Aaron Borders Asks for Clergy Rights Bill in Next Arizona Legislative Session

Aaron Borders, Second Vice Chair of the Republican Party of Maricopa County, is asking Arizona legislators to consider a Ministers & Clergy Rights Bill in the upcoming 2016 legislative session.

Borders is not so interested in rehashing the controversy surrounding 2013’s SB 1062 bill as much as affirming right of conscience protections.

In a recent interview, Borders said, “this is a completely separate issue. Now that it’s legal in Arizona to have same sex marriage, it is not my business to interfere. There are clergy in Arizona who will happily perform same sex marriage ceremonies. However, many who have chosen to stand behind their constitutional right to practice and uphold their religion by not performing these marriages feel threatened with lawsuits against them and their congregations and frankly, that requires legal protection. Such a law as a Ministers & Clergy Rights Bill would protect the rights of Arizona ministers and pastors from costly, frivolous and unconstitutional lawsuits that would bring undue hardship on local congregations who are simply excising their religious beliefs in their place of worship.”

Borders is referring to a 2008 account of a lesbian couple in New Jersey seeking use of a beach side pavilion operated by a Christian organization as well as the recent US Supreme Court ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges as reported in Christianity Today.

Aaron Borders is not new to standing up for the First Amendment’s religious freedom. He has been an outspoken Christian activist participating in his local church since he was a boy.

Nearly 15 years ago he and his older brother and one of his sisters recorded a Southern Gospel Record when he was barely 15 years old. He recently performed with his siblings in a ‘reunion of voices’ at the church he grew up in during a visit to Ohio.

Ken Bennet isn’t the only Republican politico who has a love and proclivity for music.

Borders is currently serves as one of the music directors at his local Church in Phoenix. It is a small, but growing congregation in the valley. He also serves as the project manager and building fund raiser for the church.

Aaron Borders stated, “Our congregation is growing and we need to do a solid remodel to make better use of our building to accommodate the growth God has blessed us with.”

Borders also periodically fills in for his 90-year old World War II veteran pastor and bringing sermons before his congregation.

Borders believes that Ministers & Clergy Rights legislation will especially help smaller churches continue to operate without fear of legal threats and lawsuits.

Alliance Defending Freedom: Deception, distortion on SB 1062 results in veto

The following quote may be attributed to Alliance Defending Freedom Senior Counsel Doug Napier regarding Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer’s decision Wednesday to veto SB 1062, a bill the state legislature recently passed to clarify Arizona’s 1999 Religious Freedom Restoration Act and bring it into conformity with federal law:

“Freedom loses when fear overwhelms facts and a good bill is vetoed. Today’s veto enables the foes of faith to more easily suppress the freedom of the people of Arizona. Even though the battle has become more difficult, Alliance Defending Freedom stands ready to defend any Arizonan who suffers the indignity of religious discrimination.

Read Statement.

SB 1062 Analysis – Winners, Losers and Who Gets Stuck with the Bill

By Bill Beard

Politically it would seem that for the vast majority of folks in Arizona the signing of SB 1062 will lead to a lot of trouble. Every day that Governor Brewer waits to sign or veto this bill only prolongs the agony and entrenches all sides against each other. We still have an economy on shaky ground. Unfortunately the only winners in this will be attorneys for both sides that will rake in the big bucks. The other winner would appear to be the discrimination lobby consultants that will be able to squeeze out more dollars to muddy the water and further antagonize all sides.

Those ‘for’ the bill are well intentioned. The political wisdom of dragging the rest of us into this isn’t clear. The average outside observer could have seen this coming. In an attempt to secure Religious Freedom they have set things on a course where reputations will be damaged and leave the taxpayers hurting. The average guy and gal that earns a living related to tourism for business or pleasure will see smaller paychecks. I’m not exactly sure who would be against Religious Freedom but this approach seems doomed. A better alternative to alleviating the possibility of someone suing a business owner for discrimination because they don’t like gays or pick your cause du jour would have been a simple Tort Reform bill that allowed the marketplace to decide the wisdom of anyone denying anyone else the ability to do business. The court system does not need to be involved.

Politically this issue has gone beyond the intent of the supporters. At this point it will only be a loser for folks running for office this year. Forget any merits of the bill. If you have an R after your name you will have to address this in your campaign. Whether you run for Dog Catcher or Governor this issue will come up. Regardless of the real issues of your campaign you will need to take time to explain your position on the bill. Why you agree or disagree with the intent, the politics or the inevitable lawsuits. When the average citizen is more concerned with their personal economy your campaign will spend valuable time addressing this issue.

The average guy out there will not see this as a Religious Liberty issue. For them it will further separate them from their elected representatives. It will only add to the idea that the representatives just don’t get what’s going on in their lives. They struggle daily with paying bills, feeding the kids or trying to figure out where the money will come from to pay for the broken washing machine or car repair. They will get stuck with the bill for the attorneys, the bill for the loss of their representatives focus on keeping the economy moving forward and the bill for time defending what their leaders have done to their friends and family in the rest of the country. So much for of, by and for the people.

Poll: What is your understanding of Arizona’s SB 1062?

Fascist Constitutionphobes and Religiophobes Hope You Won’t Read

Reposted from The Playful Walrus

Have you heard about the legislation recently passed by the Arizona legislature? Have you heard that it is “anti-gay”? Do you know the name of the legislation? Have you even bothered to read it? It’s not very long or hard to find. I easily found it here. It is SB 1062.

The way the marriage neutering and homosexuality advocates have been engaging in their dramatic whining and over-the-top theatrics, and the way so many of their repeaters in the MSM have called it “anti-gay”, you’d think the legislation authorizes people to hunt down homosexual people where they live and burn down their homes.

Go ahead and search through the text.

You won’t find one mention of any of the following words or phrases:

gay
lesbian
homosexual
sexual orientation
same-sex
heterosexual

You won’t find euphemisms for those words or phrases, either.

What you will find is that the core language of the legislation is:

“STATE ACTION shall not substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion…”

However, there are some very important and sizable exceptions:

“In furtherance of a compelling governmental interest.”
“The least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.”

More core language:

“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…”

Again, there are some very important and sizable exceptions.

What is the big deal?

This seems to me like this is an application basic rights – rights specifically enumerated in the First Amendment.

If we consider this on the context of recent government actions, then this would appear to be a reaction to recent cases involving bakers and photographers who have opted out of participation in events that have offended their consciences and sincerely and strongly held religious convictions that have a long, public, mainstream, and widespread tradition can be informed by a basic reading of Scripture. These businesspeople have been sued or prosecuted by their own government. These situations have also been misportrayed as the someone “refusing to serve gay people”. I recall that one baker in particular had gladly served the homosexual people in question on different occasions. It was only when the baker was asked to participate in a specific event, a same-sex “wedding” ceremony, that the baker declined. Still, some people might insist that such a denial was “anti-gay”. However, I can demonstrate that it wasn’t. The same baker would have refused if two heterosexual women had asked for the baker to participate in their “wedding”.

Notice that the legislation does not mention such professions or events. The legislation could apply to many other things that have nothing to do with what homosexual people do with each other.

So why is it being called “anti-gay”?

I can think of two reasons right now.

1) Leftist homosexuality advocates are malignant narcissists. Everything in the world has to be about their orgasms. They see the entire world through their genitals and anal openings. Other people are to be judged by whether or not they think it is just groovy that one man likes to stick it in another man’s anus. They have some bizarre fixation on what other people think about their private bedroom (or public restroom) behavior. Legislation is to be evaluated by whether or not it will encourage one man to stick it in another man’s anus, or whether or not it empowers or celebrates such men nor not.

2) Homofascists want to reorganize all of society around their feelings, including the practice of religion, and anything that exempts anyone from being under the control of homofascists is labeled “anti-gay”. That would mean they are getting so upset because they fully intend to use the force of government to force everyone, even the deeply religious, to celebrate homosexual behavior.

Whatever happened to “leave us alone”? Now that’s not enough. Now they seek you out, quiz you, and if your answers aren’t right you’re facing a trip to economic Siberia.

Even if you disagree with the legislation, the hysterics from the Leftist homosexuality advocates, and the lockstep following of low information voters should concern you. Really, if signed into law and implemented, how would this law hurt a single homosexual person? Someone might ask a baker for a “wedding” cake with two grooms on top of it. The baker would say “Can’t do it.” Then the homosexual person could go to another baker. Who got hurt? Judging from the circus-like response to the legislation, there would be plenty of other people willing to participate in the “wedding” by making a cake. Comparisons to Jim Crow do not hold up. Jim Crow included government-enforced blanket segregation based on skin color. This would be a business, not government, deciding they could not participate in an event.

Is such legislation Constitutional? I don’t see how it isn’t. It is essentially a building upon the First Amendment.

Will it actually be implemented if signed into law? Don’t count on it.

As we’re seeing repeatedly, the Constitution doesn’t matter. The Executive Branch is under the control of Leftist homosexuality advocates who do not believe in letting states handle their own matters or being bound by existing legislation, and they have more and bigger guns than Arizona. Don’t kid yourself. That’s all it boils down to these days. Even if Arizona refuses to prosecute a baker for being true to their faith, Obama’s Department of Justice will.

1) The Numbers Tell the Story – Here are a few important numbers for you: 13, 51, 114.

  • 13 is the number of Center for Arizona Policy-supported bills that were signed into law this session. Simply put, Arizona is a better place for families today than it was 5 months ago because of these bills.
  • 51 is the number of CAP-supported bills signed into law since 2009 when Governor Brewer took office. These last 4 years show the difference we can make when we elect pro-life and pro-family leaders to the legislature and Governor’s office.
  • 114 is the number of CAP-supported bills signed into law since 1995. Each of these bills takes important steps to protect the foundational values of life, marriage and family, and religious liberty.

While our work is far from over, these numbers exemplify what the Lord can do when we engage in the political process and vote our values.

2) The Final Victories of the Session – Governor Jan Brewer signed the 3 remaining CAP-supported bills on her desk last Friday and Monday. These 3 bills were no minor pieces of legislation – they were bold policies that will have a tangible impact on the lives of Arizonans. Click here to read more about HB 2622, SB 1365, and HB 2625. Click here to read Governor Brewer’s news release on why she signed HB 2625 – one of the most attacked and distorted pieces of legislation this session.

While I am sincerely grateful to Governor Jan Brewer for signing these bills, I am also thankful for the many legislators that supported these and the other CAP-supported bills.

Earlier this week, we released our 2012 Family Issues Voting Record reporting on how every legislator voted on 12 key bills that impact life, marriage and family, and religious liberty. Take time today to find out how your legislator voted and send them a note with your thoughts. Please take time to send a note of thanks to the legislators who stood with us in defense of life, marriage and family, and religious liberty. You can be sure they have heard from those who oppose us.

3) An Unfounded Overreaction – From the time Rep. Justin Olson introduced HB 2800, which says federal family planning funds that pass through the state cannot go to abortion providers, to the time Governor Jan Brewer signed the bill into law, Planned Parenthood told every media outlet that would listen that this bill would deny low-income families access to medical care.

But as CAP Legislative Counsel Josh Kredit points out on the Foundations Blog, there are nearly 200 clinics across the state that low-income families can visit to access care. What’s more, the vast majority of these clinics actually offer more services than the 14 Planned Parenthood clinics in our state.

4) Don’t Believe the Polls – Recent polls nationwide show support for redefining marriage to supposedly be a 50/50 split with support for same-sex “marriage” growing. Yet as we all know, every time the people vote on marriage, they vote strongly in favor of defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman. Then we hear, “Well, the younger generation doesn’t believe in marriage.” Yes, we do have significant challenges to restore the value of marriage in our culture. But don’t miss this fact tweeted by Family Research Council President Tony Perkins yesterday: if the votes of everyone 45+ were discounted in NC, the marriage amendment would have still passed by 8 percentage points. Check out this analysis by American Enterprise Institute.

http://sonoranalliance.com/28387/