The idea that this bill was intended to serve is a worthwhile one but the bill itself was bound to create more problems than it fixed.
Arizona public accommodations law doesn't protect homosexuals now and we haven't had any problems because of that. We also haven't had any cases where the problem that this bill sought to solve has come up. In essence, it was a solution in search of a problem.
Furthermore, a law such as this simply BEGS the 'crusaders' on both sides of the fence to come out and we really don't need that either. In fact this bill would have created a situation where any exercise of the option to refuse service would result in a conflict with our state constitution.
Article 2, Section 12 of the Arizona Constitution states:
To my admittedly lay reading of the bill and the Constitution I don't see how any court could make a determination in any case that came before them without addressing the religious beliefs of at least one of the parties when protections under SB 1062 were claimed.Section 12. The liberty of conscience secured by the provisions of this constitution shall not be so construed as to excuse acts of licentiousness, or justify practices inconsistent with the peace and safety of the state. No public money or property shall be appropriated for or applied to any religious worship, exercise, or instruction, or to the support of any religious establishment. No religious qualification shall be required for any public office or employment, nor shall any person be incompetent as a witness or juror in consequence of his opinion on matters of religion, nor be questioned touching his religious belief in any court of justice to affect the weight of his testimony.