The Republic | azcentral.com Fri Feb 21, 2014 10:30 AM

The Arizona Legislature has passed a controversial religion bill that is again thrusting Arizona into the national spotlight in a debate over discrimination.

House Bill 2153/Senate Bill 1062, written by the conservative advocacy group Center for Arizona Policy and the Christian legal organization Alliance Defending Freedom, would allow individuals to use religious beliefs as a defense against a lawsuit.

The bill, which was introduced last month and has been described by opponents as discriminatory against gays and lesbians, has drawn national media coverage. Discussion of the bill went viral on social media during the House floor debate Thursday.

Opponents have dubbed it the “right to discriminate” bill and say it could prompt an economic backlash against the state, similar to what they say occurred when the state passed the controversial immigration law Senate Bill 1070 in 2010.

Proponents argue that the bill is simply a tweak to existing state religious-freedom laws to ensure individuals and businesses are not forced to do something that goes against their beliefs.

The bill will be sent to Gov. Jan Brewer, who has five days to sign it into law, veto it or do nothing and allow it to become law. The Greater Phoenix Economic Council sent a letter this morning to Brewer, urging her to veto the measure.

Specifically, the legislation proposes to:

-- Expand the state’s definition of the exercise of religion to include both the practice and observance of religion.

-- Allow someone to assert a legal claim of free exercise of religion regardless of whether the government is a party to the proceedings.

-- Expand those protected under the state’s free-exercise-of-religion law to “any individual, association, partnership, corporation, church, religious assembly or institution or other business organization.”

-- Establish wording that says that in order to assert a free-exercise-of-religion defense, the individual, business or church must establish that its action is motivated by a religious belief, that the belief is sincerely held and that the belief is substantially burdened.

The votes on the bill were mostly along party lines, with Republicans supporting and Democrats opposing. Three Republicans — Ethan Orr, Kate Brophy-McGee and Heather Carter — voted against it.

Proponents say the bill would, for example, protect a wedding photographer who declined to take photos of a same-sex couple’s commitment ceremony due to the photographer’s religious beliefs.

“We are trying to protect people’s religious liberties,” said Rep. Steve Montenegro, R-Litchfield Park. “We don’t want the government coming in and forcing somebody to act against their religious sacred faith beliefs or having to sell out if you are a small-business owner.”

But opponents say it could also protect a corporation that refused to hire anyone who wasn’t Christian and could block members of the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender community from access to nearly any business or service.

“The message that’s interpreted is: ‘We want you to work here, but we are not going to go out of our way to protect you, to protect your rights, to protect your family,’ ” said Rep. Ruben Gallego, D-Phoenix. “God forbid should someone come to the Super Bowl and come to a restaurant that is not going to allow them in.”

Similar debates have occurred nationwide this year as other states tackle the topic, but Arizona is believed to be the first to pass a religious-protection bill this broad.

Its approval comes a week after Republican lawmakers in Kansas introduced legislation that would have exempted individuals from providing any service that was “contrary to their sincerely held religious beliefs.”

That bill passed the state’s House chamber on Feb. 11, causing a wave of national backlash. It has since stalled in the Senate and is not expected to advance this year.

Republican lawmakers in South Dakota introduced a bill last month that would have allowed businesses to refuse to serve same-sex couples on the basis that “businesses are private and that their views on sexual orientation are protected to the same extent as the views of private citizens.”

That bill would have made it illegal for a gay person to file a lawsuit charging discrimination. The bill and a similar one in Tennessee were killed this week.

A ballot initiative in Oregon would allow business owners to refuse to serve same-sex couples “if doing so would violate a person’s deeply held religious beliefs.” It could be voted on this year alongside another initiative that would legalize same-sex marriages.

During nearly three hours of emotional House debate on Arizona’s bill Thursday, Republicans and Democrats disagreed vehemently on what the bill would actually do.

“The result of this bill is discrimination, period. This bill is going to hurt the LGBT community,” said House Minority Leader Chad Campbell, D-Phoenix.

The bill’s sponsor, Rep. Eddie Farnsworth, R-Gilbert, said the measure has nothing to do with the LGBT community because it is currently not protected under state discrimination laws.

“A business owner can already decide not to hire somebody who is gay or lesbian. This doesn’t change that,” he said. “You guys are trying to make this something that doesn’t exist. These are small changes.”

Rep. John Kavanagh, R-Fountain Hills, said the bill protects the religious from persecution.

“The descendants of the people who fled religious persecution are now being criminally prosecuted by politically correct governments,” he said. “All this bill does is protect the religious freedoms that the people who began this country came here to establish.”

Rep. David Gowan, R-Sierra Vista, echoed that. “This bill strengthens against discrimination acts taken by others who want to force someone to do something,” he said. “We’re strengthening the rights of citizens to believe as they see fit.”

Rep. Demion Clinco, D-Tucson, who is gay, said he believes the bill will encourage discrimination. “To justify discrimination against the LGBT community and others because of religion is an affront to all Arizonans,” he said. “That’s not the Arizona I want to live in. That’s not the Arizona that the LGBT community wants to live in.”

Rep. Lisa Otondo, D-Yuma, said someone’s religion should not allow him or her to discriminate. “I already took a punch in the eye after SB 1070,” she said. “The last thing I want to be known for in my state is is more discrimination. This bill does further damage to our reputation. It is bad for business.”

Josh Kredit, legal counsel for the Center for Arizona Policy, said the bill is an attempt to “ensure that in America people are able to live and work according to their faith.”

He said the bill has resulted in fear-mongering from opponents who have blown the legislation out of proportion.

“People need to read the bill,” he said. “We are simply clarifying that our law is in line with the federal government. We are also aligning it with where the overwhelming majority of federal courts have said federal law does protect private business owners.”

Kredit said the bill is not in response to problems in Arizona, but wider, national concerns.

“We see threats to religious liberty from the Obama administration and everywhere around the country,” he said.

Victoria Lopez, ACLU of Arizona program director, said the organization is assessing the legalities of the legislation.

“The intention of this bill is a question mark,” she said. “We’ve heard proponents say it really strengthens existing law and nothing more, but we’ve also heard proponents invoke that case out of New Mexico, which is squarely on the issue of whether private businesses can discriminate against gay and lesbian people.”

The bill has a strong chance of becoming law. It is nearly identical to one the Legislature passed last year but Gov. Jan Brewer vetoed. That is not a clear indication of what she’ll do, because according to her veto letter, her decision to reject last year’s bill was due more to a political battle over Medicaid expansion than objection to the legislation.

Brewer has a policy of not commenting on legislation before it reaches her desk.

Republic reporter JT Reid contributed to this article.