Senate<\/strong><\/p>\n Fifty-first Legislature<\/strong><\/p>\n Second Regular Session<\/strong><\/p>\n 2014<\/strong><\/p>\n \u00a0SB 1062<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n Introduced by<\/strong><\/p>\n Senators Yarbrough: Barto, Worsley<\/a><\/strong><\/p>\n \u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n \u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n AN ACT<\/strong><\/p>\n \u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n amending sections 41\u20111493 and 41\u20111493.01, Arizona Revised Statutes<\/a>; relating to the free exercise of religion.<\/strong><\/p>\n \u00a0 (TEXT OF BILL BEGINS ON NEXT PAGE)<\/strong><\/p>\n \u00a0Be it enacted by the Legislature of the State of Arizona:<\/strong><\/p>\n Section\u00a01.\u00a0\u00a0Section 41-1493, Arizona Revised Statutes, is amended to read:<\/strong><\/p>\n 41-1493.\u00a0\u00a0Definitions<\/strong><\/p>\n In this article, unless the context otherwise requires:<\/strong><\/p>\n 1.\u00a0\u00a0“Demonstrates” means meets the burdens of going forward with the evidence and of persuasion.<\/strong><\/p>\n 2.\u00a0\u00a0“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<\/a>, whether or not the exercise is compulsory or central to a larger system of religious belief.<\/strong><\/p>\n 3.\u00a0\u00a0“Government<\/a>” includes this state and any agency or political subdivision of this state.<\/strong><\/p>\n 4.\u00a0\u00a0“Nonreligious assembly or institution” includes all membership organizations, theaters, cultural centers, dance halls, fraternal orders, amphitheaters and places of public assembly regardless of size that a government or political subdivision allows to meet in a zoning district by code or ordinance or by practice.<\/strong><\/p>\n 5.\u00a0\u00a0“Person” includes a religious assembly or institution any individual, association, partnership, corporation, church, religious assembly or institution, estate, trust, foundation or other legal entity.<\/strong><\/p>\n 6.\u00a0\u00a0“Political subdivision” includes any county, city, including a charter city, town, school district, municipal corporation or special district, any board, commission or agency of a county, city, including a charter city, town, school district, municipal corporation or special district or any other local public agency.<\/strong><\/p>\n 7.\u00a0\u00a0“Religion\u2011neutral zoning standards”:<\/strong><\/p>\n (a)\u00a0\u00a0Means numerically definable standards such as maximum occupancy codes, height restrictions, setbacks, fire codes, parking space requirements, sewer capacity limitations and traffic congestion limitations.<\/strong><\/p>\n (b)\u00a0\u00a0Does not include:<\/strong><\/p>\n (i)\u00a0\u00a0Synergy with uses that a government holds as more desirable.<\/strong><\/p>\n (ii)\u00a0\u00a0The ability to raise tax revenues.<\/strong><\/p>\n 8.\u00a0\u00a0“Suitable alternate property” means a financially feasible property considering the person’s revenue sources and other financial obligations with respect to the person’s exercise of religion and with relation to spending that is in the same zoning district or in a contiguous area that the person finds acceptable for conducting the person’s religious mission and that is large enough to fully accommodate the current and projected seating capacity requirements of the person in a manner that the person deems suitable for the person’s religious mission.<\/strong><\/p>\n 9.\u00a0\u00a0“Unreasonable burden” means that a person is prevented from using the person’s property in a manner that the person finds satisfactory to fulfill the person’s religious mission.<\/strong><\/p>\n Sec.\u00a02.\u00a0\u00a0Section 41-1493.01, Arizona Revised Statutes, is amended to read:<\/strong><\/p>\n 41-1493.01.\u00a0\u00a0Free exercise of religion<\/a> protected; definition<\/strong><\/p>\n A.\u00a0\u00a0Free exercise of religion is a fundamental right that applies in this state even if laws, rules or other government actions are facially neutral.<\/strong><\/p>\n B.\u00a0\u00a0Except as provided in subsection C, government 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.<\/strong><\/p>\n C.\u00a0\u00a0Government State action<\/a> may substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion only if it the opposing party demonstrates that application of the burden to the person person’s exercise of religion in this particular instance is both:<\/strong><\/p>\n 1.\u00a0\u00a0In furtherance of a compelling governmental interest.<\/strong><\/p>\n 2.\u00a0\u00a0The least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.<\/strong><\/p>\n D.\u00a0\u00a0A person whose religious exercise is burdened in violation of this section may assert that violation as a claim or defense in a judicial proceeding, and obtain appropriate relief against a government regardless of whether the government is a party to the proceeding.\u00a0\u00a0The person asserting such a claim or defense may obtain appropriate relief.\u00a0\u00a0A party who prevails in any action to enforce this article against a government shall recover attorney fees and costs.<\/strong><\/p>\n E.\u00a0\u00a0In For the purposes of this section, the term substantially burden is intended solely to ensure that this article is not triggered by trivial, technical or de minimis infractions.<\/strong><\/p>\n F.\u00a0\u00a0For 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.<\/strong><\/p>\n <\/p>\n I have posted the bill in order to allow readers to draw their own conclusions about what the bill said and what the bill didn’t say. Those of us who support family values and religious freedom<\/a> need to be very aware of what happens when those who oppose these values control the vocabulary.<\/p>\n The people who control the language control the argument. This was made very clear recently in the debate over Arizona SB 1062. The bill was designed to protect the rights of Christians in the marketplace. The legislature of Arizona felt … Continue reading \n <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n \n ![\"Enhanced](\"http:\/\/img.zemanta.com\/zemified_h.png?x-id=34ed3f2c-c8f3-4d4f-9965-e130c77756cc\")
<\/a><\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"