Last Thursday, the Arizona House of Representatives passed its version of a state senate bill that many are calling the “Turn Away The Gays” bill.  If signed into law by Gov. Jan Brewer, a Republican, Arizona may well have taken a huge step away from those states that have struck down laws and constitutional provisions inhibiting LGBT equality.  This bill might be seen as a reaction by state conservatives to a national trend towards marriage equality for LGBT couples.  This has been felt particularly close to home for Arizonans, since state and national courts have recently overturned bans on same-sex marriage in neighboring California and New Mexico.

 

The language of the bill is generally vague, stating that:

B. …STATE ACTION shall not substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability.

 

C.  Government STATE ACTION 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:

 

1.  In furtherance of a compelling governmental interest.

 

2.  The least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.

 

 

Despite this broad language, many Arizonans critical of the bill believe that it is designed to permit business owners to refuse services to LGBT persons.  While the bill is designed to enhance the religious freedom of all persons, it defines “persons” as including all forms of business associations.  The executive director for the Arizona chapter of the American Civil Liberties has described the bill as “unnecessary and discriminatory,” and that it’s taint of anti-LGBT sentiment would ultimately harm the state economy.

 

Taken at its broadest interpretation, the bill’s vague language presents other problems as well.  Sen. Ana Tovar, a Democratic leader in the state senate, believes that the law could open the door to discriminate based on race, familial status, religion, sex, national origin, age or disability.”  If Gov. Brewer signs the bill next week, then it may indeed open the door to a broad range of sanctioned discrimination by businesspersons – or at least what they perceive to be sanctioned discrimination.  At least some Arizona businesspeople have registered their disapproval of the bill, sometimes in rather blunt and humorous ways: the owner of a Tucson pizzeria posted a sign on door reading “We Reserve the Right to Refuse Service to Arizona Legislators.”
(Sources for this article can be found at the hyperlinked text within.)

 

 

While a lot of international attention has been focused on the Olympics over the last two weeks, the situation in Ukraine has deteriorated considerably. This article discusses the developments in some detail and represents potential American action as well.

According to the article, both the Ukranian and Russian governments have begun labeling protestors as terrorists, which can only endanger said protestors as the conflict continues. The article suggests that such a label could precede a state of emergency in country and expanded powers for military and police.
The article also suggests that relationships between the government and people of Ukraine took a turn for the worse when Ukraine’s President Yanukovych met with Russian President Vladimir Putin in Sochi this week. It is also significant that Russia began buying Ukrainian bonds.
Within Ukraine itself, “Demonstrators are now occupying some government buildings in some western Ukrainian cities where authorities are considered more sympathetic to the opposition, which the officials also said is a telling sign that things are looking bad for the government.”
Said the article, “Senior U.S. officials said visas were revoked in January for Ukrainian government officials linked to the violence against protestors. The officials said the administration is putting the final touches on a presidential executive order imposing sanctions against those involved in the crackdown. President Barack Obama would still need to sign off on any new sanctions.””
While today’s update is a bit abbreviated, we will keep you informed as the situation in Ukraine continues to develop. As a parting thought, consider the situation confronted by Ukrainian protestors this week. What are the ramifications, both legal and social, to be officially labeled a terrorist? Has anyone come up with an acceptable distinction between terrorist and freedom fighter?