jerseyhoya wrote:Democrats replacing Harry Reid with Chuck Schumer, and Hillary Clinton waltzing to the nomination uncontested is something. Occupy Wall Street did one helluva job.

The left hasn't had any real power in the Democratic Party since the 80s. You know that.

It's a bummer Warren is so old and O'Malley has lost so much momentum. It would be nice to have a few prospects on the upswing in case Hillary loses again.

Prior to Hobby Lobby, there doesn't seem to have been much use of RFRA (in accounts I've scanned at any rate) as a tool of defense by aggrieved pious employers. Mostly it was employed as protection for, y'know, people who actually had religious beliefs/practices that were being impinged.

Of course, now that it turns out there are tricky ways to employ it as an exclusionary gimmick (thanks Alito), enabling the worst inclinations of our holy job creators (hey, since corporations are people, corporations, which were formed principally for grubby, humdrum commercial purposes, can have deeply held religious convictions - of course! Why haven't I understood this before!), certain politics authorities here are all about it. That's cute of course - it's always cute - but it's losing its looks.

jerseyhoya wrote:19 States that have Religious Freedom Laws Like Indiana's that No One is Boycotting

#boycottpennsylvania

This effects nobody you care about, we get it.

If I'm a Muslim Fundamentalist/Jihadist do I now have the right to behead Christians and Jews in 20 states because they won't convert to Islam? If I'm a Mesoamerican of Aztec descent, is human sacrifice OK in Indiana and 19 other states?

Before you argue that the government has a "compelling interest" in not allowing beheadings or human sacrifice remember that the government also has compelling interests in principles such as equal protection, interstate commerce, etc. My compelling interest is your "meh."

Also remember that the government's interest in not sanctioning killing is not absolute. It doesn't extend so far as an outright ban on capital punishment. Frankly, I'm sure we can all think of one or two people we wouldn't mind seeing being sacrificed. Maybe we could kill two birds with one stone (no pun intended) and turn over convicted murderers to Islamic Fundamentalists for beheadings or allow latter-day Aztecs to rip the still-beating hearts from rapists.

It's ridiculously ironic that we, as descendants of those who came to this country to escape persecution based on our beliefs, would now codify the persecution of others who -- though violating no law and wishing only to enjoy the freedoms of this country -- simply may have different beliefs. Believe in whatever God you choose, but if you want to enter the public marketplace and enjoy the benefits and protections of a free society, unless your would-be customer is violating some law, you better be prepared for whatever walks in your door.

I was told there would be cake

The cake is a lie.

jh Do you believe that the reason states are trying to get these laws passed now are within what the law was intended to do when it was originally conceived? Even if it had good intentions originally I don't think it's a stretch to say the reason it's getting support now is to legalize private citizen's ability to discriminate against gays.

The more you look at this Indy Bill, the more you should realize that it's primary effect is theatre.

The GOP uses it to pander to its Bible Base - and in doing so gave a wonderful PR gift to the DNC, who have twisted into a gay-bashing bill with the help from all the usual leftwing media.

It shows, once again, that the left has a much better grip on the sentiments of swing voters.

TomatoPie wrote:The more you look at this Indy Bill, the more you should realize that it's primary effect is theatre.

The GOP uses it to pander to its Bible Base - and in doing so gave a wonderful PR gift to the DNC, who have twisted into a gay-bashing bill with the help from all the usual leftwing media.

It shows, once again, that the left has a much better grip on the sentiments of swing voters.

Salesforce is not "the media"; nor are the NCAA, or Chipotle, or other commercial enterprises who've politely told Pence he's straight fucked in the head.

Market forces, dooder - you should be creaming yourself!

Soren wrote:jh Do you believe that the reason states are trying to get these laws passed now are within what the law was intended to do when it was originally conceived? Even if it had good intentions originally I don't think it's a stretch to say the reason it's getting support now is to legalize private citizen's ability to discriminate against gays.

yea, but without this law some native americans wouldn't be able to legally use peyote, which is a right the right suddenly cares about, apparently.

drsmooth wrote:

TomatoPie wrote:The more you look at this Indy Bill, the more you should realize that it's primary effect is theatre.

The GOP uses it to pander to its Bible Base - and in doing so gave a wonderful PR gift to the DNC, who have twisted into a gay-bashing bill with the help from all the usual leftwing media.

It shows, once again, that the left has a much better grip on the sentiments of swing voters.

Salesforce is not "the media"; nor are the NCAA, or Chipotle, or other commercial enterprises who've politely told Pence he's straight #$!&@ in the head.

Market forces, dooder - you should be creaming yourself!

I'm cool with the reaction of market forces. The law is pointless, albeit also toothless. The real benefit of the market force here is yet another message to the tone-deaf GOP.

It's just a #@!%# shame that the alternative to social-issue GOP morons is the DNC.

SK790 wrote:

Soren wrote:jh Do you believe that the reason states are trying to get these laws passed now are within what the law was intended to do when it was originally conceived? Even if it had good intentions originally I don't think it's a stretch to say the reason it's getting support now is to legalize private citizen's ability to discriminate against gays.

yea, but without this law some native americans wouldn't be able to legally use peyote, which is a right the right suddenly cares about, apparently.

I don't think he gives a fuck about native americans, I think he's more making the point that originally the law wasn't meant as legal justification for what some might consider a hate motivated refusal of service.

no, but it's funny to watch him dance around the issue with stuff like this. the peyote thing was something he brought up.

Ask Hobby Lobby's employees if the law is toothless.

Soren wrote:jh Do you believe that the reason states are trying to get these laws passed now are within what the law was intended to do when it was originally conceived? Even if it had good intentions originally I don't think it's a stretch to say the reason it's getting support now is to legalize private citizen's ability to discriminate against gays.

I think it (refusing to participate commercially in a gay wedding, not a wholesale anti-gay stance) falls under the original intention of the law, but you have a bit of a point as well.

The law exists to exempt someone from a generally applicable law because the law substantially burdens their free exercise of religion. In general, laws exist to promote good behavior/outcomes/norms/society/etc., so in letting a person out of the law, you're allowing them to do the bad thing. The law is designed to allow people to do things that are otherwise banned. But it can only be a kinda bad thing and not a really bad thing otherwise the state would be justified in telling your substantially burdened self that you're shit out of luck (technical legal jargon). I don't think anyone expects a person claiming that serving food to a gay person substantially burdens their religion would have a shot in hell of holding up in court. It would be hard to demonstrate a substantial burden, and easier for the government to demonstrate a compelling interest in intervening. Many court cases where a person has claimed protection under the RFRA have led to the defense being tossed - believing pot is a deity does not justify possessing/distributing it, Native American fella can't shoot a bald eagle for a religious ceremony, and prisoner can't keep dreadlocks during a search.

Where I think you have a point is it's fair to question the motives of the folks passing these bills in the wake of gay marriage becoming more widespread. At least some of the people in favor of these bills are so inclined for intentions that are much less pleasant than those from back in the 1990s. I think it should be legal for an individual to refuse a customer on the basis that being a part of a gay wedding is something deeply problematic for them for religious reasons, and I think the law is fine. But a baker/florist/photographer who does that is a dickhead. Not every asshole behavior needs to be a criminal or civil offense, and people deserve the opportunity to keep up with their livelihood in the wake of the law shifting around them on an issue like gay marriage so rapidly. Or at least not have the state take it away (if they lose business to a boycott, then that's fine). If the result of this law passing is more than a few isolated cranks refusing the business of gay nuptials and it becomes a real obstacle to gay and lesbian couples getting people to work on their wedding, then I think the courts would be within their bounds to claim the state does have a compelling interest in intervening. But the widespread nature of these laws before Indiana passing theirs makes that seem unlikely to me.

After reading Soren's question, I fell into a bit of a rabbit hole reading posts over on the Volokh Conspiracy from 2013 explaining a whole lot about RFRA and Hobby Lobby and other matters - link to post with Word doc including all his posts...clicking on the Hobby Lobby blog tag will grant you the web listing. He's generally libertarian in his leanings, so you can take his analysis and history with a grain of salt if you do read any of it.

Really appreciate coming back and seeing people speaking for me in answering Soren's question to me!

SK790 wrote:

Soren wrote:jh Do you believe that the reason states are trying to get these laws passed now are within what the law was intended to do when it was originally conceived? Even if it had good intentions originally I don't think it's a stretch to say the reason it's getting support now is to legalize private citizen's ability to discriminate against gays.

yea, but without this law some native americans wouldn't be able to legally use peyote, which is a right the right suddenly cares about, apparently.

The Supreme Court ruled in 1990 that Native Americans using peyote in Oregon could not use it being a part of their religious practice as a valid protection against job loss/preventing the claim of unemployment benefits because the law applied to everyone generally and there was no legislative protection for the religious practice.

People were upset by this and Congress subsequently passed the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. It was, per sources such as WIKIPEDIA and the Volokh Conspiracy and every article I've read about it, the decision which solidified the need for the law in the first place. So I brought it up. It's not dancing around anything.

So, if a store owner wants to keep out gay people or whatever, do they put a sign on the door or what? No Gays! or No blacks! Is this how it will work?

I'd put out a "Long-haired freaky people need not apply" sign and wait for some hippy to tuck his hair up under his hat and come in to ask me why.

I wonder how the businessperson who discriminates against homosexuals would feel when the gay, volunteer firefighter refuses to extinguish that person's fire.

Monkeyboy wrote:So, if a store owner wants to keep out gay people or whatever, do they put a sign on the door or what? No Gays! or No blacks! Is this how it will work?

I'd put out a "Long-haired freaky people need not apply" sign and wait for some hippy to tuck his hair up under his hat and come in to ask me why.

Something like this would probably work just fine: