Indiana RFRA

[simple schoolboy]

I'm not sure I've got a good handle on the Indiana RFRA protests. Are they worried that somewhere, somehow a baker or florist might refuse their service to someone?

[Green Habit]

I'm not sure I've got a good handle on the Indiana RFRA protests. Are they worried that somewhere, somehow a baker or florist might refuse their service to someone?

I wish these protests happened more than 20 years ago when Bill Clinton signed the federal RFRA. RFRAs should be struck down as unconstitutional on the basis of violating the Establishment Clause. Unfortunately, John Paul Stevens is the only justice that's agreed with that thus far. This opinion is short enough that I'll post the whole thing, but it's 100% dead on.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/95-2074.ZC.html

In my opinion, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (RFRA) is a “law respecting an establishment of religion” that violates the First Amendment to the Constitution.

If the historic landmark on the hill in Boerne happened to be a museum or an art gallery owned by an atheist, it would not be eligible for an exemption from the city ordinances that forbid an enlargement of the structure. Because the landmark is owned by the Catholic Church, it is claimed that RFRA gives its owner a federal statutory entitlement to an exemption from a generally applicable, neutral civil law. Whether the Church would actually prevail under the statute or not, the statute has provided the Church with a legal weapon that no atheist or agnostic can obtain. This governmental preference for religion, as opposed to irreligion, is forbidden by the First Amendment.

[simple schoolboy]

GH:
I always appreciate your contributions, and you may very well be correct. However, the pragmatist in me is willing to champion almost anything that subjects legislation to the level of scrutiny required in RFRA. I can't get that in other areas, so I can only cheer it on where I can get it.

It also appears to me that much of this hubub regarding the Indiana RFRA is about having legal and other tools at the ready to give it to 'bigots' good and hard. I'm not sure that this is a winning strategy.

[Green Habit]

GH:
I always appreciate your contributions, and you may very well be correct. However, the pragmatist in me is willing to champion almost anything that subjects legislation to the level of scrutiny required in RFRA. I can't get that in other areas, so I can only cheer it on where I can get it.

It also appears to me that much of this hubub regarding the Indiana RFRA is about having legal and other tools at the ready to give it to 'bigots' good and hard. I'm not sure that this is a winning strategy.

Thanks for the appreciation.

The problem as I see it is that not everyone gets to pursue that level of scrutiny against legislation that you seek. Refusing to do business with the LGBT community on the basis of "I think gay sex is icky" wouldn't get you cover--you'd have to instead say something like "God tells me that homosexuality is wrong". The example I gave strikes me as exceptionally problematic, because I think the real impetus for the act is the former, even if the latter is claimed.

[Simple Torture]

Probably the best course of action is for Indiana voters to push to make sexual orientation a protected "class" like race, no? Not saying it's easy, but it would take the bite out of this law.

[Green Habit]

Probably the best course of action is for Indiana voters to push to make sexual orientation a protected "class" like race, no? Not saying it's easy, but it would take the bite out of this law.

That sounds like the goal of most of the people that are protesting the law. To me though, it's just putting a bandage on a more serious wound.

[B]

"I don't discriminate against anyone. There are just certain types of people who don't deserve my services."

If I hear one more idiot say some variation on that theme .... ugh!

[BurtReynolds]

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum.

[ABNorman]

Can't a store owner just refuse to serve anyone, as long as he doesn't give a reason?

I refuse to answer this question.

[B]

I wonder what happens if someone refuses to serve black people without giving a reason. I assume there is some legal recourse.

[Norah]

I wonder what happens if someone refuses to serve black people without giving a reason. I assume there is some legal recourse.

[BigRedLedbetter]

Can't a store owner just refuse to serve anyone, as long as he doesn't give a reason?

If I owned a store I wouldn't serve Yankee fans. No way.

[B]

I wonder what happens if someone refuses to serve black people without giving a reason. I assume there is some legal recourse.

Well, that was open discrimination. I'm thinking a scenario like this:

Black guy walks up.
"You're an asshole. I'm not serving you."
Another black guy walks up.
"You're an asshole. Get lost."
White guy walks up.
"What can I do for you?"

As that repeats, it shows obvious discrimination. Can that store owner be sued, or do people just stop going there because he's a racist asshole?

[Green Habit]

Well, that was open discrimination. I'm thinking a scenario like this:

Black guy walks up.
"You're an asshole. I'm not serving you."
Another black guy walks up.
"You're an asshole. Get lost."
White guy walks up.
"What can I do for you?"

As that repeats, it shows obvious discrimination. Can that store owner be sued, or do people just stop going there because he's a racist asshole?

That type of discrimination is still pretty open, even if isn't as blatant as a "Whites Only" sign. But if you're looking for a real world example, Donald Sterling is always reliable as a racist punching bag.

This is probably tougher to prove with hiring than it is with public accommodation, because discrimination can be masked behind legitimate qualifications for the job.

[simple schoolboy]

Is the gay marriage movement the modern Selma? I get the feeling that most African Americans aren't in agreement.

It's nice to have a discussion about public accommodation laws and all, but good luck finding any community approaching John Crow level intolerance. If a motel in a small town or other public accommodation put out a sign tomorrow saying 'no gays served' they'd get far fewer donations than memories pizza.

Gay marriage advocates have won, and pushing for the sanctioning of religious holdouts is simply gratuitous.

[knee tunes]

I appreciate that they send out a newsletter on the 10th, without fail. I just wish the band would do something is mething worth telling us about.