Indianapolis Mother Claims RFRA Defense In Child Abuse Case

[david890]

I'd say it could be argued that it is a compelling state interest to protect it's citizens and visitors specifically the most vulnerable from undue harm from others...

So, GUN CONTROL. You know, demonstrate competence, perhaps some sort of license, liability coverage, etc.? No compelling state interest in those requirements? Don't want just anyone waving a gun around in public...

 

[Timjoebillybob]

So, GUN CONTROL. You know, demonstrate competence, perhaps some sort of license, liability coverage, etc.? No compelling state interest in those requirements? Don't want just anyone waving a gun around in public...

Generally I would say no. But first what exactly is the compelling govt interest in each of those. And how are they narrowly tailored to achieve it? If the compelling govt interest is not having just anyone waving a gun around in public, I'd would no. As they are not narrowly tailored or the least restrictive to achieve that end. A law that states "No person except those authorized in section x paragraph y are allowed to wave a gun around in public", I'd say that would meet the narrowly tailored part. Now explain what the compelling govt interest in disallowing said action would be.

 

[david890]

Now explain what the compelling govt interest in disallowing said action would be.

Define "undue harm" in your post (#140). Who decides that?

 

[jamil]

Define "undue harm" in your post (#140). Who decides that?

I've always thought of "undue harm" as a silly statement. When is harm ever due? However, I've also thought it to mean harm that isn't due, in other words, not incidental. For example, a kid who breaks his leg playing football with the neighbor kids is harmed, but incidentally. A kid whose leg is broken by the parents because of abuse, is of course not just incidental. There is no justification for that. I can foresee no successful claim of religious freedom to do that. I think it's a sort of red herring to suggest that any court could ever judge that to be a religious freedom under RFRA or anything else. There is a distinct line such that it's really not subjective.

 

[Timjoebillybob]

Define "undue harm" in your post (#140). Who decides that?

Exceeding propriety, excessive. And the judicial system of course.

Your turn.

 

[david890]

Exceeding propriety, excessive. And the judicial system of course.

Your turn.

Define "Exceeding propriety" or "excessive".

Yeah, no wiggle room in our judicial system...

Yeah, absolutely NO wiggle room in any of that, esp. the judicial system.

 

[Timjoebillybob]

Define "Exceeding propriety" or "excessive".

Yeah, no wiggle room in our judicial system...

Yeah, absolutely NO wiggle room in any of that, esp. the judicial system.

More than socially correct, more than necessary. Beyond that to define abuse, I'll have to quote Justice Stewart "I'll know it when I see it". Or to more fully paraphrase him, I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of discipline I understand to be embraced within that shorthand description [child abuse]; and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But I know it when I see it.

Now please explain what you mean by "wiggle room in our judicial system"

 

[david890]

Now please explain what you mean by "wiggle room in our judicial system"

My point is that English is often an ambiguous language, and that someone most certainly would use RFRA to justify their actions, whatever those actions might be. It would then be difficult, if not impossible, for a judge and jury to hold anyone accountable for such ambiguous language. "I know it when I see it" isn't a viable legal position.

Pence and the Legislature knew this was a flawed bill going in, but, as other have pointed out, it was done to pander to a very vocal minority. The goal seems unclear, as the backlash from the "silent majority" has and will continue to haunt them.

NC is learning the hard way as well, and there's little to keep private business from putting more hurt on Indiana. Simply adding some additional language won't work; the bill is fundamentally flawed and should be repealed.

 

[Timjoebillybob]

My point is that English is often an ambiguous language, and that someone most certainly would use RFRA to justify their actions, whatever those actions might be. It would then be difficult, if not impossible, for a judge and jury to hold anyone accountable for such ambiguous language. "I know it when I see it" isn't a viable legal position.

Pence and the Legislature knew this was a flawed bill going in, but, as other have pointed out, it was done to pander to a very vocal minority. The goal seems unclear, as the backlash from the "silent majority" has and will continue to haunt them.

NC is learning the hard way as well, and there's little to keep private business from putting more hurt on Indiana. Simply adding some additional language won't work; the bill is fundamentally flawed and should be repealed.

What do you mean it would be difficult to hold anyone accountable for such ambiguous language?

What was flawed about it? Please give your reasoning for believing it is fundamentally flawed.

And others have stated it was done to pander to a very vocal minority, but have failed to cite why they feel so. Why do you say so? What evidence do you have?

 

[LPMan59]

What do you mean it would be difficult to hold anyone accountable for such ambiguous language?

What was flawed about it? Please give your reasoning for believing it is fundamentally flawed.

And others have stated it was done to pander to a very vocal minority, but have failed to cite why they feel so. Why do you say so? What evidence do you have?

The photo of the private signing of the bill proves exactly who was supporting the bill

 

[Timjoebillybob]

The photo of the private signing of the bill proves exactly who was supporting the bill

It shows some of who supported the bill, it is not evidence that the bill was created, passed, or signed into law to pander to a very vocal minority.

 

[jamil]

My point is that English is often an ambiguous language, and that someone most certainly would use RFRA to justify their actions, whatever those actions might be. It would then be difficult, if not impossible, for a judge and jury to hold anyone accountable for such ambiguous language. "I know it when I see it" isn't a viable legal position.

Pence and the Legislature knew this was a flawed bill going in, but, as other have pointed out, it was done to pander to a very vocal minority. The goal seems unclear, as the backlash from the "silent majority" has and will continue to haunt them.

NC is learning the hard way as well, and there's little to keep private business from putting more hurt on Indiana. Simply adding some additional language won't work; the bill is fundamentally flawed and should be repealed.

I'd like to see INGO lawyers weigh in on that. I think it would come down to a judgement on whether it's abuse. For its faults I just don't see it as an open excuse to harm people.

 

[jamil]

It shows some of who supported the bill, it is not evidence that the bill was created, passed, or signed into law to pander to a very vocal minority.

I know it when I see it.

 

[LPMan59]

It shows some of who supported the bill, it is not evidence that the bill was created, passed, or signed into law to pander to a very vocal minority.

All just a big coincidence

 

[Timjoebillybob]

The photo of the private signing of the bill proves exactly who was supporting the bill

And which people are you talking about in the photo? And I was supporting the bill, I'm not in the photo, nor was I at the signing statement. Along with who knows how many others that supported the bill.

I know it when I see it.

Touche

All just a big coincidence

A coincidence that some people like the bill because they feel they can use it for their beliefs? Probably not. But because some people you disagree with support it, does that make it a bad bill? What specifically about the bill makes it bad?

 

[Fargo]

Those wretched Franciscans, with their hospitals and charitable work. They make me ill.

 

[historian]

Those wretched Franciscans, with their hospitals and charitable work. They make me ill.

And don't get me started on the nuns and Orthodox Jews!

That picture looks more like the start of a joke: A priest, a nun, a monk, a Jew, and a pastor walk into the governor's office...

 

[HoughMade]

All I know is that there was a time when I hardly every used "" around the word marriage. This is not that time.

anyhoo....

 

[david890]

It shows some of who supported the bill, it is not evidence that the bill was created, passed, or signed into law to pander to a very vocal minority.

Please read this link. It provides the names of several who were there, and they're not friendly toward views different from their own.

 

[LPMan59]

Please read this link. It provides the names of several who were there, and they're not friendly toward views different from their own.

Lol

what difference does it make?