PDA

View Full Version : Indiana law is not substantially different from the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act




Brian4Liberty
03-31-2015, 03:50 PM
"Indiana law is not substantially different from the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act nor is it substantially different from state RFRAs in place in most other states in the US..."

Indiana: A Religious Liberty Bellwether (http://www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/indiana-a-religious-liberty-bellwether/)
By Rod Dreher • March 30, 2015


I spent the weekend reading as much as I could about the controversy over Indiana’s new religious freedom law. What it tells us is very bad, from a conservative perspective, especially a religious conservative perspective. Let me explain.

First, the Indiana law is not substantially different from the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act, nor is it substantially different from state RFRAs in place in most other states in the US. Indiana law professor Daniel O. Conkle, who supports gay rights in general and same-sex marriage in particular, also supports the Indiana law, and explains why here. Excerpts:

"It’s because — despite all the rhetoric — the bill has little to do with same-sex marriage and everything to do with religious freedom.

The bill would establish a general legal standard, the “compelling interest” test, for evaluating laws and governmental practices that impose substantial burdens on the exercise of religion. This same test already governs federal law under the federal RFRA, which was signed into law by President Bill Clinton. And some 30 states have adopted the same standard, either under state-law RFRAs or as a matter of state constitutional law..."
...
I repeat: this is the opinion of an actual law professor in Indiana, a professor who supports same-sex marriage and gay rights. Law professor Josh Blackman compares in detail the Indiana law and the federal RFRA, and says the Indiana law is essentially the same thing as the federal one.
...
The media, academia, and big business are all of one mind. It is a juggernaut that is going to roll over religious liberty.

The overreaction, especially the blatant lies and completely invented controversy, in which the media and big business have engaged in the past few days about Indiana and religious liberty, has been a shock to my system — this, even though I am by now used to just about anything from that side.
...
More: http://www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/indiana-a-religious-liberty-bellwether/

jmdrake
03-31-2015, 04:00 PM
Of course it's not different. And if this law was passed in reaction to Indians not being able to smoke peyote or voodoo practitioners not being about to sacrifice chickens then the left would be all for it. Oh....but it was made in reaction to Christian bakers not wanting to back wedding cakes with two dudes or two chicks on top. Personally I'm glad this fight is happening now. Eventually this country needs to come to grips with the question of whether gay rights will trump religious freedom. And this puts the CRA in better perspective then the silly "Should blacks have to serve klansmen" arguments.

Sonny Tufts
03-31-2015, 05:07 PM
Defending his state’s RFRA last week, Gov. Pence said: “If I thought it legalized discrimination in any way in Indiana, I would have vetoed it. In fact, it does not even apply to disputes between private parties unless government action is involved.” In other words, the governor implied, discrimination by a private individual or company against another private individual would not even implicate the new law. But that is simply false.

To see why it’s wrong to think that private businesses cannot raise the new law as a defense against civil rights claims, consider the recent case of a wedding photographer in New Mexico. Elane Photography offers wedding photography services to the public. Vanessa Willock emailed the company to inquire about the business’s availability to photograph the commitment ceremony she was planning with her partner, Misti Collinsworth.* Elane Photography’s lead photographer, Elaine Huguenin, wrote back and flatly told Willock that the company only photographs “traditional weddings,” not same-sex ceremonies. She later explained that her opposition to taking pictures of Misti and Vanessa’s big day was grounded in her Christian beliefs. The couple sued the photographer under the state’s anti-discrimination law, which protects gays and lesbians. Elane Photography countered that it had a religious freedom right to refuse service to the couple.

The New Mexico Supreme Court ruled for the couple. New Mexico has a RFRA that protects against substantial burdens on religious freedom. Crucially, however, the court held that New Mexico’s RFRA does not apply to suits between private parties—it only applies where the government is a party. For that reason, the court rejected Elane Photography’s religious freedom claim, sparking outrage among religious conservatives across the country. The Supreme Court declined to hear the case. Maybe what followed will not surprise you.

Compare Indiana’s newly minted RFRA to the one assessed by the court in New Mexico. The Indiana RFRA departs from New Mexico’s RFRA and the federal RFRA—on which many other state laws are modeled. How? Indiana’s RFRA expressly provides that a person can assert a “claim or defense in a judicial or administrative proceeding, regardless of whether the state or any other governmental entity is a party to the proceeding.” *

This new statutory language is designed to ensure that a wedding photographer in Indiana would be protected if she discriminates against a same-sex couple, unlike the photographer in New Mexico who lost in court. The provision explicitly permits a private party, including a for-profit corporation, to challenge on religious grounds any claim of discrimination brought by another private party, even when the government is not otherwise involved in the case. In other words, when Gov. Pence said that his state’s law is just like RFRAs in other states and would not apply to disputes between private parties without government action, he was simply wrong about the law and its effect on future discrimination.

If Gov. Pence and the Indiana legislature are committed to showing that their law is not about discrimination, there is an obvious solution. They could amend the law to make it clear that protecting against discrimination in the commercial marketplace cannot be defeated by claims of religious freedom. If the law is not intended to protect discriminatory actions, it is hard to understand Indiana’s resistance to this proposal.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/outward/2015/03/30/gov_mike_pence_s_characterization_of_indiana_s_new _religion_law_is_wrong.html

*This kind of language isn't in the federal act or in any other state's RFRA, except perhaps that of Texas.

jmdrake
03-31-2015, 06:54 PM
http://www.slate.com/blogs/outward/2015/03/30/gov_mike_pence_s_characterization_of_indiana_s_new _religion_law_is_wrong.html

*This kind of language isn't in the federal act or in any other state's RFRA, except perhaps that of Texas.

Well then it should be. It doesn't need to be in the federal RFRA as the federal CRA doesn't give rise to claims based on sexual orientation.

ClydeCoulter
03-31-2015, 11:08 PM
I really wish they had attacked this from a "Freedom of Association" perspective.

They still can, that is combine it with "Freedom of Religion".

PRB
03-31-2015, 11:14 PM
RFRA is an unnecessary law anyway, if we could just go back to time before Civil Rights movement where nobody was forced to service anybody, we'd be fine, we'd have less government, less pissed off businesses, more freedom and a stronger economy.

PRB
03-31-2015, 11:15 PM
I really wish they had attacked this from a "Freedom of Association" perspective.

They still can, that is combine it with "Freedom of Religion".

Basically, it's a private property question, why should ANY business be forced to serve ANYBODY?

PRB
03-31-2015, 11:16 PM
Well then it should be. It doesn't need to be in the federal RFRA as the federal CRA doesn't give rise to claims based on sexual orientation.

not that CRA needs to exist anyway. Discrimination is one of the most basic rights for private property. Businesses are private property, end of story.

acesfull
03-31-2015, 11:54 PM
Basically, it's a private property question, why should ANY business be forced to serve ANYBODY?

+1---- REP

I own a Jewish Deli, two customers want to come in an order some lox and bagels, however both are wearing tee shirts with anti sematic words printed on said tee shirts. Yes, they have a right to wear said tee shirt and Yes, I have a right to kick their asses out of my deli, my property rights trumps their right to be a bigoted fool..

My .02

Acesfull

IndianaPolitico
04-01-2015, 07:14 AM
The interesting thing is that the Indiana LP has thrown themselves so heavily behind the 'gay rights' movement in the state they are how hesitant/split on defending property rights... :rolleyes:

ClydeCoulter
04-01-2015, 08:36 AM
Here's a pretty good take on the new law (ie, more government intrusion):

https://wedeclare.wordpress.com/2015/03/31/indianas-embarrassing-tribalism/


...

Boiling down what the law actually says:

The state itself can’t oppose your rights…unless it wants to. The state may back you up in court…or not. The state is who the state says it is, and it decides whether its motives and actions are right, or not.

Does this comfort you?

...

Note: Andy Horning ran for US Senate as LP in 2012.

Brian4Liberty
04-01-2015, 09:19 AM
I really wish they had attacked this from a "Freedom of Association" perspective.

They still can, that is combine it with "Freedom of Religion".

Agree. Freedom of religion is a small subset of the bigger issue.

jmdrake
04-01-2015, 12:57 PM
RFRA is an unnecessary law anyway, if we could just go back to time before Civil Rights movement where nobody was forced to service anybody, we'd be fine, we'd have less government, less pissed off businesses, more freedom and a stronger economy.

The federal RFRA didn't rise out of concerns over the CRA but rather concerns over government laws impacting religion. We had reached a point where the Supreme Court in it's infinite stupidity were giving freedom of religion the least level of deference possible. RFRA was passed to fix that. The Indiana RFRA is in effect doing the same thing because the anti gay discrimination laws aren't making allowances for religion. Of course one has to wonder what will happen under the Indiana RFRA if someone says "My religion says I can't serve black people."

jmdrake
04-01-2015, 12:58 PM
not that CRA needs to exist anyway. Discrimination is one of the most basic rights for private property. Businesses are private property, end of story.

Well this issue may make it clear to some who can't understand it why there are real problems with the general CRA.

PRB
04-01-2015, 12:59 PM
Well this issue may make it clear to some who can't understand it why there are real problems with the general CRA.

It's simple: the government has no right to force a business to serve anybody.

enhanced_deficit
04-02-2015, 10:30 AM
Pro Religious Freedom Act Indiana pizzeria that closed after threats gets $130K in support (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?471873-Pro-Religious-Freedom-Act-Indiana-pizzeria-that-closed-after-threats-gets-130K-in-support&)

Ronin Truth
04-02-2015, 10:33 AM
Since it was changed last night, is it different now?

mrsat_98
04-02-2015, 01:47 PM
So when all has been said and done will we still have to worship the beast ( state) ?