Mike Pence Should Step Down.

[Lowe0]

Enough with the non-sequiturs: And more importantly: what does any of that have to do with our example scenario of Mr. N. Tolerant invoking the Indiana RFRA when sued for discrimination against Atheists R Us?

Sure, I'll repeat. There's a significant bias against atheists. Due to that bias, a conservative judge, given the option, would prefer to rule against atheists. (Even if they're not personally biased, it's simple job security; the last thing they need is a campaign to vote "shall not be retained".) The RFRA gives them the legal justification to do so, if they can frame the arguments presented to them as a violation of a theist's right to practice their religion.

 

[MisterChester]

Sure, I'll repeat. There's a significant bias against atheists. Due to that bias, a conservative judge, given the option, would prefer to rule against atheists. The RFRA gives them the legal justification to do so, if they can frame the arguments presented to them as a violation of a theist's right to practice their religion.

An atheist isn't protected under RFRA, right? If that is the case then he couldn't do something legally that a religious person could?

 

[Lowe0]

An atheist isn't protected under RFRA, right? If that is the case then he couldn't do something legally that a religious person could?

I have no idea if an atheist has any protections under RFRA; in my example, it would be invoked on the property owner's behalf.

 

[chipbennett]

Sure, I'll repeat. There's a significant bias against atheists. Due to that bias, a conservative judge, given the option, would prefer to rule against atheists. (Even if they're not personally biased, it's simple job security; the last thing they need is a campaign to vote "shall not be retained".) The RFRA gives them the legal justification to do so, if they can frame the arguments presented to them as a violation of a theist's right to practice their religion.

The judge would first have to find that a substantial burden exists. We haven't even gotten to the RFRA balancing test yet. Explain how the judge would find a substantial burden, in a manner that would not be reversible error on appeal, based on existing case law.

 

[chipbennett]

An atheist isn't protected under RFRA, right? If that is the case then he couldn't do something legally that a religious person could?

Waaaaaay off-topic. Do I need to re-quote the hypothetical scenario we're discussing? Here it is:

Atheists R Us attempts to rent space for the purpose of holding atheism meetings, from Christian N. Tolerant, a landlord who has advertised a space available for rent. The landlord refuses to rent the space to be used for that purpose. ARU sues Mr. N. Tolerant for discrimination in public accommodation on the basis of religion. Mr. N. Tolerant invokes the RFRA, claiming that renting the space for atheism meetings is a substantial burden on his religious exercise.

Do I have that scenario right so far? If not, please feel free to make amendments.

But if so, my first question would be: would Mr. N. Tolerant's claim of substantial burden even be upheld? I do not believe that the court would find in his favor. Renting a space, available to the public for rent for presumably arbitrary purposes, does not reasonably represent a substantial burden on the religious exercise of Mr. N. Tolerant. And if that's the case, the balancing test in the RFRA is moot, and never even applied to the case.

 

[Lowe0]

The judge would first have to find that a substantial burden exists. We haven't even gotten to the RFRA balancing test yet. Explain how the judge would find a substantial burden, in a manner that would not be reversible error on appeal, based on existing case law.

If your re-election depends on it, you'll FIND a burden, substantial or otherwise, and describe it as such. It actually doesn't have to survive an appeal; they just have to be able to take it back to evangelical voters and say "hey, I tried."

 

[mrjarrell]

An atheist isn't protected under RFRA, right? If that is the case then he couldn't do something legally that a religious person could?

Secular individuals and businesses are not covered by existing law or the RFRA. They are accorded no protections under it.

Here it is: The text of Indiana's "religious freedom" law

 

[chipbennett]

If your re-election depends on it, you'll FIND a burden, substantial or otherwise, and describe it as such. It actually doesn't have to survive an appeal; they just have to be able to take it back to evangelical voters and say "hey, I tried."

So, no examples of such happening in Indiana? No case law of it happening elsewhere? No actual evidence?

 

[Beowulf]

that was a really long reply, that completely misses the point. The law has nothing to do with homosexuality or gay marriage. The law merely constrains government entities by requiring the government to use a strict-scrutiny standard to justify a law (statute, etc.) that causes a substantial burden on a person's religious exercise.

That is an intellectually disingenuous statement. The law is explicitly about that, since that's what the people who wrote and supported it have been saying to their supporters the whole time (not to mention examples of business owners being penalized in other states for denying services to gay people being the primary examples to justify the need for the law). They were careful not to explicitly state that in the bill itself, but come on, at least admit this is what is driving the law. If you can't admit that much, there isn't much point in discussing it with you. It if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it's a duck, no matter what you or Pence try to say about it.

Also, please provide examples where Indiana business owners had their religious exercise unduly burdened by legislation that required this law to be passed at this particular time? I haven't seen any cases being brought up as poster children for why this bill was necessary, which is odd given that exactly what you would expect supporters to do with this kind of backlash.

Maybe you'll argue we need this in place just in case this might happen in the future... you know, the same kind of logic the anti-gunners use when trying to ban something, like say, .50 BMG rifles (just in case someone might try to shoot down a plane with one). Not a winning strategy. There needs to be a compelling reason for government to pass a law. I don't see one here and instead, see a cynical ploy to provide a sop to the anti-gay marriage groups, which as instead blown up in their faces (and sadly, by extension, all of ours as well).

 

[Lowe0]

So, no examples of such happening in Indiana? No case law of it happening elsewhere? No actual evidence?

The law has been in effect for six days. Any particular lawsuit from that lengthy period of time that you'd like me to discuss?

 

[Alpo]

Beowulf: I can't give out rep yet, but your longer comment on the other page deserves an "attaboy". Thank you.

Rather than Chip's example (and at the risk of receiving a series of questions from Chip rather than comments) wouldn't a better example be a building owned by a Quaker who refuses to rent his his building to Islamists who advocate a violent end to Israel?

 

[chipbennett]

That is an intellectually disingenuous statement. The law is explicitly about that, since that's what the people who wrote and supported it have been saying to their supporters the whole time (not to mention examples of business owners being penalized in other states for denying services to gay people being the primary examples to justify the need for the law). They were careful not to explicitly state that in the bill itself, but come on, at least admit this is what is driving the law. If you can't admit that much, there isn't much point in discussing it with you. It if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it's a duck, no matter what you or Pence try to say about it.

I always understood the Indiana RFRA to be in response to the Hobby Lobby lawsuit/decision. Regardless of motivation, though, the law looks, walks, and quacks only like what is actually written in the legislation - and what is actually written in the legislation says absolutely nothing about gay marriage or homosexuals in general. What is written in the law applies to government entities, and government laws, etc.

What is intellectually disingenuous is the claim that the law targets homosexuals, or enables or facilitates discrimination against homosexuals. That claim is an outright lie.

Also, please provide examples where Indiana business owners had their religious exercise unduly burdened by legislation that required this law to be passed at this particular time? I haven't seen any cases being brought up as poster children for why this bill was necessary, which is odd given that exactly what you would expect supporters to do with this kind of backlash.

Why does there need to be an example of such in Indiana? There are myriad examples of such substantial burdens elsewhere. Why should a Hoosier be harmed before the legislature acts to provide protections?

Maybe you'll argue we need this in place just in case this might happen in the future... you know, the same kind of logic the anti-gunners use when trying to ban something, like say, .50 BMG rifles (just in case someone might try to shoot down a plane with one). Not a winning strategy. There needs to be a compelling reason for government to pass a law.

If there's no compelling reason for Indiana to have an RFRA, then why do 30+ states have the same law, or court decisions that have implemented the same restrictions on government?

I don't see one here and instead, see a cynical ploy to provide a sop to the anti-gay marriage groups, which as instead blown up in their faces (and sadly, by extension, all of ours as well).

There's nothing in the law about gay marriage. There's nothing in the law that protects, encourages, or facilitates discrimination against homosexuals. So, if the law was intended as such sop, it's a miserable failure in that regard.

By the way: were the laws in all the other states just "sops" as well? Why or why not, and how is Indiana any different from those other states?

 

[chipbennett]

Beowulf: I can't give out rep yet, but your longer comment on the other page deserves an "attaboy". Thank you.

Rather than Chip's example (and at the risk of receiving a series of questions from Chip rather than comments) wouldn't a better example be a building owned by a Quaker who refuses to rent his his building to Islamists who advocate a violent end to Israel?

I don't see how your example is materially any different from mine (other than that it removes the anti-atheist government non-sequitur); but sure, let's go with that one.

How will the Quaker be able to justify a claim of substantial burden on religious exercise? How would a court justify a finding in his favor in that regard?

 

[Alpo]

Just as I thought, Chip. Questions. I won't bite.

 

[chipbennett]

Just as I thought, Chip. Questions. I won't bite.

Isn't that how conversations take place? Oh wait: that was a question. Sorry for setting the trap again.

Thus far, not one person has made a valid case for the RFRA being used to provide statutory relief for discrimination. The entire point was to create a hypothetical scenario in which someone would be discriminated against, sue the person for discrimination, and then have the defendant/respondent claim relief under the RFRA. I created the scenario, as proposed by lowe, and then posited how the claim might play out.

I then asked how the defendant/respondent would meet the substantial burden standard that would even allow the RFRA to be invoked. Apparently, that's too much to ask. After all, spouting ignorant rhetoric is so much easier.

 

[CZB1962]

Yeah. That exactly what we need. Another protected class. All men are created equal, but some are extra super special equal.

So wanting the same protection and rights that you have make them "super special"? What does that make you?

 

[Kutnupe14]

How is this NOT a law respecting religion? This law should probably be struck down based on its language alone.

 

[KG1]

Under what law can "hate speech" be refused?



Homosexuality as a protected class has absolutely nothing to do with the Indiana RFRA. Classes protected against discrimination are defined elsewhere. If people want such an amendment to that statute, then they should argue for it. It has nothing to do with the RFRA.

LGBT proponents want to use this law as a vehicle to argue the issue that homosexuality should be a protected class. That's why they are trying to pigeon hole Pence and legislators to give them what they want on paper by "clarifying" the RFRA instead of seeking redress through the proper channels as you have suggested.

 

[Ericpwp]

Wow, talk about an illiterate mob. This thing mirrors the federal law that was cited in the HL case. There are a lot of people making up a lot of about what this law says. Read it!

 

[mrjarrell]

Wow, talk about an illiterate mob. This thing mirrors the federal law that was cited in the HL case. There are a lot of people making up a lot of about what this law says. Read it!

Sorry, Eric, but it does not mirror the federal version. You should read and compare the two. The Indiana version has additional language that was added at the behest of the TEAvangelicals like Eric Miller. They are substantially different.