The SB 101 (Religious Freedom Restoration) Thread

[chipbennett]

That is yet to be seen, once we have challenges in court that withstand scrutiny you will be able to say that, until... not so much.

So, a homosexual is going to sue a baker, under the claim that the baker created a cake for the re-married couple, but not for the homosexual couple, and you think that a court (i.e. the State) deciding the validity of the defendant's religious beliefs is going to pass constitutional muster?

I'll have some of whatever you're smoking.

 

[chipbennett]

I am hearing the same from legal experts on the news. Not sure who or what to believe. The wording would lead you to believe refusal of service to be ok. But legal experts this morning on Fox News were saying you could refuse flowers for a gay wedding, but not to the same gay couple for a regular daily purpose... so.. who the hell knows.

Huh, if only someone had been making that same point in this very thread all along...

Maybe if it comes from "legal experts", people will finally let it sink in.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

Bosma says a "fix" is on the way.

 

[D-Ric902]

I want to see an atheist walk into a Muslim restaurant and order a BLT. Then sue.

the law is not about gays, it's about religion and business owners. It has been turned into a "gay" issue for political reasons.

 

[chipbennett]

Dramatic changes? Not as I understand it. A simple blurb indicating that sexual orientation is among the things that cannot be used to discriminate, and all of this crap would never have happened. That's the primary difference between our law and the laws in the other 19 (or 30 depending on which account you read) other states that have similar (but not identical) laws. As for the mayor's reaction, he is watching his city potentially bleed out $$$ so of course he's going to react that way. While I agree with the law for the most part, it was horribly executed and much of this hubub could have been avoided IMHO.

Please quote the part of the law that allows discrimination, on any basis.

 

[ashby koss]

So, a homosexual is going to sue a baker, under the claim that the baker created a cake for the re-married couple, but not for the homosexual couple, and you think that a court (i.e. the State) deciding the validity of the defendant's religious beliefs is going to pass constitutional muster?

I'll have some of whatever you're smoking.

I'm just waiting for the court case that pits two people BOTH claiming the same SB101 backed rights. Asking the court to declare who's religion is the "right" and which is the "wrong" with how divided even Christians are (Lutheran, episcopalian, Methodist,Baptist Etc..) they could even claim the same "Christianity" and yet still be split.

I don't think as it stands, this loosely worded law would pass any scrutiny on a constitutional level. All it seems to do in its current 4 page form, is muddy the waters on laws already in place.

 

[dusty88]

It was. The amendment granting homosexuals protected class status failed 10-40 The "Lanane Amendment".

This is how stupid this whole thing is. The Republicans knew what would happen, knew the fix, yet plunged the state into this crap despite having been forewarned.

yep

this was politically stupid

 

[ashby koss]

Please quote the part of the law that allows discrimination, on any basis.

It's not that is comes out and says it, its in whole as loosely as it is written it can be used that way. It's not 100% about religion and gays, it could be a business not serving black people and claiming religious reasons (AFAIK) and (IANAL).

 

[ArcadiaGP]

It's not that is comes out and says it, its in whole as loosely as it is written it can be used that way. It's not 100% about religion and gays, it could be a business not serving black people and claiming religious reasons (AFAIK) and (IANAL).

The black community has yet to co-opt the outrage on this bill. So far, all examples of discrimination are incredible stretches of the imagination. The gay community just hopped on it because the media snapped their fingers and led them to it. It's an easy issue to create outrage over.

 

[chipbennett]

What would you do to fix it? Many states have similar laws but also have a civil rights law granting equal protection under the law for homosexuals. I seriously doubt that would pass here. Gov. Pence has already stated on national TV he wouldn't pursue that. I don't believe this is something carefully rewording will fix. The language and how it would be perceived is something that should have been considered before it was voted on. Not after. The damage is done regarding the potential impact on the economy and how this state is perceived nationally. At this point sticking to your guns and dealing with the repercussions is about all that can be done. Nothing will change the perception, facts matter very little once a mob has gathered. We just witnessed that in Ferguson this past several months...

I could be getting my commentators mixed up in a thread of this length, and if so, mea culpa. That said: weren't you one of the ones calling for less government, and not more?

Homosexuals are already guaranteed equal protection under the law, via the Fourth Amendment. What rights of homosexuals are being violated, and sanctioned by the courts, that require additional laws? By contrast, the Federal RFRA was required, because the courts tried to trash first amendment-protected religious expression rights. State RFRA laws are required, because the courts suddenly found the tenth amendment, and narrowly limited the scope of the Federal RFRA.

The Indiana RFRA doesn't even invalidate Indianapolis's statutes regarding protection of homosexuals. All it does is require the government entity to use strict scrutiny in defending the statute if it is enforced by that government entity in such a manner that it violates first amendment-protected rights. That's it.

 

[dusty88]

The black community has yet to co-opt the outrage on this bill. So far, all examples of discrimination are incredible stretches of the imagination. The gay community just hopped on it because the media snapped their fingers and led them to it. It's an easy issue to create outrage over.

Right but Pence et al has a history of fighting gay marriage so they kind of deserved this. The rest of us didn't deserve to be drug through it though. (I believe it's Eric Miller who is out there now saying the RFRA will protect the wedding vendor who doesn't want to work gay weddings).

And honestly what did we NEED this bill for? Who was asking for it ?

 

[chipbennett]

It's not that is comes out and says it, its in whole as loosely as it is written it can be used that way.

What about the law is "loosely written", and how can it be used to discriminate.

It's not 100% about religion and gays, it could be a business not serving black people and claiming religious reasons (AFAIK) and (IANAL).

Here's what the law says about that:

"Sec. 8. (a) Except as provided in subsection (b), a governmental entity may not substantially burden a person's exercise of religion, even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability. (b) A governmental entity may substantially burden a person's exercise of religion only if the governmental entity demonstrates that application of the burden to the person: (1) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and (2) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest."

This is what is known as "strict scrutiny": demonstrating that something is in furtherance of a compelling government interest, and is the least-restrictive means of furthering that compelling government interest.

So, in your hypothetical scenario, nothing in the law prevents the government from applying strict scrutiny to the compelling governmental interest of the right of public accommodation, or to the compelling governmental interest of complying with the Equal Protection clause or Federal civil rights laws.

 

[Lowe0]

BRB - gettting photo .. will edit ... here in a moment ... computer cooperation pending

OK - the only way to make this clearer is with crayons ...

Your summary of 7 highlights an important point: opposition to these laws kicked into high gear after Hobby Lobby. Prior to that, the law seemed relatively benign; after that, it was clear what people wanted to use the law for.

The "but you didn't care when other states passed these" argument doesn't really hold up once the new context has been established.

 

[dusty88]

I could be getting my commentators mixed up in a thread of this length, and if so, mea culpa. That said: weren't you one of the ones calling for less government, and not more?

I think he's saying they should have known there would be a perception problem, thus if they needed an RFRA, act accordingly.

Our government has become so complex that it's often a tangled web, and you have to decide if you want to support something based on your overall standards or based on current context. For example: I don't support our income tax system at all, but I'm not necessarily willing to give up my relevant deductions unless we wipe the whole system out. The politicians use this trying to keep us all balanced between support and outrage.

I think it's government's job to preserve individual life, liberty, and property. Thus the owners of a private business should not have to serve anyone they don't want to serve. That shouldn't extend outside their particular business, and it doesn't include any form of punching people in the face. It just leaves everyone with individual choices. And likewise customers are free to publicize the behavior of businesses, and others can spend or boycott a business that doesn't treat people well.

I also think it should be our own business what we put in our bodies.

So in my world no RFRA is needed. If we didn't tromp on people's rights, we wouldn't need another law to protect them.

As we have stomped on rights vigorously and repeatedly, there is no clear argument for one particular piece of the puzzle.

 

[chipbennett]

It was. The amendment granting homosexuals protected class status failed 10-40 The "Lanane Amendment".

This is how stupid this whole thing is. The Republicans knew what would happen, knew the fix, yet plunged the state into this crap despite having been forewarned.

How would the Lanane Amendment have been a "fix"?

And aren't you another one who is generally opposed to more government? How would tacking on a non-sequitur such as the Lanane Amendment not have anything other than more unnecessary government?

 

[chipbennett]

For this bill, Im all for the "idea" of what it gives, but the problem lies int he fact that it is VERY loosely written and can be used UN-intentionally and with broad sweeping terms to discriminate. It's not even just businesses, it clearly states "any sue-able entity". And faith is so loosely defined it can be anything that 1 single person believes or a group of people.

By that standard, the First Amendment - heck, the entire Bill of Rights - is "loosely defined".

I consider that to be a feature, not a bug.

 

[chipbennett]

I'm just waiting for the court case that pits two people BOTH claiming the same SB101 backed rights. Asking the court to declare who's religion is the "right" and which is the "wrong" with how divided even Christians are (Lutheran, episcopalian, Methodist,Baptist Etc..) they could even claim the same "Christianity" and yet still be split.

And how might that arise, exactly? Can you provide an example?

 

[Lowe0]

And how might that arise, exactly? Can you provide an example?

I'm no lawyer, but perhaps in family court? If the divorced parents are of different religions, then which parent gets custody on a day of worship could introduce such a conflict.

 

[chipbennett]

I'm no lawyer, but perhaps in family court? If the divorced parents are of different religions, then which parent gets custody on a day of worship could introduce such a conflict.

And what "governmental entity statutes, ordinances, resolutions, executive or administrative orders, regulations, customs, and usages, including the implementation or application thereof" would be involved in that proceeding?

 

[Kirk Freeman]

How would the Lanane Amendment have been a "fix"?

Because it would have made sexual orientation a protected class.

And aren't you another one who is generally opposed to more government?

Sure, but political realities are political realities. Perhaps this is unpopular in the gun culture where movies serve as the basis for gun choices and comic books underlie political philosophy but I see no harm in acknowledging reality.

The Republicans should have ignored the called for IRFRA and stuck to repealing laws.