This week, I appeared on the CNN special addressing the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) in Indiana. While I have been a long-standing supporter of same-sex marriage, I raised concerns over the dismissive treatment of religious concerns over the scope of anti-discrimination laws and how they may curtail free exercise of religion. I have previously written both columns and academic work on this collision between the two areas of law. In the program, I raised an example of the growing conflicts that we discussed earlier on this blog of a bakery that refused to make a cake deemed insulting to homosexuals while other bakers are objecting to symbols that they view as insulting to their religious views. This issue also came up with an advocate for LGBT rights on the show:
On the show, Sarah Warbelow, legal director of the Human Rights Campaign, appeared and gave an excellent case for those opposing this law. The HRC does very good legal work and has a distinguished history advocating LBGT rights. I however was most interested in one exchange with host Christ Cuomo:
Cuomo: Now, Sarah, you’re going to hear people flip this analogy on you and say, “Well, wait a minute, if this were a Jewish baker and some KKK couple came in and said, “We want you to make a cake.” If he said no, well than how would you feel about the situation?
Warbelow: Well, most of these business owners really are providing cakes across the board, but there are a select few who are choosing to discriminate. And there’s a huge difference between having to write something objectionable on a cake and being asked to provide a cake for a same sex couple.
The exchange was interesting between Warbelow seems to suggest that bakers should be able to refuse “something objectionable on a cake” but insists that bakers cannot refuse to make cakes that they find objectionable for same-sex couples. For some religious bakers, a cake with a same-sex image or language is objectionable.
My point is only that we are brushing aside a difficult and unresolved question of where to draw this line. We are all so eager to show (as I did above) that we support homosexual rights and/or same sex marriage, that there is little frank discussion of the obvious conflict with free exercise and free speech. There is also a limited discussion of the difference between certain forms of expressive arts like photography or baking as opposed to less expressions forms like diners or transportation businesses. For example, there does seem a meaningful distinction between serving a gay couple at a diner and a photographer who is asked to participate in a same-sex marriage and celebration in recording the event and arranging photo settings. That does not mean that we would not reach the same conclusion, but we are not having this debate.
I have struggled with this collision between anti-discrimination laws and free speech/free exercise for many years. I still remain uncertain on whether to draw this line between the two cakes that I described. We should have an answer for those citizens who are raising these concerns rather than dismiss them all as bigots. If the HRC is saying that bakers can refuse to make objectionable cakes, we should have a better understanding of when such objections are deemed legitimate and protected. Free speech and free exercise are rights that require bright line rules to avoid the chilling effect of possible criminal or civil liability. We need to be able to explain why the refusal to make one of these cakes is an unlawful form of bigotry and why the other is a permissible form of free speech.
What do you think?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/07/01/is-rfra-unconstitutional/
Justice Stevens:
“In my opinion, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (RFRA) is a “law respecting an establishment of religion” that violates the First Amendment to the Constitution.
If the historic landmark on the hill in Boerne happened to be a museum or an art gallery owned by an atheist, it would not be eligible for an exemption from the city ordinances that forbid an enlargement of the structure. Because the landmark is owned by the Catholic Church, it is claimed that RFRA gives its owner a federal statutory entitlement to an exemption from a generally applicable, neutral civil law. Whether the Church would actually prevail under the statute or not, the statute has provided the Church with a legal weapon that no atheist or agnostic can obtain. This governmental preference for religion, as opposed to irreligion, is forbidden by the First Amendment. Wallace v. Jaffree, 472 U.S. 38, 52-55 (1985).”
@DBQ
Not post videos??? Are you daft, girl??? I don’t see us ending this thread without some more Scott Lively stuff from Uganda, or a snake handling minister in Bumfuq, West Virginia with a congregation of 14 people on a good Sunday, calling for fire and brimstone to fall on San Francisco and burn up the Sodomites.
And if she don’t, anal-retentive Max-1 will have another OCD fit and link bomb us to death with more repetitive foolishness.
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
http://bjconline.org/rfras-constitutionality-called-into-question/
How RFRA laws violate the Consitution.
Jill – “Jim, Other professions may not legally discriminate either.”
Really? I didn’t know that lawyers could not refuse to take on a client for no reason. I guess Nick is a criminal too since he has admitted he discriminates.
I don’t understand why this is so hard. We are allowed too and we constantly discriminate all the time. It is what makes this country great.
“No the law is NOT the same, DBQ,”
Willful, or merely dyslexic?
No the law is NOT the same, DBQ,
As I already pointed out.
there are also numerous links as to how they are different. But I’m not going to waste my time reposting the articles.
Thank GOD! Can we also hope you won’t post a slew of videos too?
@Ingannie
No, Annie, Pogo is right. I do not say that just to pile on you. I say it because I believe that it is true. You are mean, evil, dis-ingenuine, and destructive to civilization. There is a very good compromise, which only requires the common sense understanding that marriage is a very holy sacrament to some very devout Christians, and participating in a gay marriage would be like forcing black people to participate in a cross burning.
Not many people think businesses should discriminate against gays in 99.99999% of transactions. Even me, who has nothing but contempt for gay males. And gee, how much discrimination was going on in Indiana BEFORE this new civil rights law???
RFRA maybe would have protected a few people of whatever faith here and there, but the law so far has come down on the side of gay customers (wrongly in my opinion), sooo what was the fight really about???
Once again you have shown yourself to be an unreasonable person, but what is new??? This is what the losing side doesn’t get. This argument is not about “reason” and “fairness”. Those terms were co-opted by the left long ago. This is about PR (public relations), and the seeds for this particular loss, if it is one, were sowed long before this. Hopefully, this symbolic defeat will both instruct, and embolden the good guys, but who knows??? I am not optimistic that the down spiral of our country can be stopped.
Meanwhile, maybe you should go into business making little Harry Reid icons for people like you to put on your dashboards and mantlepieces, You can light a candle to his spirit on a regular basis to keep the flame alive.
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
The Establishment Clause trumps.
No the law is NOT the same, DBQ, there are also numerous links as to how they are different. But I’m not going to waste my time reposting the articles. They’re upstream somewhere. Now the argument has become circuitous and repetitive. Indiana and other states that have a RFRA will be one, by one adding protections for LGBT in their states. Some of those states already had LGBT protections in place. And that is right and just.
I guess the Catholic Church of Indiana, the Baptist churches, and other Christian Churches, Jewish and Muslim clergy are just religious bigots too.
It doesn’t matter what they say or endorse. The INDIVIDUAL’S right to freedom of speech and freedom of religion is trump.
They always change the goalposts and then claim what they are demanding is not what they are demanding. The fact is they are demanding that someone who has a religious objection to participating in a same sex marriage must either bake a cake or photograph a wedding or cater a ceremony that violates their religion.
It is not about tolerance. It was never about tolerance. It is about control. It is about settling scores.
The pile on by religion haters is a bonus for them.
Also, I guess the Catholic Church of Indiana, the Baptist churches, and other Christian Churches, Jewish and Muslim clergy are just religious bigots too. I provided NUMEROUS links to articles in which these Christians, Jews and Muslims have come out against the RFRA. I guess only YOUR form of Christianity is acceptable.
Inga – the head of any church does not actually speak for the entire body of the church. For example. Pope Francis is against abortion and contraception, but there are a lot of Catholic women who have taken advantage of both.
RFRA allows the baker to be free from lawsuit for not serving the gay couple by baking even a GENERIC wedding cake.
Actually….no. The law allows the use of the defense of violation of religious principles if there IS a lawsuit. It doesn’t guarantee that the defendant (the person who is claiming the religious exemption) will win. Just that it is an allowable defense.
The law is “basically” the same as already on the books in many other States and has existed for quite some time.
To save time: Basically does not mean Exactly….so don’t waste your time, or ours.
“I want to put them in jail?”
if you want to legally enforce it, that means that force can and may be used.
I imagine you were opposed to Eric Garner being killed for selling ‘loose’ cigarettes.
Same thing here.
Any law that the state must enforce carries the risk of a violent response, just like happened to Garner.
So yes, you want them to go to jail.
I believe you’d dance and spit on their grave.
Because it is clear that you’re an anti-Christian bigot.
DBQ,
A couple has a right to ask for the ceremony. The religious functionary can say: No, I won’t do this. The couple can then protest that the religious functionary said “No”. What the couple cannot do is force the religious functionary to do their marriage.
(Marriage is a secular, civil matter. It is only a religious matter to people who want a religious imprimatur to their civil marriage.)
Jim, Other professions may not legally discriminate either. No one has an “out”. We need to commit to each other as Americans in a really profound way. Selfishly speaking, by offering to protect others we protect ourselves. On a much deeper level, if we are not willing to protect the rights of others, we have turned our society into something it should never be-a society ruled by the powerful, for the powerful. These powerful people will be able to abuse the powerless at will.
That has already happened to the US politically and economically. IMO, we better put the breaks on that right now, in every way, or this society will never return to the rule of law and our people will sink into a further state of cruelty and tyranny.
The Cake Wars -Coming Soon on Food Network!
Gay people are not a minority, as are blacks, etc. If so, every group with a unique sexual preference would be a minority. The S&M minority, the menage a trois minority. I am not familiar with them all.
Being gay is not a religion. Gay people are members of many religions. I think the Gay Mafia is making light of a Constitution that allows no one to be excluded from its guarantees of freedom of religion.
A religion’s freedoms have an impact on other people’s freedoms. Religious freedom includes who bakes a cake.
In a country with a law-breaking President, former Secretary of State, and God knows who else; a Seventeen+ Trillion debt, millions of people out of work for years; violence, rioting, looting in our streets; killing because of skin color; children suspended for saying “gun” (what happened to free speech); we are debating the rules of who has to bake a cake?
Why? Gays said they wanted the freedom to marry and they got that. Now, as 6% of 300 Million+ people they want to take away others freedoms because they want a cake! I don’t care why a baker doesn’t want to bake the cake. He doesn’t, so go someplace else. Be thankful you don’t live in the Middle East where gays are being thrown off roofs!
I went to a seamstress recently to have some things shortened. She said she no longer did small projects. She made dresses, wedding dresses, etc. So, I went to a different seamstress. Should I have argued my right to have an advertised seamstress fix a hem up to the Supreme Court? Heavens, no.
Governors behaving like schoolyard kids. How many of the other 19 states have Democrat governors? Did Cuomo announce employees couldn’t travel there on New York’s dime? Apple jumps in with economic constraints, while marketing to countries who lop the heads off of gays. Apple has confusing rules.
Doesn’t anyone see how orchestrated this is? People with loads of money who want to cause problems wherever they can so this country will be “fundamentally changed” for good! Where do all these protestors with signs and chants come from? Think money crossed hands like it did in Ferguson? You bet it did. And every loony toon activist has been churned up about who bakes a cake!!
Anti Christian bigots? Max belongs to a Christian church. Happypappies belongs to a Christian church. I have nothing against moderate Christians. Extremism in Christianity as well as in Islam or any religion is not a good thing. Such a simple concept.
Max probably belongs to one of those progressive Christian churches where they don’t talk about sin or the Bible, etc. They sing songs from the 60s though.
The converse of this is also the using of your religion to try to stop people from doing things that are offensive to you.
For example the restaurant Sneakers in Vermont being forced/coerced/browbeaten into taking down a sign advertising their yummy Bacon sandwiches.
It was deemed offensive to those who don’t eat pork….aka Muslims and the sign was taken down. They weren’t forcing anyone to eat bacon or even enter their establishment and be assaulted by bacon.
YET……their right to advertise their product. Their right to free speech was halted by religious furor….over bacon.
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/vermont-diner-takes-bacon-sign-offends-muslim-residents-article-1.1915158
This fanning bacon in an establishment……is just as wrong as it would be to force a Muslim restaurant to SERVE bacon because it would violate their religion. Just as wrong as it is to force a Christian to participate in a gay wedding. Just as wrong to force your religion or lack of religion on anyone.
What is wrong with people. Mind your own business. If you don’t want a bacon sandwich go somewhere else. If you insist on a bacon sandwich don’t FORCE someone to make it for you when there are plenty of places that will be glad to accommodate. But NO….the Muslims, just like the Gay Mafia wants to force their views on everyone. In the UK Subway removed bacon from many of its stores so as not to offend the delicate sensibilities of the Muslims.
Protection of rights, religious rights goes in many directions and isn’t the prerogative of any chosen group. Your right to not be offended doesn’t exist. ***Your right to freedom of speech and freedom to practice or not practice religion….does exist.
*** In fact, the more you get offended the more fun it is to escalate the game and see if I can make your head actually explode.
I want to put them in jail? Really? News to me. Professor Turley himself alluded to a compromise. Here a compromise. But I see you want to be able to discriminate and aren’t interested in any compromise. Religious fascism.
I offered a reasonable compromise early on yesterday.
Look, Inga, you and Max and the rest of the gay mafia are anti-Christian bigots.
I get it.
Just don’t try to pretend like your side is all love and tolerance.
It’s not.
Your side is mean, capricious, vindictive, intolerant, excessive, whining, and at times flat out evil.
Own it; it’s who you folks are.