Wasn’t there a case wherein the state legislature inadvertently used the word “persons” when writing their marriage laws, without realizing the trouble that gender-neutral wording would cause? And only found out when a judge said “Hey, persons are persons, you fucked up!”
Ha!
Yes, New Mexico.
Actually, the New Mexico court determined that the state outlawed same-sex marriage, despite not having outlawed same-sex marriage and then determined that this violated the state constitution.
I don’t even understand what that is saying. Other than the tired old canards about legal personhood, what in the world is: “That means that the right to refuse service to potential clients on religious grounds wouldn’t be newly granted to ostensibly secular businesses on non-profits, but rather that such entities are “protected” under the old First Amendment because they – like individuals – are “people”” supposed to mean?
Hey now don’t be bringing out the old polygamy argument. I don’t want any straight people participating in my marriage. I want people to do their jobs and allow me to participate in our society as freely as anyone else.
Gay marriage has been legal in MA for over ten years now. Homosexuals have been a protected class in MA and other states for even longer.
What actual threats to freedom of religion, conscience and association have occurred that show a pressing need for a fine-tuned response?
There are religions that believe women should only be allowed in public when accompanied by a male chaperone. Should I be able to open a gas station and refuse to sell gas to women who show up without a man? Should I be able to refuse to hire women because my religious values are opposed to allowing women to handle finances?
It means another step has (or would have) been taken to entrench the legal notion of recognizing corporations as people.
Yes.
What the bill does was take the definition of “person” (which, of course, in federal law has presumptively included corporations since, at least, the enactment of the Dictionary Act in 1947) which for Arizona’s RFRA had previously only applied to individuals and religious institutions and organizations (i.e., religious corporations) and expanded it to include all corporations (obviously the intent being to include secular organizations). I understand that that sort of thing is troubling to you (although I don’t understand why). But what does any of that have to do with the “old First Amendment” or “constitutional rationale” or any of the rest of the article?
So am I evil for wanting to buy a small hotel and banqueting room in Phoenix and rename it The Big Gay Marriage Chapel and No-Tell Motel and sit and watch heads explode?
Yes, you are. However, since it wasn’t my idea and I didn’t do anything, I can watch with chortlesome glee as well, but in perfect innocence.
I sincerely hope this ridiculous and discriminatory bill gets vetoed. However, if it does pass, I don’t think it will last long even if there is no court challenge.
Some folks are comparing this to Jim Crow, but racism in the South was a social institution where it was easy for the two groups to remain isolated from each other. Not many whites, for example, had black relatives. But there are just way too many ordinary folks now who have gay friends, relatives, etc. that will be indirectly affected by this attempt to institutionalize bigotry. I think this weakness will undermine the law pretty quickly if it should pass.
Strictly speaking, under this provision saying that a business may not be made to “recognize” a marriage contrary to their religious belief: Would this allow them to deny spousal benefits (e.g. family-plan health insurance, survivor’s benefits) to a couple that has been otherwise* lawfully married through civil means? * e.g. a Christian employer saying "no spouse benefits until you get Holy Matrimony before an ordained cleric, the County Clerk doesn’t count.
ISTM it shouldn’t even take any reinterpretation of corporate legal personhood.
What the law looks like to me is that someone figures that since “it infringes my freedom of religion” is somehow supposed to be seen as some sort of extrasuperduper privileged argument for not doing or not stopping doing something, then let us make it so any organization or business entity no matter its nature can claim accommodating a gay married couple infringes their freedom of religion. (The statu quo AFAIK already allows this to SOME legal persons in the case of an actual religious organization --a church, congregation, mosque, temple, seminary, monastery-- being able that require employees and laypeople involved in the actual devotional/sacramental/proselytizing activities be observant of its teachings.)
Thing is, secular business entities have a wide range of organizational models – there are family owned businesses, public share corporations, privately held share corporations, coöperatives, partnerships, LLCs, DBAs, etc. What’s the “religion” of an entity that’s collectivelly owned by a thousand different owners incuding scores or hundreds that are *themselves *not individuals but collective entities? The religion of the CEO? Of the majority of the Board? Of the owner(s) of a majority of the shares?
Doesn’t answer my question.
Wait, your’e saying you think there currently are no exceptions? And that there shouldn’t be?
The first is factually false. Federal law currently requires employers to make reasonable accommodations for religion. For instance, an employer might be required to allow a Jew to wear a yarmulke to work despite a policy banning hats.
So you’re wrong that they don’t exist. I’d be surprised if you oppose that too, but whatever.
Corporations are legal persons and always have been and it’s ridiculous to continue pretending you don’t know that.
This is my gripe with bigots who hide behind religion in order to disenfranchise “different” people. Who is preventing them from practicing their religion? If they don’t like the idea of gay sex, they don’t have to practice it. Are there gangs of militant homosexuals who break into the houses of straight people to force men to apply eyeliner and lipstick? Do they force women to stop shaving their legs and start wearing combat boots and butch haircuts?
I believe these bigots aren’t content with interfering with abortion clinics because they’re pro-life and by God, they won’t let godless people engage in behavior they don’t condone; they won’t stop until they control every aspect of other people’s lives.
I’m relieved that there’s a separation of church and state in the U.S. because we could easily be the Saudi Arabia of fundamentalist Christianity.:eek:
The big reason behind these laws is that fairness ordinances are becoming reasonably common at the municipal level.
For instance, Kentucky has no laws against discrimination based on sexual orientation, but Louisville, Lexington, Covington, and Vicco* do. (I think also Frankfort now.) But the state passed one of these ridiculous laws last year, even overriding the Governor’s veto**. That makes the city ordinances pretty much impossible to enforce.
On the plus side, since you are no longer responsible in our state for following laws that violate your “sincerely held religious beliefs”, my denomination that stands strongly against marijuana prohibition and speed limits is doing a booming business.
I had to laugh when Jan Brewer said she was taking time to read the law before deciding if she was going to veto it or sign it. Um, doesn’t she read all the bills before she signs or vetoes them?