There is nothing right or Godly about submitting legislation loaded with preferential, unprincipled and nonsensical religious jargon that is most likely to get vetoed, or most likely to get thrown out in the judicial process.
This particular issue in AZ would have passed legal muster had it simply provided every person or business the right to refuse service to anyone, period, with appropriate exceptions noted for life-threatening emergencies.
That would be equal treatment under the law. That would be principled. That would be right and Godly.
Such a legally principled point of view is not sufficient for some unprincipled religious fruitcakes, such as the ones who crafted the Arizona bill. Their demands for preferential treatment to be encoded within the law, using their peculiar brand of nonlegal jargon, is just as much an abomination to constitutional law as are the demands of gays, minorities, illegal aliens, and other groups for their groups' preferential treatment to be encoded within the legislation, using the peculiar nonlegal jargon of their respective groups.
There are signs up in many establishment that simply state, NO SHOES, NO SHIRT, NO SERVICE.
Yet I have to face going to the Mall or other high crime shopping areas with OUT MY CCW LEGAL GUN, my child’s SOCIOPATH killer has made threats, and he now walks a free man after serving only a fraction of a BAD PLEA DEAL that took 2 years to reach, thanks to the RINO prosecutor. God had nothing to do with this man made nonsense.
It is none of those things you accuse it of. It uses language that is well precedented in judicial decisions.
If the applause of the left is what drives you, you might as well pick up your marbles and go home, we do not need you.