A group representing marijuana business owners in the West is urging Congress to include language in a government spending bill that would protect pot operations.

The Western Regional Cannabis Business Association said January 16 it is asking for legislative protection after Attorney General Jeff Sessions’ signaled a tougher approach to federal pot enforcement. Earlier this month Sessions said he was ending an Obama-era policy that kept federal authorities from cracking down on the pot trade in states where the drug is legal.

The marijuana business group wants lawmakers to include language in an appropriations bill that would prohibit the Justice Department from spending money to thwart marijuana businesses in states where it is legal. The Western Regional Cannabis Business Association represents marijuana businesses in Washington state, Oregon, Alaska, Hawaii, Montana and Arizona.

The state Court of Appeals has rejected arguments by owners of a Phoenix business that a city ordinance that bars them from refusing to design wedding invitations for same-sex couples violates their constitutional and religious rights.

In a unanimous ruling Thursday, the judges acknowledged that Joanna Duka and Breanna Koski, the owners of Brush & Nib Studio, are “devout Christians” who believe that the only legitimate marriage is between one man and one woman.

As a result, they do not want to be forced to prepare wedding invitations for same-sex couples, arguing that doing so would force them to espouse beliefs that are contrary to their sincerely held religious beliefs. And they wanted the ability to post a sign to that effect.

But appellate Judge Lawrence Winthrop, writing for the court, rebuffed their claim that this was about free speech. Instead, he said, this is simply about conduct.

“While such a requirement may impact speech, such as prohibiting places of public accommodation from posting signs that discriminate against customers, this impact is incidental to properly regulated conduct,” the judge wrote.

“Simply stated, if appellants, as an economic entity, want to operate their for-profit business as a public accommodation, they cannot discriminate against potential patrons based on sexual orientation,” Winthrop said.

The judges also rejected their claims that the ordinance substantially burdens their religious beliefs.

“Appellants are not penalized for expressing their belief that their religion only recognizes the marriage of opposite-sex couples,” Winthrop said. And he said they can refuse to create wedding-related merchandise for same-sex couples as long as they refuse to provide the same service for opposite-sex couples.

“What appellants cannot do is use their religion as a shield to discriminate against potential customers,” he said.

Winthrop said, however, nothing in Thursday’s ruling forces the women to endorse same-sex marriages — or even to keep silent about their views.

“Although appellants are prohibited from posting discriminatory statements about their intent to refuse services for same-sex weddings, they may post a statement endorsing their belief that marriage is between a man and a woman,” the judge said. “Or they may post a disclaimer that the act of selling their goods and services to same-sex couples does not constitute an endorsement of their customers’ exercise of their constitutional right to marry or any other activities.”

Winthrop cited a long line of federal court rulings from across the country which have upheld laws barring places of “public accommodation” — which includes commercial businesses open to the public — from refusing services based on whether the client is gay.

“In light of these cases and consistent with the United States Supreme Court’s decisions, we recognize that allowing appellants based on sexual orientation would constitute grave and continuing harm,” Winthrop wrote.

As it turns out, though, one of the federal appellate court rulings cited by Winthrop in Thursday’s ruling is the one involving the Colorado baker who refused to create a wedding cake for a gay couple. The baker in that case, like the women here, said doing so would violate his “sincerely held religious beliefs.”

On Tuesday, however, the U.S. Supreme Court overturned that Colorado ruling, siding with the baker.

It is unclear, however, whether the appellate judges here would have changed how they ruled Thursday in the Brush & Nib case. That’s because the nation’s high court concluded only that the baker had not gotten a fair hearing before the Colorado Civil Rights Board, but never reached the question of whether his religious beliefs trumped the rights of the gay couple to force him to design a cake.

Jonathan Scruggs, attorney for Alliance Defending Freedom which represents the women has vowed to seek review by the Arizona Supreme Court.

“Artists shouldn’t be forced under the threat of fines and jail time to create artwork contrary to their core convictions,” he said in a prepared statement. He said Tuesday’s U.S. Supreme Court ruling which said that religious and philosophical objections to gay marriage “are protected views and in some instances protected forms of expression.”

Whatever the Arizona Supreme Court decides would affect the validity of similar anti-discrimination ordinances in Tempe, Tucson and Flagstaff.

At the heart of the couple’s argument is their right to free speech, particularly as it related to “customer -directed projects” where the invitations are prepared in consultation with the people that want the designs. They said being required to created customer-specific merchandise for same-sex weddings will violate their religious beliefs and asked that the city be blocked from enforcing the ordinance.

Attorneys for the women argued that the Phoenix ordinance violates their constitutional rights, essentially forcing them to “speak in favor of same-sex marriages.” The judges disagreed.

“Although (the Phoenix ordinance) may have an incidental impact on speech, it’s main purpose is to prohibit discrimination,” Winthrop wrote. That, he said, means the law “regulates conduct, not speech.”

Winthrop also expressly rejected the claim that they were entitled to constitutional protections for “expressive conduct,” saying the items that the women would produce “would likely be indistinguishable to the public” based on who was getting married.

“Take for instance an invitation for the marriage of Pat and Pat (whether created for Patrick and Patrick, or Patrick and Patricia),” Winthrop wrote.

“The invitation would not differ in creative expression,” he continued. “Further, it is unlikely that a generate observer would attribute a company’s product or offer of services, in compliance with the law, as indicative of the company’s speech or personal beliefs.”

Incumbent Gov. Doug Ducey repeatedly throws around the phrase that Arizona is “open for business” as both a commercial for the state and as proof his policies are what’s driving the state economy.

But this week, in the second of two gubernatorial debates, Ducey found himself on the defensive for policies and laws he signed that ended up with the death of one pedestrian and thousands of Arizonans getting inaccurate blood test results.

And the governor’s claim that his policies have resulted in the Arizona economy doing so much better than surrounding states depends on what data are considered.

Ducey crows that since he took office in January 2015, the state has added about 242,000 private sector jobs. That does outstrip the 192,000 jobs added in the prior 43 months.

But at the height of the recession, the state’s jobless rate topped 11 percent. By the time Ducey took office, it already had fallen back to 6.4 percent. It’s now at 4.6 percent.

The governor uses the line that the last time the Arizona unemployment rate was this low “people were renting their videos from Blockbuster.”

For the record, that was in January 2008. Now just a single Blockbuster store remains in Oregon.

But the state appears to have settled into what could be a new normal, with that jobless rate having barely budged in the past year.

The unemployment figure also is higher than not just the national rate of 3.9 percent. But it also is higher than Utah, Nevada, Colorado — and even California whose regulation and tax policies Ducey repeatedly says is driving businesses to move to Arizona.

New Mexico’s rate matches Arizona.

And Arizona’s unemployment rate still remains a full point higher than its historic low of 3.6 percent in July 2007.

It isn’t just Ducey who is looking at the figures he wants.

During the debate, Democrat David Garcia claimed that at the end of 2017 Arizona’s rate of job growth was lower than surrounding states with the exception of New Mexico.

That’s true — as a snapshot of that period of time.

But there are more recent figures. And the latest report from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics put Arizona’s current year-over-year job growth at 2.9 percent. While less Utah and Nevada have faster job growth, the Arizona numbers are better than California, Colorado and New Mexico.

There are some bright signs on the horizon.

Kiplinger Magazine predicts that job growth in Arizona this year will be the seventh fastest in the nation and that the jobless rate by the end of the year should hit 4.5 percent. And the writers credit “Arizona’s more flexible regulatory environment” as attractive to business.

U.S. News & World Report is a little less positive, putting Arizona at No. 14 in its list of the best states for growth. And USA Today lists Arizona at No. 24, citing the state’s high poverty rate and “below average educational attainment rates at both the high school and college level.”

That “flexible regulatory environment” has its own flip side.

Earlier this year a woman walking her bicycle across a dark Tempe street, away from an intersection, was struck and killed by an autonomous vehicle that Uber was testing. A video revealed the backup driver was watching a TV show.

Uber’s testing in Arizona was no accident. In fact it was directly related to the governor issuing an executive order in 2015 allowing designers of autonomous vehicles to begin testing them on Arizona roads with minimal state oversight and regulation. More to the point, Uber specifically moved its 16 test vehicles out of California in a high-profile move, complete with a photo-op for Ducey, because that state wanted the cars to be registered as test vehicle and have the company file various reports — things that Arizona did not demand.

Ducey said at the time that proves Arizona is friendlier for business than its neighbor to the west.

“The message today is Arizona’s open for business,” he said. “We’re welcoming this technology. We’re not pushing it out of our state.”

It took three more years for Ducey to actually issue some more specific safety rules, including that the vehicles have to comply with all traffic laws and the operator can be cited — even if the operator turns out to be the corporation that built the vehicle and there’s no one behind the wheel.

And only after the fatal accident did Ducey rescind Uber’s ability to test its cars in Arizona.

On Tuesday, the governor defended opening up the state to testing of autonomous vehicles, saying it needs to be seen through the lens of the larger goal of public safety.

“We lose over 800 Arizonans a year on our highways due to human error from drivers,” he said.

And the death of the pedestrian?

“What happened in that accident was tragic,” Ducey said. “But I want to see the 38,000 people that die in avoidable accidents across the United States, I want to see that problem solved.”

Then there’s Theranos.

In 2015, state lawmakers approved – and Ducey publicly signed – legislation to expand the kinds of laboratory tests that people can seek without a doctor’s recommendation. But the real point of the measure was to allow Theranos, which lobbied for approval, to market its unique method of doing accurate tests with just a minimal amount of blood.

Turns out the company’s claims were bogus, with Theranos subsequently admitting that more than 10 percent of the test results given to Arizonans by the company were “ultimately voided or corrected.”

Ducey chalked that up to “bad actors,” saying there ultimately was accountability – in the form of a consumer fraud lawsuit brought by Attorney General Mark Brnovich who got $4.6 million in refunds. And the company is now out of business.

But the governor was unapologetic for signing the legislation.

“We still want to be a welcoming place to medical innovations in the state of Arizona while protecting public health and public safety.”

And sometimes Ducey didn’t even bother to wait for legislation.

Shortly after taking office in 2015, Ducey fired the director of the Department of Weights and Measures.

The reason? Shawn Marquez had been enforcing laws regulating taxi cabs against Uber and Lyft. Those laws specifically require anyone transporting people for money to conduct background checks on drivers and have insurance coverage.

More to the point, Marquez told Ducey he intended to run a “sting” operation on the rideshare services as the Super Bowl was coming to Arizona.

Ducey did more than fire Marquez.

He appointed former House Speaker Andy Tobin to run the agency. And then Ducey, who acknowledged that the laws on offering rides for money actually applied to rideshare companies, told Tobin not to enforce those laws while legislators looked for a fix.

It actually took several more months of non-enforcement for lawmakers to actually approve a measure which provided parallel but somewhat different laws to govern the ridesharing services and the people who drive for them.

Taxing personal property at medical marijuana dispensaries and growth operations may net Maricopa County schools more than $1 million, and likely more once the county assessor completes audits of taxes owed in previous years.

Maricopa County Assessor Paul Petersen announced that the county’s 109 dispensaries, growth operations and medical marijuana card certification offices were notified for the first time this year that they owe taxes on business personal property. Businesses are required to remit the value of that property – which essentially covers everything in their buildings that isn’t nailed to the floor, except for inventory – annually to the county.

Medical marijuana businesses in Maricopa County have failed to do so for years, Petersen said at a press conference August 24. Petersen said he became aware of the problem after touring a dual dispensary and growth facility in 2016.

Of the 109 medical marijuana-related businesses that were sent forms in January to file business personal property taxes, only 11 responded by an April 1 deadline, Petersen said.

In lieu of 98 businesses placing a value on their own personal property, the Assessor’s Office calculated a value for them – and that levy includes a 10 percent penalty for failing to report. Collectively, the taxes and penalties from medical marijuana businesses should net the county roughly $1.5 million in 2017, Petersen said, about 65 percent of which goes to local school districts the businesses are located in.

“The point of this is to tell you all that I will pledge to work with (medical marijuana business owners),” Petersen said. “Even if they received a value they believe is incorrect, I encourage them to come in and meet with my staff. I would like to see their facilities so we can see what kind of property is there. And then we can correct the record if necessary.”

Since Arizona voters legalized medical marijuana in 2010, most dispensary owners have been unaware that they owe taxes on business personal property, according to Kevin DeMenna, lobbyist for the Arizona Dispensaries Association.

There was no conspiracy by dispensaries to avoid paying taxes, only confusion amidst a new industry in Arizona, he said.

DeMenna disputed that collecting taxes on medical marijuana businesses would net schools new tax revenue. Given the state’s budgets for school district, the county sets a tax rate to collect the amount allocated for school budgets. Collecting personal property taxes on dispensaries and growth facilities “produces a shift in collections to other taxpayers,” DeMenna said, not a net increase for schools.

In a statement, the Arizona Dispensaries Association vowed to pay its full, fair share of taxes, and if necessary, penalties for late payment, but that the medical marijuana community was not pleased to learn about the issue via a press conference.

“Arizona’s business personal property taxes are some of the most byzantine and complex aspects of Arizona’s tax system,” DeMenna said in an interview. “Taxation through press conference is not ideal. We have every intention of being in full compliance, and in fact, expect that with future dialogue and a better understanding of the system, we will be in full compliance immediately.”

Kevin McCarthy, president of the Arizona Tax Research Association, said it’s not uncommon for a business to fail to pay those taxes based on honest confusion.

“They’re not the first entity that didn’t realize they had to pay their personal property tax,” McCarthy said. “Now, it is their obligation to know. In most instances in the tax realm, whether its property taxes, sales taxes, or income taxes, it’s the individual’s or the business’ responsibility, right, to know what their tax obligations are.”

That explains why the Assessor’s Office wasn’t even aware medical marijuana businesses weren’t paying business personal property taxes until last year, following Petersen’s tour. Unless a business files personal property taxes, Petersen said his office might not be aware they’re supposed to be paying them.

Petersen said his office did reach out to the medical marijuana community prior to announcing a 10 percent penalty for late filings.

In an October op-ed published in the Arizona Capitol Times, Petersen wrote that he opposed a ballot initiative to legal recreational marijuana because “the marijuana industry in Arizona has failed to follow basic state law regarding the listing and reporting of their business personal property in Arizona.”

In January, Petersen sent staff to a marijuana industry networking session hosted by the Marijuana Industry Trade Association to talk about business personal property taxes. Demitri Downing, the association’s executive director, confirmed that officials with the Assessor’s Office attended and gave a brief announcement.

“We would love to have him back to explain how things are going to work,” Downing said.

DeMenna said the Arizona Dispensaries Association has no affiliation with the MITA, and that the lack of awareness among a majority of dispensary owners leading up to Petersen’s announcement should speak volumes about the assessor’s outreach efforts. Nonetheless, DeMenna said there will be “a race to full compliance” without hesitation on the part of medical marijuana businesses in Maricopa County.

That includes possibly paying millions in back taxes. Petersen announced that it’s likely his staff will conduct audits of medical marijuana businesses for failing to report personal property valuations from 2014 to 2016.