No mention here also about the city ordinances, I still think the experts that are pointing out what this new law will do are correct. The idea is to go over the ordinances of Phoenix, Flagstaff and Tucson.
I’m confused. Wouldn’t a corporation only be able to claim religious beliefs (or rights) if it WERE a corporation?
My yard can never claim such beliefs.
I genuinely do not understand what you are saying, how you think the law works, how you think the effect of the law needs to be presented in perspective of the city ordinances, or how you think the letter is deficient to the point of being disregarded. It may just be me and I apologize. But I just don’t get it.
That’s why I put it in quotes. If a corporation (or a yard) isn’t a person, then it’s beliefs are its owners (which is to say, the owner says this thing is mine and I have these beliefs). But, if it is a person, then we tend to assume that it operates seperately from its owner.
I already told you, the local paper that deals with the legislature consulted experts on the matter and report that the local ordinances are going to be affected by the proposed new law. The Capital Times news paper and the experts they consulted agrees that you are indeed not getting it.
They also notice that other hyperbole from the opposition like “this will also discriminate against minority religions or gender” are indeed mistaken so that is why I take their advice seriously. Unlike those points, the issue with the ordinances has merit.
Yes. Got it.
The ordinances are going to be “affected” insofar as someone who is subject to government or private action under them would be able to raise the new Arizona RFRA as a defense.
Because the bill provides a defense in a judicial proceeding (and nothing else, really), in areas without such ordinances, it has no effect on anything at all becuase there would be no judicial proceeding to raise it in.
That’s why your criticism of the letter I linked to confuses me. They’re not “omiting” the ordinances. Their dicussion necessarily presupposes either the ordinances or a subsequent adoption of a state statute. What the letter explains is how this bill would work in the context of a claim pursuant one of those ordinances. The other point of the letter is about how the bill addresses ambiguities in the already existing law.
So, if you were going to be technical, the ordinance itself is not going to be affected at all, but the ability of the state (or a private party) to bring an action against someone might not win based on the showing the defendant can make about the burden on his religious beliefs.
And I already thought that was going to be your opinion, but the point stands, experts over here do not agree. With presuppositions or not.
In other fronts, the law has even the expert at FOX reporting that this proposed law is unconstitutional.
I have no idea if “experts over here” don’t agree. I read your article and unnamed “legal experts” will “allow more discrimination” in the areas that have enacted ordinances and have no effect elsewhere. That’s the extent of the analysis, but it’s not at all inconsistent with what I’m saying. And since you’re just parrotting the line “legal experts disagree” over and over, I’m not sure why you think it is (maybe you don’t have any idea what their analysis is either?).
Use a less controversial example: when the federal RFRA was enacted in served to allow certain religious groups to use hoasca in religious ceremonies, despite the fact that it was banned by the Controlled Substances Act (see O Centro). It would be absolutely correct to say that RFRA “allowed more illegal drug use.” But the way that it works (and the way that the Arizona RFRA works) doesn’t seem to be the way that you think that it works. And I assume that becuase you seem to think that this law “overrides” the anti-discrimination laws in some way other than what I’m describing.
On your other note, I think that Napolitano is absolutely incorrect about the Arizona bill. But what he’s saying strikes me as correct about the Kansas bill. I wonder if your link is incorrect (or if he is confusing the two).
It wouldn’t surprise me if he was (and I get the idea many commentators and most Dopers are confusing the two.) Having said that, as applied to cities which have “gay equality” ordinances, I don’t see how this law is distinguishable from the one in Romer.
I was wondering if you did pay attention, I don’t wonder now as the ones consulted were named in the examples:
Based on your declaration that I was just parroting and relying on unnamed experts, I have to suspect here that it is you the one that is wrong, and Napolitano is correct. As Really Not All That Bright mentions, the application to cities is the important point.
They don’t strike me as at all similar. The Kansas bill carves out a very narrow exception to general anti-discrimination laws: objections to same-sex marriages. It doesn’t cover religious objections to anything that is not related to that. That’s a clear Romer problem.
The Arizona bill expands the preexisting RFRA to clarify that it’s applicable in private actions and that it can be asserted by secular organizations. It would be deployable against any state action. (For example, if Arizona adopted a contraception mandate as a matter of state law, objecting companies would deploy this law. If Arizona law required you to be willing to work Saturdays to collect unemployment, this would be the law for our Seventh Day Adventist). This would also provide a defense for an business owner faced with a sex discrimination suit (but not in an employment context, of course, becuase there is a federal law for that). The fact that it can also be applied to sexual orientation in some locales strikes me a subset of the broader effects (and purpose) of the law. Sure, the expansion is motivated by same-sex marriage and abortofacient contraception (which are, themselves, two separate issues). But that’s just today’s RFRA issue. It would be like arguing that RFRA itself was an establishment clause violation because it was motivated by Smith.
How are those people saying anything inconsistent with what I’ve been saying? That’s what I don’t understand.
There’s no question that where there is an enforcement mechanism in some cases the enforcement is going to fail.
You keep saying the legal experts disagree with me. I’m increasingly less clear on where you think the disagreement is. (Although, I don’t think I agree with them that this is going to cause a massive influx of failing lawsuits. The original RFRA didn’t, I don’t know why this one would).
You claimed that “To the extent that Arizona does not have a law that prohibits discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation”, the point stands. Ordinances are laws. And locally the lawyers involved in relevant cases are telling us that this proposed new law will affect the current ones.
I guess I see the confusion. And I’m sure it’s my fault. I apologize. Arizona does not have a law that prohibits discrimination on the basis etc. Some cities have local ordinances that do. Outside of those cities, this law would have no effect at all one way or another as to sexual orientation (although, obviously could have some role in other cases). Where those ordinances do exist, the law provides a defense. The letter discusses how the defense works (I think correctly). The law would affect the current ordinances in the sense that the defendant will likely win more of those suits than he would if the law did not exist (because it creates a defense). It does not “override” the ordinances in any way other than to provide for this defense in applicable cases. I don’t think the law professors or the local lawyers are saying contrary to that description (And I certainly did not intend to either). That’s the best I can do by way of explanation. If it’s inadequate, I give up.
Don’t overthink it. This bill is intended as red meat for the base, not the lawyers.
That may well be true. And I’d be the first to admit that the motivations of the meat consumers and the legislators in reprehensible. But as a practical matter, the law really just mirrors the federal RFRA and, if it’s not vetoes, I would wager that it will have a greater effect in some area other than same-sex relationships (not unlike the federal RFRA).
Jan sees her shadow, tells her to Veto the bill.
I read an article on CNN today. A commenter posted several (many?) times that the bill was not ‘anti-gay’. If Faux News calls it anti-gay, then he just might not be getting it.