There is hope for Arizona yet...
Earlier, I wrote about a bill passed by the Arizona legislature that would broadly allow religious practices and beliefs to trump professional obligations, ethics codes and discipline. The bill, SB 1288, directed in part:
A. Government shall not deny, suspend or revoke a professional or occupational license, certificate or registration based on a person’s exercise of religion.
B. Government shall not deny, suspend or revoke a professional or occupational license, certificate or registration based on a person’s refusal to affirm a statement that is contrary to the person’s sincerely held moral or religious beliefs, regardless of whether those beliefs are specifically espoused by a recognized church or religious body…
C. A person’s exercise of religion is not unprofessional conduct.
It was widely assumed, including by me, that Republican governor Jan Brewer would sign this stunningly awful bill into a law which would allow any practice that could be called “religious” to be immune from community, cultural and professional norms of right and wrong unless they were explicitly illegal. She did not. She vetoed it, an act of responsible leadership and political courage.
You can read her veto letter here.
Ethics Alarms 
Now on to the “birther” bill….
Aren’t you of two minds regarding that? It’s objectionable because of its timing and obvious political intent, but shouldn’t pre-verification of a potential president’s Constitutional citizenship and age requirements be a routine part of the process, so we don’t have this kind of stupid controversy?
I’m in favor of junking the “Natural born” requirement anyway.
I think we’re on the same page. While I believe the requirement should be junked, until it is junked, it is ethical and rational to create rules and processes that enforce the requirement.
A couple of points:
The veto message says that the Gov is not aware of anyone losing a license for exercise of religion. Other websites have reported that two police officers lost their certifications because they let religion trump duty in an investigation regarding polygamy in Colorado City Az.
I can’t say whether the bill was good or bad, but, as I understand it: (1) the licenses are based on the state’s police power; and (2) the state could do away with the need for a license for any given occupation. Why is it wrong for the state to make its requirements less restrictive than they are now?
From a cursory look, all the things that Prof. Volokh complains of are only “wrong” because the state (or a professional society) has defined them as such. If the psychotherapist discloses that she might let her religion influence how she treats me, why is it a problem for anyone but me?
But maybe I am biased because I’ll admit that I don’t see why someone should need a license to cut hair, operate a nail salon or any number of other occupations. I can see how a two-pronged approach would be good: if you run a licensed pre-school you could proudly advertise that, whereas I could be required to disclose that mine is not licensed by the state. The parents would be free to choose. Same with cosmetology – if I want to risk having an unlicensed person apply nail polish or manicure my nails I should be free to do so.
But it isn’t just state licenses—it’s professional licenses and ethics discipline. Read any of the posts here about “conscience clauses.” If you won’t distribute birth control pills to everyone with prescription, you should be a pharmacist. If you won’t keep a client’s secrets, you can’t, and shouldn’t be a lawyer.
It’s a bad law, really, really bad. Did you read the original post?
There is a logical flaw in the argument. If no one is required to be licensed, then no one will be. If I want to go to a licensed barber instead of an unlicensed barber, I will be unable to because no one would go through the paperwork and cost of licensure if they don’t need to. There is a health and safety issue at work here, just as their is with vaccination.
Unlicensed brain surgeons are a disturbing thought, even if they are religious brain surgeons.