How does this bill create a state religion, or rubber stamp anyone's beliefs? Rubber stamp implies some process of approval/disapproval. It has never been this government's role to approve or disapprove of anyone's beliefs. Why do you think it should be now? It is a legitimate role of government to set standards for what to do when rights collide.
So why must the preference now go to the one asking for service, rather than to the provider? And, actually, even that's not the effective criteria today. The effective criteria is, the preference goes to the side the in-crowd favors most. If I can think of a reason this law should ever be necessary is that.
I think everyone has a right to be who they are. If a person is gay, straight, republican, democrat, christian, atheist, whatever, no one has a right to deny them the right to be that and to practice that. But like my right to swing my fist should end before it hits your nose, the person's right to be who they are should not impose their practice on other people, business owners or not. But that's exactly what pop culture is demanding now.
fyi: this is satirical
But you said "constituency", which means people. If you instead mean "belief", then I would certainly agree in part, and would disagree in part. All legislators create, approve, or reject legislation based upon their own beliefs - religious beliefs or otherwise. It would be nearly impossible for people not to do so. And doing so is not inherently wrong or harmful.
Personally, I believe that trying to legislate morality is ineffective, and wrong. So, to that extent, I agree with you.
But all laws, regardless of the beliefs from which they are derived, are subject to the constraints put in place through the Constitution.
I believe that the law was necessary. I also believe that there are likely some supporters in the legislature who supported the bill because doing so would please their constituents. I fail to see how legislating in a manner consistent with the desires of one's constituents is somehow a bad thing.
Regardless, no matter what religious influence factored into the drafting or approval of the legislation, the impact of the law is limited to what is actually written in the legislation. If someone wrote or supported the bill as a way to "get back" at gay marriage support, then such people will be sorely disappointed, because the law has zero effect on gay marriage.
Oh, this is quite true. I think all laws that restrict the keeping and bearing of arms by law-abiding citizens are unconstitutional. I think that immigration checkpoints 100 miles away from an international border are unconstitutional.
My point, if I'm following you correctly, was that complaints that religious exercise is somehow improperly singled out for protection are specious, because religious exercise is explicitly protected by the constitution. I'm not opposed to people challenging that. But the way to do so is to amend the constitution, not to rail against a constitutional law such as the RFRA.
By my reading of the law, it is *more*, not less, likely that an issue would have its day in court. In fact, that's one of the reasons for one of the much-maligned differences between the federal RFRA and the Indiana RFRA: establishing the right of the government entity to join a proceeding in order to defend a law (etc.).
Are you certain that you're referring to a comment of mine? I don't remember discussing marijuana in this topic, and tend to avoid its discussion whenever it comes up in various topics, so I would be highly surprised if it was me.
I don't see any inherent reason why someone could not claim a sincere religious belief involving the use of marijuana as a sacrament. There may be other reasons to find against such a claim (I posted a link to an article that discussed a related case).
I certainly wouldn't shrug my shoulders or fail to give a **** to others' right to liberty, whether I agree with their beliefs, choices, lifestyles, etc. or not.
Here's where we disagree. To make such a claim using the RFRA, the person would first have to show that the service in question represents a substantial burden to the exercise of religion. That hurdle is not a guarantee. I find it hard to believe that a court would reasonably find that taking a cupcake out of the display case, and handing it to someone in exchange for money, represents a substantial burden on the exercise of religion.
And even if that hurdle can be cleared, the government entity then has the opportunity to make a case that the substantial burden is in furtherance of a compelling government interest, done in the least-restrictive way possible. The right of public accommodation is the compelling government interest, and I can't think of any less-restrictive means to further that interest.
I love it when 2 percent tells 98 percent how they are going to think and act.
What you're really saying, then, is that our constitutional republic is well and truly dead. Our rights are now subject to mob rule.
This illustrates why I have issue with this law "respecting" religion, when other entities aren't afforded the same right. The founders are spinning so fast, you could power a turbine with their coffins.
The founders knew about the importance of religion in society. As morals that are founded in religion decrease then so does the country and its people.
John Adams, 1776
"Its religion and morality alone can establish the principles upon which freedom can securely stand. The only foundation of a free constitution is pure virtue."
Fisher Adams Signer of the First Amendment
" Our Liberty depends on our education, our laws, and habits…..it is founded on morals and religion, whose authority reigns in the heart, and on the influence all these produce on public opinion before that opinion governs rulers."
Samuel Adams 1749
" Neither the wisest constitution nor the wisest laws will secure the liberty and happiness of a people whose manners are universally corrupt."
Just some food for thought, I think the forefathers rolled over in their graves a long time ago, but there is always hope.
The founders knew about the importance of religion in society. As morals that are founded in religion decrease then so does the country and its people.
John Adams, 1776
"Its religion and morality alone can establish the principles upon which freedom can securely stand. The only foundation of a free constitution is pure virtue."
Fisher Adams Signer of the First Amendment
" Our Liberty depends on our education, our laws, and habits…..it is founded on morals and religion, whose authority reigns in the heart, and on the influence all these produce on public opinion before that opinion governs rulers."
Samuel Adams 1749
" Neither the wisest constitution nor the wisest laws will secure the liberty and happiness of a people whose manners are universally corrupt."
Just some food for thought, I think the forefathers rolled over in their graves a long time ago, but there is always hope.