« Links Mentioned on the 4/07/15 Show | Main | Three Steps to Protect Christian Wedding Vendors »

April 08, 2015

Comments

Oh, I like that last one!
Coerce the business, or boycott the business?

Decisions, decisions...

Amy,

Have you fallen behind on this?

A revised rfra was passed by the Indiana legislature and signed into law.

Some of these links this post are dated before that revision.

Do any of the others refer to the revision?

Has STR reacted to the revision directly?

RonH

By the way, people reading (or writing) this blog might be interested in watching the latest episode of the tv series The Good Wife

Here's an article about it with some spoilers

Ron, the articles above are mainly about the reaction we're seeing to religious freedom, rather than the Indiana RFRA proper, and that's why I've posted them here (you can see my point from the excerpts I posted). The revision doesn't negate any of them, whether they came before or after. Ross Douthat's article does defend the original Indiana RFRA (and by extension, RFRAs in general—something that's needed, since more are to come), but also came after the revision. (In fact, now that I look at them, the only articles that date pre-"fix" are the ones that explain what happened to Memories Pizza.)

I haven't posted anything on the revision, which actually makes the situation worse than what they had in Indiana before, in terms of religious freedom. The RFRA allowed people a day in court to make their case and provided a test to balance religious freedom with other concerns. The revision preemptively declares same-sex marriage the winner every time. (You can read more about that here.)

The details of that revision, while they're bad for liberty, are less important than what this situation has revealed about our country's new view of religious liberty, and since I'm limited (and took the weekend off for Easter), that's what I've focused on.

Amy,

Thanks.

You say that the revision is bad for liberty.

What I'm hearing - say, from Gov. Pence - is that the revision just clarifies the original intent of the lawmakers.

What liberty did the revision take away?

Ron


Ron, as I explained in my comment and in the link, it took away the option of having religious freedom balanced with government interest when it comes to same-sex weddings. From the link:

[The "fix"] says that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act cannot protect citizens from existing (municipal) Indiana sexual orientation and gender identity laws and ensuing coercion from government.

In other words, it eliminates any balancing test for sexual liberty and religious liberty. It says sexual orientation should trump religious liberty.

The RFRA side never even claimed that religious liberty should always trump sexual orientation. All it did was give people a chance to argue their case in court. Now, when it comes to same-sex weddings, no objection is allowed.

it took away the option of having religious freedom balanced with government interest when it comes to same-sex weddings

Say what you mean.

Really, you sound like you're writing for a politician.

Now that I think about it though, that's far at all from what you are doing.

Say what I mean? You asked me what the "fix" took away, and that's what it takes away. Rather than having courts consider individual cases, it says sexual liberty always trumps religious liberty. That's worse for religious freedom than it was before the RFRA was passed.

Or maybe you didn't understand my sentence because you don't understand how RFRAs work. I'll just point you to this.

if you say so

maybe you ... don't understand how RFRAs work

I do and I would be silent if I didn't.

The comments to this entry are closed.