Indiana "religious freedom" law

[CrimsonWeltall]

I'm saying that wouldn't be a very realistic or believable claim. How popular the practice/belief is will be a factor to consider in determining the credibility/severity of the belief in question.

 

That's some shaky ground. A belief loses popularity and suddenly isn't protected anymore...

[Jenksismyhero]

The bolded factors are legally irrelevant, at least with respect to religious accommodation under Title VII. The EEOC's official position is that religious beliefs can be "unique to an individual," so long as they are "sincerely held." Evidence as to what others believe is not necessary, given the "intensely personal characteristics of adherence to religious belief."

 

http://eeoc.gov/policy/docs/religion.html#_Toc203359487

 

At some point the court has to decide whether your religious practice is a religious belief or a personal preference, as that link points out. An easy way to do that is if you and a billion others like you follow the same practice, versus you being the only one. I'd argue it would still be relevant to any analysis.

 

 

[clyons]

At some point the court has to decide whether your religious practice is a religious belief or a personal preference, as that link points out. An easy way to do that is if you and a billion others like you follow the same practice, versus you being the only one. I'd argue it would still be relevant to any analysis.

 

Sure, that's the easy way, but as you know, hard cases make bad law.

[Jenksismyhero]

That's some shaky ground. A belief loses popularity and suddenly isn't protected anymore...

 

You're suggesting no limits at all? There has to be something, somewhere. Otherwise people would claim religious practice for any act that might violate a law.

 

Speeding? I'm a devote follower of the God of Sound and i'm mandated to travel as closely to the speed of sound as possible.

 

Drugs? I'm a follower of The White Powder Order, which requires me to do 5 bumps every day at work.

 

The list goes on.

[illinilaw08]

Sure it does. You can't very well claim that I can sell my slave or stone someone to death as per my Christian practice when no one does that. Its a factor to consider.

 

 

 

Again, sure you can. How many times have you said X. Do you teach it? Does your church teach it? How long has the belief been held, etc. etc. It'll be a factual analysis, and it's going to be on the Plaintiff to establish it. Again, the federal government already protects religious practice. The states are just molding these laws after the federal law. So there is case law on the books about what constitutes religious practice and what types of practice deserve protection, or at least factors to consider in making that analysis.

 

 

 

They have, but I think there are far more supporters of gay people as well these days. I seriously doubt in most areas that someone screaming from the roof tops that gays won't be allowed would result in streams of people lining up to shop/eat there. So fine, we're not there YET. Again, this is my perfect world where that stuff is a minority opinion, which is the trajectory we're on.

 

Jenks - here's the point I don't think you have addressed yet. I'm not clear if you are arguing that society, today, would run off discriminatory businesses that refuse to cater to LGBT individuals, or if you are referring to a "perfect" world distinguishable from ours. If it's the former, then I ask:

 

1) Why did Indiana (and other states) push this bill (and others like it) if not to allow small businesses to discriminate against the LGBT community? And doesn't that support necessarily run counter to your position.

 

2) As evidence of the above, according to Wikipedia, when Mike Huckabee organized that "Chick-fil-a Appreciation Day" in response to criticism of the franchise from same sex marriage supporters, more than 600,000 people RSVP'd to the event on Facebook, and a consulting firm projected that the average Chick-fil-a saw sales increase by 29.9% that day.

 

Lots of progress has been made on LGBT issues since the 90s, but there is a long, long way to go before it reaches a point were it's not profitable for businesses to discriminate against the LGBT community throughout the US.

 

Edit to include the Wikipedia link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chick-fil-A_s...age_controversy

Edited March 26, 2015 by illinilaw08

[CrimsonWeltall]

You're suggesting no limits at all? There has to be something, somewhere. Otherwise people would claim religious practice for any act that might violate a law.

 

Speeding? I'm a devote follower of the God of Sound and i'm mandated to travel as closely to the speed of sound as possible.

 

Drugs? I'm a follower of The White Powder Order, which requires me to do 5 bumps every day at work.

 

The list goes on.

 

People CAN claim religious practice for any act. That doesn't bother me at all. The relevant factor is whether or not the government has a legitimate, rationale interest in prohibiting that act.

 

If 10% of the population suddenly converted to that Religion of Sound and wanted to travel really fast, would you argue that speeding laws should be overturned because their high-speed belief has become more common?

[Jenksismyhero]

Jenks - here's the point I don't think you have addressed yet. I'm not clear if you are arguing that society, today, would run off discriminatory businesses that refuse to cater to LGBT individuals, or if you are referring to a "perfect" world distinguishable from ours. If it's the former, then I ask:

 

1) Why did Indiana (and other states) push this bill (and others like it) if not to allow small businesses to discriminate against the LGBT community? And doesn't that support necessarily run counter to your position.

 

2) As evidence of the above, according to Wikipedia, when Mike Huckabee organized that "Chick-fil-a Appreciation Day" in response to criticism of the franchise from same sex marriage supporters, more than 600,000 people RSVP'd to the event on Facebook, and a consulting firm projected that the average Chick-fil-a saw sales increase by 29.9% that day.

 

Lots of progress has been made on LGBT issues since the 90s, but there is a long, long way to go before it reaches a point were it's not profitable for businesses to discriminate against the LGBT community throughout the US.

 

Edit to include the Wikipedia link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chick-fil-A_s...age_controversy

 

I'm saying we're close. Probably not there yet for every type of person that could be discriminated against, but far enough towards it that i'm not sure how big a deal it would really be. You're always going to have people that are racist, homophobic, anti-religious group, whatever. So are we at a point where there is a concern that there will be a massive discriminatory push towards those groups ala the 1960's? No, I think we're well beyond that point. You would think the country would have gone all anti-Islam over the last 15 years, but we really haven't. Some nut jobs here and there, but not for the vast, vast majority of people.

 

As to this law, I'm not some huge supporter of it. I'm actually against it more because it's just a waste of paper more than it being intentionally discriminatory towards a group. However, I will say that like the gay person at the copy shop example, if you vehemently disagree with someone or something about a person, you should, as a private person and business owner, be free to not serve that person. You can do that for literally millions of reason but a select few. Obviously the select few have a history of discrimination, but again, looking at the situation in 2015, are those protections necessary? If they are, what about in 10 more years? At some point, the fear of going back to 1960's segregation just doesn't exist. And if it does, enact new protection laws if you must.

 

And no, even if this was pushed by some anti-gay intent, that doesn't really concern me. It's an incredibly small group that would ever be able to use this law as a shield from lawsuits. And we pass bills all the time that are supported by and/or intended for only a small minority of people.

 

As to Chik-fil-a, they got a bunch of supporters (600k people clicking their mouse on the internet) out of how many millions of customers a day? I mean I think they're a perfect example supporting my theory here: they're openly Christian, they're openly against gay marriage, yet they've never shut their doors to the gay community even though in some states they'd be entirely within their rights to do so. There's too much at stake now for them to do that.

Edited March 26, 2015 by Jenksismybitch

[illinilaw08]

I'm saying we're close. Probably not there yet for every type of person that could be discriminated against, but far enough towards it that i'm not sure how big a deal it would really be. You're always going to have people that are racist, homophobic, anti-religious group, whatever. So are we at a point where there is a concern that there will be a massive discriminatory push towards those groups ala the 1960's? No, I think we're well beyond that point. You would think the country would have gone all anti-Islam over the last 15 years, but we really haven't. Some nut jobs here and there, but not for the vast, vast majority of people.

 

As to this law, I'm not some huge supporter of it. I'm actually against it more because it's just a waste of paper more than it being intentionally discriminatory towards a group. However, I will say that like the gay person at the copy shop example, if you vehemently disagree with someone or something about a person, you should, as a private person and business owner, be free to not serve that person. You can do that for literally millions of reason but a select few. Obviously the select few of history of discrimination, but again, looking at the situation in 2015, are those protections necessary? If they are, what about in 10 more years? At some point, the fear of going back to 1960's segregation just doesn't exist. And if it does, enact new protection laws if you must.

 

And no, even if this was pushed by some anti-gay intent, that doesn't really concern me. It's an incredibly small group that would ever be able to use this law as a shield from lawsuits. And we pass bills all the time that are supported by and/or intended for only a small minority of people.

 

As to Chik-fil-a, they got a bunch of supporters (600k people clicking their mouse on the internet) out of how many millions of customers a day? I mean I think they're a perfect example supporting my theory here: they're openly Christian, they're openly against gay marriage, yet they've never shut their doors to the gay community even though in some states they'd be entirely within their rights to do so. There's too much at stake now for them to do that.

 

To clarify, as stated in my post, according to the Wikipedia article, that day, each Chik-fil-A saw a 29.9% percent increase in sales on average for that day of the week. Based on Huckabee's anti-LGBT message. Society hasn't gotten to the point your posts have suggested.

 

Furthermore, at what point does a law passed with discriminatory intent toward a minority group actually concern you?

 

 

[Jenksismyhero]

To clarify, as stated in my post, according to the Wikipedia article, that day, each Chik-fil-A saw a 29.9% percent increase in sales on average for that day of the week. Based on Huckabee's anti-LGBT message. Society hasn't gotten to the point your posts have suggested.

 

Furthermore, at what point does a law passed with discriminatory intent toward a minority group actually concern you?

 

Does the vast majority of the country have the same views as Fox News? The numbers would suggest yes since they crush the ratings, but we know that's not true. He galvanized a group of people. You don't think the LGBT community does the same? I'm not pretending like there still aren't homophobs out there, but we aren't even in the same ball park as 10 years ago.

 

It would concern me when the law has nothing to do with the protection of another constitutional right.

[Balta1701]

I'm saying we're close. Probably not there yet for every type of person that could be discriminated against, but far enough towards it that i'm not sure how big a deal it would really be. You're always going to have people that are racist, homophobic, anti-religious group, whatever. So are we at a point where there is a concern that there will be a massive discriminatory push towards those groups ala the 1960's? No, I think we're well beyond that point. You would think the country would have gone all anti-Islam over the last 15 years, but we really haven't. Some nut jobs here and there, but not for the vast, vast majority of people.

 

As to this law, I'm not some huge supporter of it. I'm actually against it more because it's just a waste of paper more than it being intentionally discriminatory towards a group. However, I will say that like the gay person at the copy shop example, if you vehemently disagree with someone or something about a person, you should, as a private person and business owner, be free to not serve that person. You can do that for literally millions of reason but a select few. Obviously the select few have a history of discrimination, but again, looking at the situation in 2015, are those protections necessary? If they are, what about in 10 more years? At some point, the fear of going back to 1960's segregation just doesn't exist. And if it does, enact new protection laws if you must.

 

And no, even if this was pushed by some anti-gay intent, that doesn't really concern me. It's an incredibly small group that would ever be able to use this law as a shield from lawsuits. And we pass bills all the time that are supported by and/or intended for only a small minority of people.

 

As to Chik-fil-a, they got a bunch of supporters (600k people clicking their mouse on the internet) out of how many millions of customers a day? I mean I think they're a perfect example supporting my theory here: they're openly Christian, they're openly against gay marriage, yet they've never shut their doors to the gay community even though in some states they'd be entirely within their rights to do so. There's too much at stake now for them to do that.

There are 29 states where right now it is legal for an average employer to fire someone for no other reason than finding out they're gay. Or deny them housing for being gay.

 

That is not being "close".

[Jenksismyhero]

There are 29 states where right now it is legal for an average employer to fire someone for no other reason than finding out they're gay. Or deny them housing for being gay.

 

That is not being "close".

 

Do we have numbers for how many people have been fired for that in the last few years? Obviously a difficult number to quantify, but just because employers have the right to under the law doesn't mean they are.

 

And employes also can fire people/not hire people/not give them housing for being ugly, fat, having bad teeth, having a weird voice, being a weird person in general, etc. That's mostly all unavoidable/unchangeable as well. Should we be adding groups to the list of protected classes?

 

 

[Balta1701]

Should we be adding groups to the list of protected classes?

Yes.

[StrangeSox]

It also looks like this law is modeled after a federal law:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_Fre...Restoration_Act (still applicable at the federal level)

 

which, gasp!, was introduced by Chuck Schumer and signed by President Clinton.

The rfra is terrible and gave us the hobby lobby ruling.

[StrangeSox]

1) I said in a perfect world. A world that has progressed, much like ours has. It's not some uncommon thing to expect that some laws won't be necessary anymore. The SC has said as much with issues like affirmative action.

 

2) I'm not aware of any religion that would deem "being black" something that is an affront or objectionable under that religion. And before we go down the "well but yeah anyone can say their religion is whatever they want it to be" road, the SC has handled that numerous times in the past and rejected those attempts.

 

Let's flip the switch here: a gay person runs a copy shop. A crazy, homophobic anti-gay religious person comes in and wants to order 1000 "death to queers" posters. I think that gay person should be able to say go jump in a lake. I don't think they HAVE to serve them. I don't think they SHOULD serve them. Even without the protection of religious freedom, they should be able to deny that service.

If the laws "aren't necessary" anymore because no-one actually wants to discriminate against protected classes, then who cares if the laws are still on the books?

[StrangeSox]

So you actually can't see where "I don't believe in miscegenation" is going to be the immediate reply with the specific example of this case?

Also, you know, the Mormon religion until their tax exempt status was threatened in the 1970's

 

To be fair, Utah just passed a bill expanding protected classes in that state to include lgbt with assistance from the lds church

Edited March 26, 2015 by StrangeSox

[StrangeSox]

You're suggesting no limits at all? There has to be something, somewhere. Otherwise people would claim religious practice for any act that might violate a law.

 

Speeding? I'm a devote follower of the God of Sound and i'm mandated to travel as closely to the speed of sound as possible.

 

Drugs? I'm a follower of The White Powder Order, which requires me to do 5 bumps every day at work.

 

The list goes on.

Wasn't the rfra specifically in response to a court ruling on the use of peyote in religious ceremonies?

[Balta1701]

Wasn't the rfra specifically in response to a court ruling on the use of peyote in religious ceremonies?

ok gays we can legally hate you and force you out of the state and your homes but you get legal pot. Deal?

[StrangeSox]

well Indiana's pro-bigotry law is markedly different in that it allows for bigotry between private parties. For everything wrong with the federal RFRA, it at least only control interactions with the state.

 

the federal case that provoked the RFRA was Employment v Smith

 

The fun part of the RFRA, which has been touched on in this thread, is that it essentially requires the court to accept any and all "religious objections" or get into the business of courts deciding which religious beliefs are genuine or not.

[Jenksismyhero]

well Indiana's pro-bigotry law is markedly different in that it allows for bigotry between private parties. For everything wrong with the federal RFRA, it at least only control interactions with the state.

 

the federal case that provoked the RFRA was Employment v Smith

 

The fun part of the RFRA, which has been touched on in this thread, is that it essentially requires the court to accept any and all "religious objections" or get into the business of courts deciding which religious beliefs are genuine or not.

 

Courts do this all the time anyway when it comes to accommodation cases. It's not a difficult analysis.

 

This is what I hate about journalism and the law. It's incredibly easy to write headlines and articles about how terrible X decision/law will be because you don't actually have to present a case like you would in court. You can use broad generalizations and hypotheticals. People don't win lawsuits just because they file the paperwork. It's not a simple process. This doesn't open the door to mass discrimination of gay people or any other people. It'll be successful in a small number of cases, just like the Hobby Lobby ruling. Specific circumstances, not general applicability.

Edited March 27, 2015 by Jenksismybitch

[Rex Kickass]

I don't get the outrage over this bill. It's welcome I guess, but its no worse than anything else that this or many other states have had on the books even in the last few years. The truth is that when its legal to be denied a job or a house because you're gay, why is it any worse to not be allowed to buy someone's cake for the same reason?

 

I think the real concern will come when pharmacists refuse to fill a patient's HIV medicine or a doctor refuses to treat someone for an STI or because they are gay or because they are on birth control, etc. That's the line that would concern me. Everything else is frankly just formally legalizing what some folks have had in practice for a long time.

[Balta1701]

The Indiana based Church of Cannabis has now been incorporated and its sincerely held belief is that their religion has the right to use marijuana.

[CrimsonWeltall]

The Indiana based Church of Cannabis has now been incorporated and its sincerely held belief is that their religion has the right to use marijuana.

 

Bravo, stoners

[Texsox]

Thats why I clarified, its funny that its finally getting out of US soil. I mean dont they know most of the south is bigoted as hell?

 

I didn't think Indiana and Kansas were southern states? It's a lot of northern states that demanded the border wall be placed in Texas.

[Texsox]

As much as I really dislike this law, I do wonder if stores should have the right to refuse service.

 

On a theoretical point, imagine a group of protesters inside a steak restaurant chanting against eating meat. Obviously we all agree the owner should have the right to remove the group because they are harming that business. Now, what if you have a really messed up business (IMHO it is messed up) that caters to a very anti-XX crowd. A large group of XX show up just to drive away the core customers. They will be gone next month along with the regulars. Can you protest by just being you?

[Kyyle23]

As much as I really dislike this law, I do wonder if stores should have the right to refuse service.

 

On a theoretical point, imagine a group of protesters inside a steak restaurant chanting against eating meat. Obviously we all agree the owner should have the right to remove the group because they are harming that business. Now, what if you have a really messed up business (IMHO it is messed up) that caters to a very anti-XX crowd. A large group of XX show up just to drive away the core customers. They will be gone next month along with the regulars. Can you protest by just being you?

 

You arent refusing service to protesters that are disrupting business. They dont want to eat what you are providing, and they dont want others to eat it. They are trying to harm your business.

 

I dont think this analogy is applicable at all.