Will religious "restoration" laws have some ugly unintended consequences?

[SwimExpert]

I heard something in a news clip today about Indiana's new law, and it sent shivers down my spine.

It's still up to state courts to make a decision where a person has a sincere religious belief..."

This is a real problem. When the government starts evaluating the sincerity of people's religious beliefs, the 1st amendment ceases to exist. Government has no business weighing and measuring the sincerity of a person's religious beliefs. If a Jew eats bacon cheeseburgers twice a week and works on Saturday, is this evidence against him if he sues his previous employer for being fired because of his religion? If a Christian is promiscuous and never goes to church, do they lose the right to withhold birth control coverage if they own a company?

This is going to come back and bite us on the ass.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

The no Jews or Christians gas station is open for business. Enjoy.

Oh, and very soon everyone will know who you do and do not service. Be careful what you wish for because buying from bigots is not good business these days.

 

[hipeter924]

I heard something in a news clip today about Indiana's new law, and it sent shivers down my spine.

It's still up to state courts to make a decision where a person has a sincere religious belief..."

This is a real problem. When the government starts evaluating the sincerity of people's religious beliefs, the 1st amendment ceases to exist. Government has no business weighing and measuring the sincerity of a person's religious beliefs. If a Jew eats bacon cheeseburgers twice a week and works on Saturday, is this evidence against him if he sues his previous employer for being fired because of his religion? If a Christian is promiscuous and never goes to church, do they lose the right to withhold birth control coverage if they own a company?

This is going to come back and bite us on the ass.

I wouldn't worry, clearly they are unconstitutional or step too far in at least some areas. Federal trumps state when it comes to religious or political freedom.

 

[SwimExpert]

I heard something in a news clip today about Indiana's new law, and it sent shivers down my spine.

It's still up to state courts to make a decision where a person has a sincere religious belief..."

This is a real problem. When the government starts evaluating the sincerity of people's religious beliefs, the 1st amendment ceases to exist. Government has no business weighing and measuring the sincerity of a person's religious beliefs. If a Jew eats bacon cheeseburgers twice a week and works on Saturday, is this evidence against him if he sues his previous employer for being fired because of his religion? If a Christian is promiscuous and never goes to church, do they lose the right to withhold birth control coverage if they own a company?

This is going to come back and bite us on the ass.

I wouldn't worry, clearly they are unconstitutional or step too far in at least some areas. Federal trumps state when it comes to religious or political freedom.

Except that this door has been opened by the SCOTUS.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

I heard something in a news clip today about Indiana's new law, and it sent shivers down my spine.

It's still up to state courts to make a decision where a person has a sincere religious belief..."

This is a real problem. When the government starts evaluating the sincerity of people's religious beliefs, the 1st amendment ceases to exist. Government has no business weighing and measuring the sincerity of a person's religious beliefs. If a Jew eats bacon cheeseburgers twice a week and works on Saturday, is this evidence against him if he sues his previous employer for being fired because of his religion? If a Christian is promiscuous and never goes to church, do they lose the right to withhold birth control coverage if they own a company?

This is going to come back and bite us on the ass.

Correct.

This illustrates the wisdom of the Supreme Court's decision in Employment Division v. Smith (1990).

In their unanimous decision, the justices held that an otherwise just and proper law cannot be circumvented by 'religious belief,' and it was the Court's concern that judges shouldn't be put into a position to decide what is a 'true' religion and what was not.

 

[Katzndogz]

Bill Clinton had something in mind when he signed the Religious Freedom Restoration Act into law.

 

[TemplarKormac]

I wouldn't worry, clearly they are unconstitutional or step too far in at least some areas. Federal trumps state when it comes to religious or political freedom.

But the laws are legal. It happens to expound upon the RFRA, and I think 19 other states have passed similar laws in the past, but not with this much fanfare, or backlash. I'm unaware of anyone getting angry at the others for doing it.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

I heard something in a news clip today about Indiana's new law, and it sent shivers down my spine.

It's still up to state courts to make a decision where a person has a sincere religious belief..."

This is a real problem. When the government starts evaluating the sincerity of people's religious beliefs, the 1st amendment ceases to exist. Government has no business weighing and measuring the sincerity of a person's religious beliefs. If a Jew eats bacon cheeseburgers twice a week and works on Saturday, is this evidence against him if he sues his previous employer for being fired because of his religion? If a Christian is promiscuous and never goes to church, do they lose the right to withhold birth control coverage if they own a company?

This is going to come back and bite us on the ass.

I wouldn't worry, clearly they are unconstitutional or step too far in at least some areas. Federal trumps state when it comes to religious or political freedom.

But this isn't a religious or political freedom issue, as it concerns private businesses not subject to First Amendment jurisprudence.

Federal public accommodations laws don't offer protections to the LGBT community, for example, where public accommodations laws that prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation exist only at the state and local levels, where obviously some states have no such laws to protect gay Americans from discrimination in the private marketplace.

Consequently this is a legitimate concern.

 

[TemplarKormac]

And I advise you to read the SCOTUS opinion titled Holt v. Hobbs 574 U.S. ___ (2015). It was a 9-0 (that's right, nine to zero) decision on January 20 saying Arkansas could not stop a Muslim prison inmate from growing a beard in accordance with his belief.

This ruling makes all of these "religious freedom/restoration" law legal under prior precedent. Gays can boycott and raise a stink all they want, but it doesn't eh, change the law. Its there in black and white. They can petition for compliance with the government, but unless the government can prove they have a compelling interest in burdening the religious beliefs of the proprietor, there is nothing the gay community can do.

I have been saying a couple of months now that the Burwell v. Hobby Lobby case would have further reaching implications on religious liberty laws in the future, and in fact Burwell was mentioned three times in the syllabus, being cited as precedent or as contrast to the current decision. I can't say I told you so.

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/13-6827_5h26.pdf

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

'Will religious "restoration" laws have some ugly unintended consequences?'

"Restoration," indeed – the notion is idiocy; religion is in no need of "restoration."

This nonsense is predicated on a ridiculous, unfounded perception by Christians that they're being somehow 'disadvantaged,' when in fact nothing could be further from the truth.

Public accommodations laws in no way 'interfere' with Christian religious practice, particularly with regard to gay patrons.

 

[NYcarbineer]

And I advise you to read the SCOTUS opinion titled Holt v. Hobbs 574 U.S. ___ (2015). It was a 9-0 (that's right, nine to zero) decision on January 20 saying Arkansas could not stop a Muslim prison inmate from growing a beard in accordance with his belief.

This ruling makes all of these "religious freedom/restoration" law legal under prior precedent. Gays can boycott and raise a stink all they want, but it doesn't eh, change the law. Its there in black and white. They can petition for compliance with the government, but unless the government can prove they have a compelling interest in burdening the religious beliefs of the proprietor, there is nothing the gay community can do.

I have been saying a couple of months now that the Burwell v. Hobby Lobby case would have further reaching implications on religious liberty laws in the future, and in fact Burwell was mentioned three times in the syllabus, being cited as precedent or as contrast to the current decision. I can't say I told you so.

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/13-6827_5h26.pdf

But on the other hand, Muslim cab drivers lost in court when they were disciplined for refusing to pick up fares carrying alcohol.

Certain Dog Owners Lushes About To Have Trouble Getting A Cab - The Awl

This sort of law like Indiana's probably gives them the right to refuse such fares.

 

[NYcarbineer]

'Will religious "restoration" laws have some ugly unintended consequences?'

"Restoration," indeed – the notion is idiocy; religion is in no need of "restoration."

This nonsense is predicated on a ridiculous, unfounded perception by Christians that they're being somehow 'disadvantaged,' when in fact nothing could be further from the truth.

Public accommodations laws in no way 'interfere' with Christian religious practice, particularly with regard to gay patrons.

The worst thing about these laws is that pretty much any bias you want to engage in can be called your 'religion'.

 

[Missouri_Mike]

I heard something in a news clip today about Indiana's new law, and it sent shivers down my spine.

It's still up to state courts to make a decision where a person has a sincere religious belief..."

This is a real problem. When the government starts evaluating the sincerity of people's religious beliefs, the 1st amendment ceases to exist. Government has no business weighing and measuring the sincerity of a person's religious beliefs. If a Jew eats bacon cheeseburgers twice a week and works on Saturday, is this evidence against him if he sues his previous employer for being fired because of his religion? If a Christian is promiscuous and never goes to church, do they lose the right to withhold birth control coverage if they own a company?

This is going to come back and bite us on the ass.

If that's true then why does the government get to shut down a bakery for not making a homo wedding cake?

 

[NYcarbineer]

I heard something in a news clip today about Indiana's new law, and it sent shivers down my spine.

It's still up to state courts to make a decision where a person has a sincere religious belief..."

This is a real problem. When the government starts evaluating the sincerity of people's religious beliefs, the 1st amendment ceases to exist. Government has no business weighing and measuring the sincerity of a person's religious beliefs. If a Jew eats bacon cheeseburgers twice a week and works on Saturday, is this evidence against him if he sues his previous employer for being fired because of his religion? If a Christian is promiscuous and never goes to church, do they lose the right to withhold birth control coverage if they own a company?

This is going to come back and bite us on the ass.

So you support making 'religious belief' a sort of 'get out of the Constitution free' card that someone can play anytime they don't like the idea of respecting the equal rights of others?

 

[The Rabbi]

'Will religious "restoration" laws have some ugly unintended consequences?'

"Restoration," indeed – the notion is idiocy; religion is in no need of "restoration."

This nonsense is predicated on a ridiculous, unfounded perception by Christians that they're being somehow 'disadvantaged,' when in fact nothing could be further from the truth.

Public accommodations laws in no way 'interfere' with Christian religious practice, particularly with regard to gay patrons.

That is complete, total, and utter bullshit.
Hobby Lobby didnt sue because their religious objections were not being trampled.
The list of religious organizations, both for profit and not for profit, suing over being made to do somethign against their conscience is very long.
In the past such orgs simply applied for a waiver from whatever federal department was administering the law. But under Obama those waivers are denied. Thus the lawsuits.
All people of faith are under attack in this country. Just look at the dismissive comments from many on both the left and right here.

 

[hipeter924]

I wouldn't worry, clearly they are unconstitutional or step too far in at least some areas. Federal trumps state when it comes to religious or political freedom.

But the laws are legal. It happens to expound upon the RFRA, and I think 19 other states have passed similar laws in the past, but not with this much fanfare, or backlash. I'm unaware of anyone getting angry at the others for doing it.

Hardly. I don't think they will stand in the long-term. But as yet, with the exception of a few states they haven't be used to discriminate.

Also, previous rulings such as Atheists being barred from public office in a state, then getting the Supreme Court to overrule said state, kinda makes such laws far from solid i.e. 'no religious test shall be required to hold public office' to paraphrase, is up there somewhere.

The issue is in private institutions and businesses, but as yet few businesses or private instutions have decided to bar people on religious grounds.

Going too far with such things though, will eventually violate the constution and force another court judgment, which would probably have them overturned.

So, as far as curiosity goes, it would be interesting to see what happens and which business or instution makes a major blunder first. Barring gays from shopping, employment (not employing gays), and worship (churches banning gays) on basis of their sexual orientation or political views state-wide would eventually force a ruling.

Only equivalent I can think of is barring the members of a political party from shopping, employment, and worship, on basis of their political views. Which would stand long either, without a challenge.

I can't view it as too serious, because as yet, only minor problems have occurred, and I doubt that most people in said states would use such laws. I can't find many businesses, churches or instutions excluding gay people, let alone black lists of gay people.

 

[WorldWatcher]

If that's true then why does the government get to shut down a bakery for not making a homo wedding cake?

Where has the government shutdown a bakery for not making a homo wedding cake?


>>>>

 

[The Rabbi]

If that's true then why does the government get to shut down a bakery for not making a homo wedding cake?

Where has the government shutdown a bakery for not making a homo wedding cake?


>>>>

Oregon Bakers to Pay Up to 150K for Refusing Lesbian Couple a Wedding Cake - Breitbart
The state was simply wrong. If the bakery had been a non profit they would have have been able to refuse. But the Supreme Court negated that distinction in Hobby Lobby.

 

[WorldWatcher]

If that's true then why does the government get to shut down a bakery for not making a homo wedding cake?

Where has the government shutdown a bakery for not making a homo wedding cake?


>>>>

Oregon Bakers to Pay Up to 150K for Refusing Lesbian Couple a Wedding Cake - Breitbart
The state was simply wrong. If the bakery had been a non profit they would have have been able to refuse. But the Supreme Court negated that distinction in Hobby Lobby.

The government didn't close them down, which is what the statement to which I replied.

No fines have been assessed against Mr. and Mrs. Klein, the hearing for the amount of fines/damages was just last week and no ruling has been issued yet. The Klein's closed the storefront for Sweetcakes by Melissa because of a loss of revenue when cake orders were cancelled and wedding vendors stopped referring clients. The business is still open and function though out of the Klein's home.



>>>>

 

[The Rabbi]

If that's true then why does the government get to shut down a bakery for not making a homo wedding cake?

Where has the government shutdown a bakery for not making a homo wedding cake?


>>>>

Oregon Bakers to Pay Up to 150K for Refusing Lesbian Couple a Wedding Cake - Breitbart
The state was simply wrong. If the bakery had been a non profit they would have have been able to refuse. But the Supreme Court negated that distinction in Hobby Lobby.

The government didn't close them down, which is what the statement to which I replied.

No fines have been assessed against Mr. and Mrs. Klein, the hearing for the amount of fines/damages was just last week and no ruling has been issued yet. The Klein's closed the storefront for Sweetcakes by Melissa because of a loss of revenue when cake orders were cancelled and wedding vendors stopped referring clients. The business is still open and function though out of the Klein's home.



>>>>

The fine was $150,000.
Oregon bakery must pay gay couple for refusing to make cake - NY Daily News