The political analysis is flawed too. What the hostile coverage seems to be saying is that RFRA is inappropriate in an age of acceptance of gay Americans. So fine, advocate for repeal of the federal version. Apparently the 1st amendment has become obsolete.
There is another exception: the BFOQ. This is an acronym for Bona-Fide Occupational Qualification, and it presumably would shield a casting director from employment law violations by allowing him to explain that while Tom Hanks is a fine and well-qualified actor, his skin color prevents his casting as Othello.
The other factor that comes into play is “compelled speech,” which is a First Amendment defense having to do with cases in which the government’s regulations compel expressive content. See Wooley v. Maynard, 430 U.S. 705 (1977).
Wouldn’t a florist or wedding planner be able to claim “Compelled speech”, since there is a significant art content in what they do?
Why are you bringing in employers rights into this debate? Yes, I’m well aware of “bona-fide occupational qualifications”. That’s not at all what I’m talking about.
I’m talking about minorities getting the same customer service everyone else gets.
How you thought I was referring to employers rights is beyond me.
I asked an OT question a few posts ago that he answered. Just wanted to know why employers can discriminate against actors based on race if the role calls for a specific race.
Well…
…maybe not.
To offer an analogy, Virginia’s laws define this crime at § 18.2-344:
I can imagine a backlash if some other state now tried to pass that law, even though its continued existence in the Virginia Code is a matter of history and inertia.
It was just last year that Virginia repealed the crime of “Lewd and lascivious cohabitation,” which criminalized unmarried opposite sex partners living together.
It should be possible to object to the current legislation while not advocating for the repeal of similar, older legislation, under the general theory of, “Look, I get that revamping old mistakes is going to be difficult and time-consuming, and I don’t demand we spend precious legislative time to do so…but I absolutely oppose spending precious legislative time now to ADD to the body of mistakes!”
The mayor’s spokeman is absolutely correct- he’s the guy who’s essentially saying it’s all speculation until a court decides. The other guy may or may not be correct- but It seems to me that the reason for the backlash is the possibilty that he is correct.
I thought so because of the lack of qualifiers, and the resulting absoluteness, of this post:
Practical question: What about sole proprietorships that operate on something of a “feel like it/don’t feel like it” basis?
For instance, a musician may offer his services for hire at weddings. However, unlike a bakery that is open 9-to-5, Mon-Sat, this musician only performs at some weddings, not every single wedding that wants his services - he can’t, isn’t able to, doesn’t have to and doesn’t want to perform at every single one. So what prevents him from declining to perform at a gay/lesbian wedding? The law shouldn’t say, “You have no scheduling conflict that day, therefore you MUST perform” - he could say, “I’d rather go watch a movie or eat dinner with my family?”
This is inaccurate, at best. The law clearly grants a religous person rights that an atheist cannot claim.
If Indiana is not a Dillon’s Rule state, I’m not sure I see a particularly strong possibility there. Again, I welcome correction on the point, but it seems that everyone who is confidently declaring that the law will operate to legalize refusal of service is expressing a certainty, not their worry about a mere possibility.
Bad comparison though. The RFRA is still being used faithfully at the federal level by the courts to interpret law. A principled stand for gay rights in this case would involve supporting repeal of RFRA. It’s not an antiquated, unenforced law.
But I think we both know this isn’t a principled stand. It’s a tactical offensive. They can’t roll back the laws already passed, but they can prevent new ones from being passed. Once it becomes normal for the full weight of the government to fall like a ton of bricks on Jenny the Wedding Planner, so that it’s viewed as the only civilized way to go, then they’ll start their final offensive against the RFRA in general.
Remember, this isn’t the first time they’ve tried to attack religious freedom under the RFRA without being willing to attack the law itself. We just litigated the birth control mandate.
True. And a very interesting question to boot: is the RFRA violative of the First Amendment for this reason?
I don’t think it is, but a reasonable argument can be made that it is.
Practical answer: a dedicated investigator can build a case. Schedule a wedding performance and then reveal that your intended, Pat, is also your gender. See if the guy backs out. Do the same with another decoy, Dale. etc.
Bullshit. No religious beliefs were ever threatened, and the law does nothing to protect religious beliefs.
The 1st amendment says that Congress shall pass no law abridging freedom of religion. If government passes a law that infringes on the practices of some people, that’s an abridgement of freedom of religion.
That’s not my point. My point is, doesn’t the musician have the ability to not be required to perform, since he is on an irregular and undefined work basis? This isn’t like a bakery that’s expected to serve everyone who walks in between 9-5.
True, but by that logic, every restriction on guns infringes on the 2nd Amendment. The Constitution isn’t something followed super-strictly.
Your religion says that gay marriage is sinful. You are asked to make a gay wedding happen. How is your religion not being threatened by being forced to do that?
Here’s what I don’t get. We recognize that actual clergy cannot be forced to do weddings they don’t want to do. Is that a principle, or just something we’re allowing “for now”?
The legal standard set up by the courts is “strict scrutiny”. The government must have a compelling interest and the law must be the least restrictive means of achieving that interest.
But that wasn’t really my point. Another poster questioned whether granting people exemptions for their faith wasn’t a violation of the 1st amendment. The answer to that is no, since seperation of church in state is implied, not stated. Congress not abridging religious practice is stated explicitly, however. The explicit always overruled the implied.