[1] It was widely reported as targeting LGBT people, although Arizona law at the time provided no protection against discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.
Supporters argued that it was simply restoring the legal status of the right to free exercise of religion as intended by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.
The US Congress responded by passing the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), requiring strict scrutiny when a neutral law of general applicability "substantially burden[s] a person's exercise of religion".
Arizona lawmakers were concerned about a 2013 New Mexico Supreme Court ruling that weakened its state's RFRA,[8] which was passed as a religious exemption to its own public accommodation law prohibiting the denial of services based on a person's sexual orientation or gender identity.
SB 1062 would have revised it by expanding the definition of person in the article from "a religious assembly or institution" to also include "any individual, association, partnership, corporation, church," "estate, trust, foundation or other legal entity",[14] and would have allowed for religious-freedom as a claim or defense in lawsuits "regardless of whether the government is a party to the proceeding.
[8] Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of the UC Irvine law school, argued that the bill was harmful and "sends a message that the state is bigoted.
[8] Three lawmakers who initially voted for the bill, including Senate Majority Whip Adam Driggs, had encouraged Governor Brewer to veto it.
[19] Arizona SB 1062 was similar, at the time, to bills in five other states—South Dakota, Kansas, Idaho, Tennessee, Colorado, and Maine—that all failed or faced major setbacks as of February 2014[update].