The Notorious Indiana Bill Just Signed Into Law--Other States Have It?

[Bricker]

@Really_Not_All_That_Bright

How many RFRA trials have you observed?

None. Zero.

But I’ve read plenty of appellate briefs. And while I grant that doesn’t give me the chance to assess witness credibility, it also means that every single RFRA/RLUIPA claim I’ve seen upheld has been plausible – that is, the claim tracks with recognized, common religious dictates, as opposed to unusual ones… and every weirdo, bogus claim along the lines of, “My religion requires I dowse myself in THC oil,” has been rejected.

[Bricker]

@Fiveyearlurker

For what it’s worth, politifact did a piece on this.

I see:

In one sense, there isn’t all that much difference between the bill that got Obama’s vote in Illinois 17 years ago and the bill that Pence signed into law last week. But how people want the law applied, on top of other legislative changes, has changed the landscape dramatically, said Steve Sanders, Indiana University Maurer School of Law professor of family and constitutional law.

“What has completely changed are the politics around the issue, the symbolism of what voting for one of these laws means,” Sanders said.

So the laws are very similar, but the symbolism is different.

[PatrickLondon]

@ElvisL1ves

The bill’s text defines its usage: * “As used in this chapter, ‘exercise of religion’ includes any exercise of religion, whether or not compelled by, or central to, a system of religious belief.” *

That’s meaningless. What is an exercise of religion apart from a system of religious belief?

[ElvisL1ves]

Anything I claim it to be. It doesn’t have to be compelled by or central to a system of religious belief; I just have to *claim *it’s religious and I don’t even have to show it’s significant to my religion.

It then falls upon you to prove I don’t really believe it. Good luck with that.

[John_Mace]

@Learjeff

Can you quote the law that prohibits it?

My understanding is that discrimination is allowed unless it’s a protected class, such as age and race. Gender isn’t a protected class under the US constitution, so you can discriminate against women or men, people who smile too much, or people on bicycles. Does it mean you can discriminate against menstruating women? (Leaving aside how you’d tell, without violating their privacy.)

Please fight my ignorance.

If you are correct, the law doesn’t change a thing wrt to that hypothetical.

But you are not correct. Gender is a suspect class, but it is subject to intermediate, not strict, scrutiny.

[aceplace57]

People are pressuring the Governor to veto the Arkansas bill. Today the Little Rock Mayor, LR Chamber of Commerce and Acxiom CEO all urged him to veto it. Protestors were outside the Governor’s mansion last night.

Hoping the uproar in Indiana will keep Arkansas from making the same error.

It just passed the Legislature. Now the Governor is on the hot seat.

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

@Bricker

None. Zero.

But I’ve read plenty of appellate briefs. And while I grant that doesn’t give me the chance to assess witness credibility, it also means that every single RFRA/RLUIPA claim I’ve seen upheld has been plausible – that is, the claim tracks with recognized, common religious dictates, as opposed to unusual ones… and every weirdo, bogus claim along the lines of, “My religion requires I dowse myself in THC oil,” has been rejected.

What’s implausible about that?

[wevets]

@Bricker

…it also means that every single RFRA/RLUIPA claim I’ve seen upheld has been plausible – that is, the claim tracks with recognized, common religious dictates, as opposed to unusual ones… and every weirdo, bogus claim along the lines of, “My religion requires I dowse myself in THC oil,” has been rejected.

But which appellate briefs you read isn’t random or systematically comprehensive - you’ve exercised some form of choice in selecting which to read, right?

Choice which could bias your perception of outcomes?

[Bricker]

@Really_Not_All_That_Bright

What’s implausible about that?

I was referring to a specific claim made by one Michael Lineker of Alaska. His claims were implausible, and the trial court found that his claimed beliefs were nothing more than an idiosyncratic set of beliefs created to enable his defense of the use of marijuana.

His claims included a necessity of bathing in THC oil.

Courts are perfectly willing to find a lack of sincerity when the claimants are insincere, as you (I hope) are well aware.

[Bricker]

@wevets

But which appellate briefs you read isn’t random or systematically comprehensive - you’ve exercised some form of choice in selecting which to read, right?

Choice which could bias your perception of outcomes?

No, it’s systematically comprehensive.

And if your theory is correct, it should be a simple matter to find the devastating counter example which my biased perception overlooked, right?

[buddy431]

@Bricker

I was referring to a specific claim made by one Michael Lineker of Alaska. His claims were implausible, and the trial court found that his claimed beliefs were nothing more than an idiosyncratic set of beliefs created to enable his defense of the use of marijuana.

His claims included a necessity of bathing in THC oil.

Courts are perfectly willing to find a lack of sincerity when the claimants are insincere, as you (I hope) are well aware.

And there have been cases where courts have upheld the rights of, say, Rastafarians to use marijuana, where it clearly is a sincere belief (on the other hand, they have also denied the rights of Rastafarians to import marijuana for sacramental use, so it isn’t a guarantee)

[wevets]

@Bricker

No, it’s systematically comprehensive.

And if your theory is correct, it should be a simple matter to find the devastating counter example which my biased perception overlooked, right?

I have no idea, but I could calculate it from two missing pieces of data - how large a body of law is this? (20 cases/year? 100 cases/year?) and how many of its briefs do you read?

[aceplace57]

Arkansas governor held a live news conference. He’s wants state law similar to Federal law because its already is established and been tested in court.

I am relieved my state won’t be jumping into the firestorm with Indiana. Something may get enacted if the necessary changes are made. But it won’t be different than the Federal standards.

A few live reporter tweets during the news conference.

KATV News
Hutchinson: “The bill that is on my desk does not precisely mirror the federal law…therefore I ask changes be made.” #KATV7

@KATVNews

Hutchinson: also utilizing looking at executive order to aid in communication, make clear Arkansas wants to be place of tolerance. #KATV7

KATV News
@KATVNews

Hutchinson asks for #HB1228 to be recalled and changed to mirror federal act. #KATV7

[aceplace57]

To clarify. This is the Federal law that any new Arkansas state law will be based on.

Hutchinson asking for HB 1228 to be recalled

Arkansas Gov. Asa Hutchinson did not sign House Bill 1228 into law Wednesday, requesting for the bill to be recalled by the legislature. Hutchinson is requesting language changes within the bill that would mirror the already existing federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act.

[wevets]

There’s an interesting perspective on the use of RFRAs in this blog post from Lawyers, Guns & Money [sub](note: not written by a lawyer to my knowledge)[/sub] - the writer posits that the perception of RFRAs has changed as they become used less for “defensive” use and more for “offensive” use:

To explain what I mean by this, here are some classic examples of requests for religious exemptions: permission to use otherwise illegal substances for religious ceremonies, such as the Smith plaintiffs and Peyote, Catholics and sacramental wine during prohibition, Rastafari and marijuana)…
<snip>…
Their primary objective is to protect a practice or tradition or community, and little more. These exemptions are political but not in the sense that their exercise is directed toward the larger community in any concrete, meaningful sense. In these cases, the end sought in pursuing the exemption is, more or less, the exemption itself.

The requested accommodation in City of Boerne is a kind of transitional case. The exemption sought was to modify a church in a Historical District where such modifications were not permitted. While the exemption was clearly sought for the purpose of the exercise of religious activity, it wasn’t really a religious exemption per se—they wanted a bigger, more modern facility for more or less the general kind of reasons a private business or homeowner might have liked an exemption—accommodate more people, better amenities, etc. There was no connection between their status as a religious group and the nature of the particular exemption they were seeking; in essence they were arguing that the RFRA gives them license to avoid a law they found inconvenient.
…

In light of that case [Hobby Lobby], the transparent push for a super-RFRA deployable in private torts is not quite as egregious. It’s passing a bill that is by no means guaranteed to get them the results they want (my understanding is that no attempt to defend discriminatory behavior under any RFRA has yet been successful), and has plenty of other potential applications, some of which may be salutary. But the politics of it are undeniable; as in Kansas, Arizona and elsewhere, it’s plainly the case that this is simply the latest effort in the longstanding war on full social equality for gay and lesbian people.

It at least offers one opinion on how the discussion around RFRAs has changed, even as the laws themselves are shifted by only a few words or sentences.