What the Arizona Bill “actually” Says
Mandeville, LA – Exclusive Transcript – “This is how faux journalists and faux reporters work these days. You go in and nearly start a riot, you whip everyone up into a frenzy, you say things about things that are not true, you imply things to make people think that this is actually what’s being discussed when it’s not, and the news cycle thus repeats it.” Check out today’s transcript for the rest…
Begin Mike Church Show Transcript
Mike: This is how faux journalists and faux reporters work these days. You go in and nearly start a riot, you whip everyone up into a frenzy, you say things about things that are not true, you imply things to make people think that this is actually what’s being discussed when it’s not, and the news cycle thus repeats it. So repeat it over and over and over again was Arizona’s attempt to basically hunt down any person that was a homosexual, corral them into some OK Corral out there in Tombstone, Arizona, get them all together at once, call the firing squad to meet, and then shoot them all.
Eric: That would have been great if solicitors would have been going around trying to sell products, and then if they agreed, they said: Okay, are you homosexual? I’m sorry, I can’t do business with you then. Have a good day.
Mike has been talking about many different ways to deal with the American Union & it’s attack dog, the “Federal” government – There’s Article V & Nullification too!
Mike: The perception of how this was presented ultimately became what the bill is. I’m going to read to you the operative part of the act, because I have it here. The operative part of the act, if you’re looking for it, you’ll find it at the azleg.gov site. That’s the Arizona Legislature. As I said, SB1062, the entire PDF file is three pages long. On page one is the description of the bill. There is a box in which the description is printed in. On page two we find:
Be it enacted by the Legislature of the State of Arizona: Section 1. Section 41-1493, Arizona Revised Statutes, is amended to read: 41-1493. Definitions In this article, unless the context otherwise requires:
1. “Demonstrates” means . . .
2. “Exercise of religion” means . . .
3. “Government” includes . . .
4. “Nonreligious assembly or institution” includes . . .
5. “Person” includes . . .
6. “Political subdivision” includes . . .
7. “Religion-neutral zoning standards” . . .
8. “Suitable alternate property” means . . .
9. “Unreasonable burden” means . . .
Sec. 2. Section 41-1493.01, Arizona Revised Statutes, is amended to read: 41-1493.01. Free exercise of religion protected
Mike: Let me repeat that, “free exercise of religion protected.” That’s what the bill is. That’s what the bill states, that’s what it is. As I said, you won’t find the terms homosexual, sex, gay, LGBT. You won’t find heterosexual in there. You’ll find none of it. All you will find is what I just read you. Here’s clause A. This is going to shock some of you people because what you have been told — look, the right-wing media is as guilty of this as are other media. They’re all sloppy, yellow, and do not do due diligence.
A. Free exercise of religion is a fundamental right that applies in this state even if laws, rules or other government actions are facially neutral.
Mike: That’s pretty clear-cut. What that basically means, in lawyer speak, is that we have a freedom of religion clause. There is nothing else you can write or legislate that even if you think on the surface it said we’re infringing on that liberty, you can’t. The copy I have is the one that they marked up, meaning it’s the one they worked from from the get-go. It has all the wording that was in it from the start. What they do is they leave all that wording in there and they use the strike-through function in a type editor. Words that they have taken out or altered, they just scratch through them and replace them with other words. If you search with the markup bill that has all the language every contained, again, search for the words that the parrot press corps or the fabled news media or the industrial-media complex claims is in the bill, and even there you can’t find it. It’s not there. It doesn’t exist.
B. Except as provided in subsection C 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.
Mike: So far, so good. What is so damning? What is so offensive about this? You must be wondering, fair listener back home. This is what ought to really get you. Just in case someone like Jan Brewer said [mocking] “This is ill-conceived and very abstract. We’ll never be able to do this or that or the other,” said the Wicked Witch of the West. Boy, she does look like the Wicked Witch of the West. Put a little green makeup on Jan Brewer and I could see —
Eric: You wouldn’t know, would you?
Mike: You’re funny! I can see her pedaling a bike with a dog in the basket in the back, can’t you? So the legislature says: People like Jan Brewer are going to say we’re going to be marching homosexuals and transgendered people off to the gallows and hanging them and this will be totally hamstrung and crippled and will not even be able to act on behalf of its citizens if there’s an altercation. So we better put some language in here so we make sure we deal with that. They did that.
C. STATE ACTION may substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion . . .
Mike: Wait a minute, “may”? That means you can burden? Wait a minute, I must be reading this wrong. “State action may substantially burden . . .,” that can’t be right. I’ve got to be reading this wrong. This has to be incorrect.
C. STATE ACTION may substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion only if THE OPPOSING PARTY demonstrates that application of the burden to the 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. D. A person whose religious exercise is burdened in violation of this section may assert that violation as a claim or defense in a judicial proceeding . . .
Mike: Thus the religious liberty protection clause of the act. In other words, if someone, namely a federal judge or a state judge or some county tinhorn dictator tries to tell you that you have to provide something to someone that you do not wish to based on a religious objection, and they force or compel you to, then you can seek redress in a court. If you reverse that, let’s just reverse that and say that it doesn’t exist. That means that now you can be compelled to perform said service and you may not seek redress or compensation in a court of law in the State of Arizona. In the absence of this particular statute, now, if you’re an Arizonan, and if you defy the act of Eric Holder, Barrack Obama, Judge Garcia in Texas — we’ll get into that in a moment — and you defy them and say “I’m not going to do it” and they fine you or lock you up, persecute you in any way, shape, or form, you do not have, under Arizona law, a legal recourse to action. If the bill goes through, if people just shut up and let the bill pass, then what you basically will then have is freedom of association. You will have the protection of the law if you choose to exercise that freedom of association.
End Mike Church Show Transcript