freedom Act” introduced in 2014 to Arizona would have:

  • Expanded the state’s definition of the exercise of religion to include both the practice and observance of religion.
  • Allowed someone to assert a legal claim of free exercise of religion regardless of whether the government is a party to the proceedings.
  • Expanded those protected under the state’s free-exercise-of-religion law to “any individual, association, partnership, corporation, church, religious assembly or institution or other business organization.”
  • Allowed any business, church or person to cite the law as a defense in any action brought by the government or individual claiming discrimination.
  • Allowed the business or person to seek an injunction once they show their actions are based on a sincere religious belief and the claim places a burden on the exercise of religion.

Advocates often cited the case of a New Mexico wedding photographer who was sued after refusing to take photos of a same-sex couople’s commitment ceremony due to the photographer’s religious beliefs.

“We are trying to protect people’s religious liberties,” said Representative Steve Montenegro, R-Litchfield Park.

“We don’t want the government coming in and forcing someone to act against their religious sacred faith beliefs or having to sell out if you are a small-business owner.”

Arizona Representative Steve Montenegro

Republicans have introduced similar “right-to-discriminate” legislation in other states as well:

  • In Kansas, lawmakers voted to exempt individuals from providing any service that was “contrary to their sincerely held religious beliefs.”
  • That bill passed the state’s House chamber on February 11, 2014, triggering national backlash.  It stalled in the Senate didn’t advance beyond that body.
  • In January, 2014, South Dakota Republicans introduced a bill to allow businesses refuse to serve same-sex couples on the grounds that “businesses are private and that their views on sexual orientation are protected to the same extent as the views of private citizens.”
  • The bill–which was killed in February, 2014–would have made it illegal for a gay person to file a lawsuit charging discrimination.

Ironically, many Right-wingers who support the right of Christians to discriminate fear that they will become victims of religious persecution if Islamic Sharia law comes to the United States.

NUREMBERG COMES TO ARIZONA: PART TWO (END)

In Bureaucracy, History, Law, Politics, Social commentary on February 25, 2014 at 11:20 am

Hamza Kashgari, a 23-year-old columnist in Saudi Arabia, decided to celebrate the birthday of the Islamic prophet Muhammed in a truly unique way.

In February, 2012, he posted on Twitter a series of mock conversations between himself and Muhammad:

“On your birthday, I will say that I have loved the rebel in you, that you’ve always been a source of inspiration to me, and that I do not like the halos of divinity around you. I shall not pray for you.”

“On your birthday, I find you wherever I turn. I will say that I have loved aspects of you, hated others, and could not understand many more.”

“On your birthday, I shall not bow to you. I shall not kiss your hand. Rather, I shall shake it as equals do, and smile at you as you smile at me. I shall speak to you as a friend, no more.”

“No Saudi women will go to hell, because it’s impossible to go there twice.”

The tweets sparked some 30,000 infuriated responses. Many Islamic clerics demanded that he face execution for blasphemy.

Kashgari posted an apology tweet: “I deleted my previous tweets because…I realized that they may have been offensive to the Prophet and I don’t want anyone to misunderstand.”

Soon afterward, King Abdullah ordered his arrest.

Kashgari served a prison sentence until October, 2013, when he was released.

Outrageous? By Western standards, absolutely.

Clearly there is no tolerence in Saudi Arabia for the freedoms of thought and expression that Americans take for granted.

But before you say, “Religious oppression like that could never happen in the United States,” think again.

Right-wing American ayatollahs are now working overtime to create just that sort of society–where theocratic despotism rules the most intimate aspects of our lives.

One of these ayatollahs was/is GOP Presidential candidate and former U.S. Senator Rick Santorum. In early January, 2012, he said that states should have the right to outlaw birth control without the interference of the Supreme Court.

Rick Santorum

In an interview with ABC News, Santorum said he opposed the Supreme Court’s ruling that made birth control legal:

“The state has a right to do that [ban contraception]. I have never questioned that the state has a right to do that. It is not a Constitutional right. The state has the right to pass whatever statutes they have.

“That’s the thing I have said about the activism of the Supreme Court–they are creating rights, and it should be left up to the people to decide.”

In the landmark 1965 decision, Griswold v. Connecticut, the Court struck down a law that made it a crime to sell contraceptives to married couples. The Constitution, ruled the Justices, protected a right to privacy.

Two years later, in Eisenstadt v. Baird, the Court extended Griswold by striking down a law banning the sale of contraceptives to unmarried couples.

Santorum has left no doubt as to where he stands on contraception. On October 19, 2011, he said:

“One of the things I will talk about that no President has talked about before is I think the dangers of contraception in this country, the whole sexual libertine idea. Many in the Christian faith have said, ‘“Well, that’s okay. Contraception’s okay.’

“It’s not okay because it’s a license to do things in the sexual realm that is counter to how things are supposed to be. They’re supposed to be within marriage, they are supposed to be for purposes that are, yes, conjugal, but also…procreative.”

“How things are supposed to be”–according to right-wing fanatics like Santorum and the evangelicals who support him.

Like the Saudi religious religious zealots who demand the death of a “blasphemer,” they demand that their religious views should govern everyone. Both groups have far more in common than they want to admit.

The important difference–for Americans who value their freedom–is this:

The United States has a Supreme Court that can–and does–overturn laws that threaten civil liberties. Laws that GOP legislators–such as those in Arizona–clearly want to force on those who don’t share their peculiar religious views.

The Right is not waging a “war for religious liberty.”

It’s waging a bitter struggle to establish a government that uses force or the threat of it to impose highly conservative religious beliefs on those who do not share such religious beliefs.

And on atheists or agnostics, who share none at all.

These Rightists and their theocratic allies have more in common with Tomas de Torquemada (1420 – 1498) the infamous Grand Inquisitor of the Spanish Inquisition, than with Jesus Christ.

Tomas de Torquemada

Christ never ordered the torture or death of anyone. Torquemada–claiming to act in “defense” of the Roman Catholic Church–presided over the deaths of at least 2,000 “heretics.”

For such people, Torquemada believed, the only road to salvation lay in being “cleansed” of their sins. And nothing burns away impurities like fire.

Men like Torquemada and the anti-gay legislators of Arizona do not seek a golden future.

They crave to return to a “golden” past–which includes the one-time power of Christians to forcefully impose their religious beliefs on others.

NUREMBERG COMES TO ARIZONA: PART ONE (OF TWO)

In Bureaucracy, History, Law, Politics, Social commentary on February 24, 2014 at 6:08 pm

One party, just one, not both, not together, just one, is the party that seeks to judge others, limit access to goods/services and promote hate in America.

The reasons behind this bill are no different than the Jim Crow laws of the 60s and other acts of bigotry.  If you vote Republican, this is you and your party across the nation.

–Scott Ackeridge

Scott Ackeridge wasn’t referring to the Nazi Party.  But he could have been.

On September 15, 1935, the Nazis–who had taken power in Germany in 1933–introduced a series of anti-Semetic laws at their annual Nuremberg rally.

Adolf Hitler addressing a Nuremberg Rally of the Nazi Party

Under the Nuremberg laws:

  • Marriages between Jews and German citizens were forbidden.
  • Extramarital relations between Jews and German citizens were forbidden.
  • Jews were forbidden to employ female German citizens under the age of 45 as domestic workers.
  • Jews were banned from employment as attorneys, doctors or journalists.
  • Jews were forbidden to use state hospitals.
  • Jews could not be educated by the state past the age of 14.
  • Jews were forbidden to enter public libraries, parks and beaches.
  • The names of Jewish soldiers were to be expunged from war memorials.

With anti-Semitism now codified in German law, the foundations for the coming Holocaust were firmly laid.

Now, fast-forward to February 20, 2014.

The Republican-dominated Arizona legislature sends a bill to Republican Governor Jan Brewer that:

  • Allows business owners to turn away gay and lesbian customers.
  • Allows employers to deny equal pay to women.
  • Allows individuals to renege on contract obligations.

All of these will be legally allowed–so long as “sincere religious belief” is claimed as the reason.

House Bill 2153/Senate Bill 1062 was written by the right-wing advocacy group Center for Arizona Policy and the Christian legal organization, Alliance Defending Freedom.

Specifically, the legislation proposes to:

  • Expand the state’s definition of the exercise of religion to include both the practice and observance of religion.
  • Allow someone to assert a legal claim of free exercise of religion regardless of whether the government is a party to the proceedings.
  • Expand those protected under the state’s free-exercise-of-religion law to “any individual, association, partnership, corporation, church, religious assembly or institution or other business organization.”
  • Allows any business, church or person to cite the law as a defense in any action brought by the government or individual claiming discrimination.
  • Allows the business or person to seek an injunction once they show their actions are based on a sincere religious belief and the claim places a burden on the exercise of religion.

Advocates often cited the case of a New Mexico wedding photographer who was sued after refusing to take photos of a same-sex couople’s commitment ceremony due to the photographer’s religious beliefs.

“We are trying to protect people’s religious liberties,” said Representative Steve Montenegro, R-Litchfield Park.

“We don’t want the government coming in and forcing someone to act against their religious sacred faith beliefs or having to sell out if you are a small-business owner.”

Arizona Representative Steve Montenegro

But opponents say the law would:

  • Protect a corporation that refuses to hire anyone who isn’t a Christian; and
  • Block gays and lesbians from access to nearly any business or service–including fire and police.

“The message that’s interpreted is: We want you to work here, but we are not going to go out of our way to protect you, to protect your rights, to protect your family,” said Representative Ruben Gallego, D-Phoenix.

Similar anti-gay legislation has been introduced by Republicans in other states:

  • In Kansas, lawmakers voted to exempt individuals from providing any service that was “contrary to their sincerely held religious beliefs.”
  • That bill passed the state’s House chamber on February 11, triggering national backlash.  It has since stalled in the Senate and is not expected to advance this year.
  • In January, South Dakota Republicans introduced a bill to allow businesses refuse to serve same-sex couples on the grounds that “businesses are private and that their views on sexual orientation are protected to the same extent as the views of private citizens.”
  • The bill–which was killed in February–would have made it illegal for a gay person to file a lawsuit charging discrimination.
  • A ballot initiative in Oregon would let business owners refuse to serve same-sex couples “if doing so would violate a person’s deeply held religious beliefs.”
  • The initiative could be voted on this year.

Ironically, many Right-wingers who support the right of Christians to discriminate fear that they will become victims of religious persecution if Islamic Sharia law comes to the United States.