Arizona legislation

A great deal has been written and spoken recently about Arizona SB1062, the intent of which was to amend the Arizona Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) (1999).  The chorus most loudly stated or shouted and most often written about characterize SB1062 as "anti-gay."  By most, I mean the activists, liberal media, and self-appointed progressive pundits. 

However, a reading of SB1062 (available at http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/51leg/2r/bills/sb1062p.htm)
reveals no wording or reference to homosexuality.  Specifically, SB1062 states under definitions, "'Exercise of religion' means the practice or observance of religion, including the ability to act or refusal to act in a manner substantially motivated by a religious belief, whether or not the exercise is compulsory or central to a larger system of religious belief."  (Amended wording is highlighted.)

I've not researched the motivation of the Bill's sponsors, but can easily conjure up reasonable rationale for seeking greater legal protection of religious beliefs.  Perhaps, too, have the most vocal of the opponents to the Bill.  Perhaps they know of cases where business owners were punished by state entities, let alone LGBT activists, for refusing to recognize same sex marriages, when their religious beliefs and convictions state that marriage is between one man and one woman.  Thus the activists and their liberal allies fear the increased protection provided religion, with emphasis on Christianity.   If greater legal protection were provided, the activists couldn't use the state to force acceptance of their choices.  For example, an oft repeated case involved the owners of a small bakery who refused to provide a wedding cake for a same sex wedding.  The owners reasonably cited their religious beliefs and convictions as basis for their refusal.  They even went so far as to clarify that they routinely sell other baked goods to members of the LGBT community, but reserved the right as business owners to refuse service based on their religious beliefs and convictions.  (Doesn't a business have the right to reasonably refuse to serve someone?)

The hue and cry from the liberal media were deafening.  More disappointing, however, were the sometimes vicious attacks against the business by the LGBT community.  I found their attacks, boycotts, threats, and the like to run opposite to their demands for tolerance.

Instead of being free in their religious beliefs and convictions in the conduct of their business, the owners of the bakery were ultimately forced out of business by the wholly intolerant LGBT community.

So I can see why some in Arizona might have been motivated to amend the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.  When activists demand that we accept their views, our basic and essential freedoms are threatened.  When these activists are aided by the liberal media and the state, other voices are drowned out and the very freedoms for which our nation stands are shunted aside.

It is one thing to expect tolerance of otherwise legal activity.  It is something altogether different to demand that those holding opposing views based on their religious beliefs and convictions, change their beliefs to comport with and embrace those of the activists.  This expectation runs contrary to our elemental freedoms and demonstrates the greatest degree of intolerance by the activists.

So, yes, I can understand why some believe our Christian beliefs and values are being summarily attacked.  I can also understand why some may believe stronger legal protections are required.  Sadly, I also understand how in Arizona's case, the media fanned hue and cry of the activists resulted in a veto.

But I also understand that the entire spectacle didn't change the view of even one Christian who believes that marriage is defined as being between one man and one woman.