Tip:
Highlight text to annotate it
X
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN CAVANAUGH.
THERE'S A LOT OF DISCUSSION
ABOUT WHAT THIS BILL WOULD ALLOW
AND NOT ALLOW.
THERE'S OBVIOUSLY SOME TENSION
IN THIS COUNTRY BETWEEN
RELIGIOUS LIBERTY AND
DISCRIMINATION.
THIS BILL WOULD PROTECT BUSINESS
OWNERS FROM LAWSUIT AGAINST
DISCRIMINATION IF THOSE ACTIONS
WERE PART OF THE BUSINESS
OWNER'S RELIGIOUS VIEWS.
SO GIVE ME AN EXAMPLE OF WHERE
THIS MIGHT BE APPLIED.
YOU'RE SAYING IT WOULDN'T BE
APPLIED FOR SOMEBODY REFUSING TO
SERVE A SAME-SEX COUPLE AT A
RESTAURANT.
SO WHERE WOULD IT APPLY?
>> WELL, IT WOULD ONLY APPLY
WHERE A PERSON HAD SINCERELY
HELD RELIGIOUS BELIEFS.
SO, FOR EXAMPLE, IF YOU WERE TO
GO AFTER A PHYSICIAN OR ORTHODOX
AGAINST ABORTION AND YOU WERE
SUING THEM BECAUSE THEY WOULDN'T
PERFORM ABORTION, THAT'S WHERE
IT WOULD APPLY.
>> FOR INSTANCE, IF THERE WAS
SOMEBODY RELIGIOUS OBSERVANT AND
BELIEVED HOMOSEXUALITY TO BE A
SIN, OWNED A HOTEL THAT WAS
OPENED TO THE PUBLIC AND ARE
THEY ALLOWED TO NOT LET A
SAME-SEX COUPLE GET A ROOM AT
THAT HOTEL?
>> THIS LAW WOULD NOT SHIELD
THAT PARTICULAR HOTEL OWNER OR A
WAITER IN A RESTAURANT BECAUSE
WE'RE NOT TALKING HERE ABOUT
SUBSTANTIAL BURDENS.
LET'S TAKE THE CASE OF A
PHOTOGRAPHER.
ONE OF THE REASONS WHY THIS BILL
CAME TO LIGHT WAS YOU HAD A
PHOTOGRAPHER WHO WAS BEING SUED
BECAUSE THE PHOTOGRAPHER WOULD
NOT OFFICIATE OR TAKE PICTURES
AT A GAY WEDDING.
BEING INVOLVED IN AN ACTION, A
GAY MARRIAGE THAT YOUR RELIGION
SAYS IT WRONG, THAT'S A
SUBSTANTIAL BURDEN BECAUSE
YOU'RE DEEPLY INVOLVED IN THE
CEREMONY.
IF THAT SAME GAY COUPLE CAME IN
FOR A PASSPORT PHOTO, THERE IS
NOT A SUBSTANTIAL BURDEN UPON
YOUR RELIGION AND YOU COULD NOT
USE THIS LAW TO DO THAT.
>> BUT IT IS IN THE EYE OF THE
BEHOLDER, I SUPPOSE, WHERE THE
SUBSTANTIAL BURDEN IS, FOR
EXAMPLE, DISAPPROVED BECAUSE OF
HIS RELIGIOUS BELIEFS, HE COULD
REFUSE TO TREAT A SEXUALLY
TRANSMITTED DISEASE OF A GAY
MAN?
IS THAT -- WOULD THAT BE PART OF
THE SIGNIFICANT BURDEN?
>> NO, NOT UNDER THIS LAW.
TREATING A *** DISEASE WITH
ANYBODY IS NOT A BURDEN ON ONE'S
RELIGION.
I THINK WHAT YOU HAVE TO
UNDERSTAND IS THAT THESE LAWS,
THIS PROTECTION, THEY CAME ABOUT
THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IN THE
1990s.
ARIZONA PASSED A CERTAIN LAW.
AND WHAT THE LAW SAYS IS THE
GOVERNMENT CAN'T SUBSTANTIALLY
BURDEN A PERSON'S FREE EXERCISE
OF RELIGION UNLESS THERE'S A
COMPELLING REASON AND EVEN THEN
ONLY IN THE LEAST RESTRICTIVE
MANNER.
ALL WE DID WAS PUT TWO CHANGES
TO THAT LAW.
THE FIRST CHANGE WAS, WE
CLARIFIED THAT THE DEFINITION OF
A EARN APPROXIMAPERSON, NOT JUS
BUT CORPORATIONS AND
ASSOCIATIONS AND THE HOBBY LOBBY
CASE WAS THE REASON FOR THAT.
THE SECOND THING WE DID WAS
EXPAND WHAT IT PROTECTS AGAINST.
THE ORIGINAL FEDERAL AND STATE
LAW SAYS IT ONLY PROTECTS YOU
AGAINST A GOVERNMENT ACTION.
WE SAID, HEY, THIS SHOULD ALSO
COVER A PRIVATE PERSON USING A
GOVERNMENT LAW AND AS A
CONCESSION --
>> REPRESENTATIVE CALF HAVVANAU
A LOT OF GAY AND LESBIAN
COUPLES, IT SOUNDS AS THOUGH
YOU'RE SAYING BUSINESSES NOW, IF
SOMEBODY HAS A RELIGIOUS
OBJECTION TO WHAT THEY DO, IT
SOUNDS AS THOUGH YOU'RE SAYING
THEY NOW HAVE AN ABILITY TO
DISCRIMINATE.
I DON'T YET UNDERSTAND EXACTLY
WHERE THIS BURDEN IS.
THE EXAMPLES I GAVE YOU SAY THEY
DON'T MEET THE BURDEN.
WHERE IS THE LINE?
>> THEY ARE INCORRECT.
THE LAW ABOUT THE SUBSTANTIAL
BURDEN HAS BEEN IN EFFECT
FEDERALLY AND AT THE STATE LEVEL
SINCE THE 1990s.
WE SIMPLY CHANGED WHO IT
PROTECTS AND INCLUDED
ASSOCIATIONS AND SAID IT ALSO
COVER
COVERS SOMEBODY WHEN THEY ARE
BEING SUED ON A YOU LA.
WE INCREASE LEGISLATION AGAINST
DISCRIMINATION.
IT HAS TO BE A SINCERELY HELD
BELIEF AND THEN WE SAID THE
BURDEN CAN'T BE ANY BURDEN ON
THE RELIGION, IT HAS TO BE A
SUBSTANTIAL ONE.
WE MADE IT HARDER FOR SOMEBODY
TO HIDE BEHIND THIS LAW.
I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY NOW --
SINCE THE 1990s, THERE'S BEEN NO
CONCERN OR DEMONSTRATIONS ABOUT