Indianapolis Mother Claims RFRA Defense In Child Abuse Case

[david890]

I'm pretty sure it wouldn't cover abuse.

Why not? Again, what constitutes a "firmly-held religious belief"? Indiana SB 101 stipulates that "a governmental entity may not substantially burden a person's exercise of religion...[unless it] (1) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and (2) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest." Where's the governmental interest in this case? Isn't her right to punish her child - ACCORDING TO HER INTERPRETATION OF THE BIBLE - being burdened by the State?

So, please, list some things that CANNOT be argued to be "firmly-held religious beliefs".

 

[david890]

I was going to throw out the " to spare the rod, is to spoil the child " quote but I got beat to it. But in that verse, what do you all think the ROD is? Just wondering I mean it sounds fun and not at all painful.

That quote isn't in the Bible.

Proverbs 23:13-14: “Withhold not correction from the child: for if thou beatest him with the rod, he shall not die. / Thou shalt beat him with the rod, and shalt deliver his soul from hell.”

So, according to the Bible, the kid should have been beaten to save his soul, which is what his mother is claiming.

Prove her wrong beyond a reasonable doubt.

 

[hoosierdoc]

We could bring female genital mutilation into the discussion too. More of that going on than what OP is discussing.

 

[jamil]

Why not? Again, what constitutes a "firmly-held religious belief"? Indiana SB 101 stipulates that "a governmental entity may not substantially burden a person's exercise of religion...[unless it] (1) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and (2) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest." Where's the governmental interest in this case? Isn't her right to punish her child - ACCORDING TO HER INTERPRETATION OF THE BIBLE - being burdened by the State?

So, please, list some things that CANNOT be argued to be "firmly-held religious beliefs".

Has it ever covered other harm? Would it cover murder? Are you saying human sacrifice is now acceptable under RFRA? I think there are some potentially contentious gray areas, and I'm not a big fan of that law. But please keep it between the rails. Thinking that RFRA permits actual harm is absurd. It may, however, permit things you might construe as harmful, but in reality are only harmful to a subjective idea.

 

[singlesix]

We could bring female genital mutilation into the discussion too. More of that going on than what OP is discussing.

One could bring a lot of "religion", stoning, rape, slavery, etc; hopefully reason and common sense will rule the day.

 

[jamil]

One could bring a lot of "religion", stoning, rape, slavery, etc; hopefully reason and common sense will rule the day.

I think reason and common sense would say people get to follow their beliefs up to the point where it causes others harm. Human sacrifice is harm. Actual child abuse is harm. Telling a gay couple to shop elsewhere is not harm.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

Telling a gay couple to shop elsewhere is not harm.

Was the policy of separate water fountains for blacks a harm? People complain "they" (whoever the object of ire of the day is, minority, immigrant, etc.) don't assimilate into mainstream culture, so they deserve whatever "they" are getting. Yet mainstream culture excluding "they" seems just hunky dory because reasons.

Even ignoring the philosophical questions of exclusion from the greater community, the economic harm is present (although minimal at present). Supply & demand and all that. You can argue how much harm is acceptable, but unless you want to argue against a pretty basic underpinning of economics, if you restrict the supply and demand isn't effected, prices will rise for those who are excluded from the wider marketplace.

 

[jamil]

Was the policy of separate water fountains for blacks a harm? People complain "they" (whoever the object of ire of the day is, minority, immigrant, etc.) don't assimilate into mainstream culture, so they deserve whatever "they" are getting. Yet mainstream culture excluding "they" seems just hunky dory because reasons.

Even ignoring the philosophical questions of exclusion from the greater community, the economic harm is present (although minimal at present). Supply & demand and all that. You can argue how much harm is acceptable, but unless you want to argue against a pretty basic underpinning of economics, if you restrict the supply and demand isn't effected, prices will rise for those who are excluded from the wider marketplace.

What I consider "harm" is a violation of rights. A loser definition than that just opens the door to construing harm as any subjectively undesirable thing that might befall a person, whether there is a real boogie man behind it or not. So, does a person have a right to other people's labor? No. I don't think so. So then, no rights that anyone has are violated when bakers decide their religious beliefs are more important than selling cupcakes, or whatever, to people whose lifestyles they disagree with. Personally, and I'm not a religious person, but if I were I think I wouldn't care. A sale is a sale. Their lives don't affect me. But I don't get to force everyone to comply with that.

The water fountain is a greyer area. Who owns the fountain? That should better define the line objectively. If the public don't own it, the public has no right to it. If they do, then everyone has the same right to it. The concept of "public accommodations" to make what is private property seem public, is fabricated.

And that brings me to another point. I think communities can sort through most prejudicial issues. They don't need to fight each other to win control of government's power and wield it against the other. I'd rather have a government that doesn't have enough power to seduce people to want it. My own opinion about RFRA is that I strongly suspect it was for the purpose of impressing socially conservative voters to keep the current lot in power, to convince them how willing their leaders are to wield the power of government to enforce social conservatism. It was senseless and unnecessary.

I'm agnostic, but I'm all in favor of religious freedom. I get to exercise my agnosticism. Christians get to exercise their Christianity. You get to exercise your Muslim beliefs. But none of us get to use our beliefs against another person's rights. The only constraints on rights should be when rights collide. You can't use your rights to violate others' rights.

 

[david890]

Even ignoring the philosophical questions of exclusion from the greater community, the economic harm is present (although minimal at present). Supply & demand and all that. You can argue how much harm is acceptable, but unless you want to argue against a pretty basic underpinning of economics, if you restrict the supply and demand isn't effected, prices will rise for those who are excluded from the wider marketplace.

Forget it. I tried using that argument in another thread, and they weren't buying it. Seems they don't think a miles-walk to the next store to be "unreasonable"...

 

[david890]

What I consider "harm" is a violation of rights.

Harm could be physical (as in this case), emotional, financial, etc. Are some types okay to violate? IANAL, but I think we generally leave it to a jury to determine the level of harm done and a just compensation.

The water fountain is a greyer area. Who owns the fountain? That should better define the line objectively. If the public don't own it, the public has no right to it. If they do, then everyone has the same right to it. The concept of "public accommodations" to make what is private property seem public, is fabricated.

What if it's the only fountain (albeit "private") in a 3 mile radius, and only whites can use it? Is that acceptable to you? As for "public accommodation", see what a few billionaires in CA have tried to do, such as shutting down long-standing access to PUBLIC beaches because the path crosses their private property. It *may* be fabricated, but it tends to favor the public good over the wishes of the individual.

And that brings me to another point. I think communities can sort through most prejudicial issues.

Well, my mother's hometown, Elwood, managed to keep blacks out for most of the 20th century. Think that was a good idea? Of course, with no blacks, it became an issue of Protestant vs. Catholic (go there and see the separate cemeteries).

My own opinion about RFRA is that I strongly suspect it was for the purpose of impressing socially conservative voters to keep the current lot in power, to convince them how willing their leaders are to wield the power of government to enforce social conservatism. It was senseless and unnecessary.

On this we are in 100% agreement.

 

[jamil]

Forget it. I tried using that argument in another thread, and they weren't buying it. Seems they don't think a miles-walk to the next store to be "unreasonable"...

Huh. Crap. I think I missed that thread. Anyway, it's a matter of world view and individual morality is quite a different view from the one collective morality gives you.

Harm could be physical (as in this case), emotional, financial, etc. Are some types okay to violate? IANAL, but I think we generally leave it to a jury to determine the level of harm done and a just compensation.

Is it a right violated? I think that's a pretty objective standard, and one I wish were the prevailing one. And I realize it's impractical to really get that as a standard. So I'll settle for opining in that direction. I'm fine with letting juries decide if a right has been violated and determine what recompense is due.

What if it's the only fountain (albeit "private") in a 3 mile radius, and only whites can use it? Is that acceptable to you? As for "public accommodation", see what a few billionaires in CA have tried to do, such as shutting down long-standing access to PUBLIC beaches because the path crosses their private property. It *may* be fabricated, but it tends to favor the public good over the wishes of the individual.

So we need a strong government with power to intervene and force the property owner to share. As I said, I think communities can sort those kinds of things out for themselves. I think civil rights issues would have gotten sorted out for itself without the fabrication of "public accommodations".

Well, my mother's hometown, Elwood, managed to keep blacks out for most of the 20th century. Think that was a good idea? Of course, with no blacks, it became an issue of Protestant vs. Catholic (go there and see the separate cemeteries).

What if Elwood didn't have the power to keep blacks out for most of the 20th century? If we're going to empower government to force equal outcomes, what makes you think that this power couldn't force an outcome you don't think is all that equal? That's exactly what you're complaining about with RFRA. If YOU want government to have that power, well then you have to live with it when that power is controlled by the people you disagree with. Once you give government the power, you don't get to decide it only gets to use it when it benefits your side.

 

[Stickfight]

What right was violated by the mother using a rod of correction on her son?

 

[david890]

What if Elwood didn't have the power to keep blacks out for most of the 20th century? If we're going to empower government to force equal outcomes, what makes you think that this power couldn't force an outcome you don't think is all that equal? That's exactly what you're complaining about with RFRA. If YOU want government to have that power, well then you have to live with it when that power is controlled by the people you disagree with. Once you give government the power, you don't get to decide it only gets to use it when it benefits your side.

Dude, it wasn't the government keeping the blacks out; it was the Klan.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

What I consider "harm" is a violation of rights. A loser definition than that just opens the door to construing harm as any subjectively undesirable thing that might befall a person, whether there is a real boogie man behind it or not. So, does a person have a right to other people's labor? No. I don't think so. So then, no rights that anyone has are violated when bakers decide their religious beliefs are more important than selling cupcakes, or whatever, to people whose lifestyles they disagree with. Personally, and I'm not a religious person, but if I were I think I wouldn't care. A sale is a sale. Their lives don't affect me. But I don't get to force everyone to comply with that.

The water fountain is a greyer area. Who owns the fountain? That should better define the line objectively. If the public don't own it, the public has no right to it. If they do, then everyone has the same right to it. The concept of "public accommodations" to make what is private property seem public, is fabricated.

And that brings me to another point. I think communities can sort through most prejudicial issues. They don't need to fight each other to win control of government's power and wield it against the other. I'd rather have a government that doesn't have enough power to seduce people to want it. My own opinion about RFRA is that I strongly suspect it was for the purpose of impressing socially conservative voters to keep the current lot in power, to convince them how willing their leaders are to wield the power of government to enforce social conservatism. It was senseless and unnecessary.

I'm agnostic, but I'm all in favor of religious freedom. I get to exercise my agnosticism. Christians get to exercise their Christianity. You get to exercise your Muslim beliefs. But none of us get to use our beliefs against another person's rights. The only constraints on rights should be when rights collide. You can't use your rights to violate others' rights.

Right to someone else's labor? No, that's slavery. I don't think anyone is suggesting that. That's a red herring.

Communities can sort through their own prejudicial issues...but cannot use a representative government to do so. I'm not sure I'm tracking there.

We established that unfettered monopolies were harmful to society as a whole what, about a century ago? That interfering with free access to the market is therefore a 'harm'? I really have no idea in how you're determining what 'rights' actually are, if they are specifically mentioned in the Constitution at the state and/or federal level or those nebulous 'natural rights' or what, but it seems the courts and society as a whole has long ago determined the issue in terms of economic harm from limiting access to markets. Would collusion and price fixing be 'harmless' in your view? What "right" is violated by price fixing that isn't violated by restricting the market for a certain class?

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Right to someone else's labor? No, that's slavery. I don't think anyone is suggesting that. That's a red herring.

Communities can sort through their own prejudicial issues...but cannot use a representative government to do so. I'm not sure I'm tracking there.

We established that unfettered monopolies were harmful to society as a whole what, about a century ago? That interfering with free access to the market is therefore a 'harm'? I really have no idea in how you're determining what 'rights' actually are, if they are specifically mentioned in the Constitution at the state and/or federal level or those nebulous 'natural rights' or what, but it seems the courts and society as a whole has long ago determined the issue in terms of economic harm from limiting access to markets. Would collusion and price fixing be 'harmless' in your view? What "right" is violated by price fixing that isn't violated by restricting the market for a certain class?

Suppose you are a wealthy conservative and are going to be having a party for a bunch of your friends and have decided for the night's entertainment, you would like to have a standup comedian come do an act for you and your guests. So, you contact a particular comedian you've seen on TV or her agent to make the arrangements. You know she does these private shows because say...she tells you she (or her agent) says she does these frequently or you've been to other peoples' parties where she was performing. During the discussions of how long it will be and the subject matter, you tell her that most of her jokes (pointing fun at religious conservatives, Ted Cruz, Mother Teresa, Don. Trump or whatever) probably won't set well with your guests. Instead, you ask her to redo all of her jokes to poke fun at democrats, Bernie and his socialist buddies, etc. She refuses. She says that would go against her conscience and that you should go find another comedian.

Should she be forced to perform anyway? What if you two had already begun to discuss price and you know she's considerably cheaper than other, equally funny comedians, so if you have to go find another, you're likely to encounter economic "hardship"? Are you entitled to have her perform, against her will, providing a product or service that she has never provided anyone else? One that is not on her "menu"? Do you have a right to her labor?

 

[hoosierdoc]

I consider the absurd tax rate I pay as the government exerting a right to my labor. If I'm only
forced to work for someone else for 20 hours a week am I still a slave? Or does the fact I can keep the other 20 hours of labor make me a free man? Because if I stop the 20 hours for government I go to jail...

 

[2A_Tom]

Life, Liberty, Pursuit of Happiness.

Water is necessary for life my refusing you water would definitely be a violation of your right to life.
Food is necessary for life my refusing to serve you food would definitly be a violation of your right to life.
If I owned a restaurant I would serve anyone who walked through the door (unless they were disruptive, obnoxious or abusive).
If you asked me to cater an event I should be able to accept or decline, for any personal reason.
You have the right to the PURSUIT of Happiness, not the right to compel someone else to provide your happiness.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

Suppose you are a wealthy conservative and are going to be having a party for a bunch of your friends and have decided for the night's entertainment, you would like to have a standup comedian come do an act for you and your guests. So, you contact a particular comedian you've seen on TV or her agent to make the arrangements. You know she does these private shows because say...she tells you she (or her agent) says she does these frequently or you've been to other peoples' parties where she was performing. During the discussions of how long it will be and the subject matter, you tell her that most of her jokes (pointing fun at religious conservatives, Ted Cruz, Mother Teresa, Don. Trump or whatever) probably won't set well with your guests. Instead, you ask her to redo all of her jokes to poke fun at democrats, Bernie and his socialist buddies, etc. She refuses. She says that would go against her conscience and that you should go find another comedian.

Should she be forced to perform anyway? What if you two had already begun to discuss price and you know she's considerably cheaper than other, equally funny comedians, so if you have to go find another, you're likely to encounter economic "hardship"? Are you entitled to have her perform, against her will, providing a product or service that she has never provided anyone else? One that is not on her "menu"? Do you have a right to her labor?

Suppose stawmen.

If you make cake and I want to buy a cake and can pay for the cake, sell me a cake. There is no difference in a "gay" cake and a "straight" cake. There is no extra time, labor, ingredients, etc. The act of the baking of either cake is the same...baking a cake. Cake is on the menu. Providing that product is what the business is about.

If you make cakes and I want to buy a baseball bat and can pay for a baseball bat, send me elsewhere.

 

[HoughMade]

Suppose stawmen.

If you make cake and I want to buy a cake and can pay for the cake, sell me a cake. There is no difference in a "gay" cake and a "straight" cake. There is no extra time, labor, ingredients, etc. The act of the baking of either cake is the same...baking a cake. Cake is on the menu. Providing that product is what the business is about.

If you make cakes and I want to buy a baseball bat and can pay for a baseball bat, send me elsewhere.

Has someone refused to sell someone a cake, just a cake, not a custom made one for the specific purpose of celebrating a "wedding"?

 

[1775usmarine]

And I've never seen you play that card. I have great respect for you. If I have ever crossed the line with you, I sincerely apologize. I don't Hold Muslims in contempt, only those who would commit heinous Crimes in the name of religion. I also condemn Westboro [strike] Baptist Church[/strike] and anyone who would commit violence in the name of Christ.

What about the Boondock Saints 1 and or 2.