The Gay Legal Rulings Thread

[grumbler]

What is the justification for making a religious belief more worthy of being "unburdened" than, say, any other strongly held belief?

The First Amendment.

Frankly, I can't really see what the Federal law does or what behavior it protects that the First doesn't already do/protect.

The federal law clarifies that religious beliefs can grant relief from federal laws, even if the federal law wasn't intended to have any religious impact at all.   The federal law, in essence, over-rules a 1990 or so USSC decision to overturn their own precedent and require the plaintiff to show why he should get the exception, rather than the burden being on the government.  Congress preferred the old regime, where the burden was on the government, and so enacted it into statute.

The major impact was on the Indians who wanted a religious exception to federal drug laws in order to use peyote in religious ceremonies.  They got it (and it also was later codified into statute).

[Malthus]

The major impact was on the Indians who wanted a religious exception to federal drug laws in order to use peyote in religious ceremonies.  They got it (and it also was later codified into statute).

I find it sorta amusing that a law originally inspired in large part by outrage over the firing of Native American Church peyote-users has inspired, via its adaptation by state law, in the current controversy over gay rights. Unintended consequences indeed. 

[grumbler]

The major impact was on the Indians who wanted a religious exception to federal drug laws in order to use peyote in religious ceremonies.  They got it (and it also was later codified into statute).

I find it sorta amusing that a law originally inspired in large part by outrage over the firing of Native American Church peyote-users has inspired, via its adaptation by state law, in the current controversy over gay rights.

I can't quite parse this sentence.  Insofar as I know, the peyote issue wasn't firings, but rather imprisonments for interstate transportation of controlled substances.

If you are saying that it is amusingly ironic that the anti-gay fundies are adopting a law that looks suspiciously like it was inspired by hippies, I agree.

[Martinus]

Anyway, whatever the law says, I personally think any private supplier should be free to deny service to anyone unless:

- the service is essential, or
- they have a monopoly/market dominance, or
- there is a network effect (so due to so many suppliers denying service to the same group of people, that group of people is effectively prevented or materially hindered in obtaining the service in a given area).

Otherwise, anyone should be free to advertise their bigotry how they like.

[Martinus]

So, yes, I am against suing bigoted bakers and florists out of wazoo for refusing to cater to gay weddings. I wouldn't want to eat a cake baked by a homophobe forced to do so by the court in any event.

[Malthus]

The major impact was on the Indians who wanted a religious exception to federal drug laws in order to use peyote in religious ceremonies.  They got it (and it also was later codified into statute).

I find it sorta amusing that a law originally inspired in large part by outrage over the firing of Native American Church peyote-users has inspired, via its adaptation by state law, in the current controversy over gay rights.

I can't quite parse this sentence.  Insofar as I know, the peyote issue wasn't firings, but rather imprisonments for interstate transportation of controlled substances.

]

I thought it was this case that was the direct inspiration:

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/494/872/case.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Employment_Division_v._Smith

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_Freedom_Restoration_Act#Background_and_passage

The actual issue before the courts was denial of unemployment benefits resulting from firings. 

If you are saying that it is amusingly ironic that the anti-gay fundies are adopting a law that looks suspiciously like it was inspired by hippies, I agree.

Yup.

[Malthus]

I wouldn't want to eat a cake baked by a homophobe forced to do so by the court in any event.

I agree, I'm not sure I'd want to eat a cake a bigot was forced by law to bake for me.  "Hey, what's that mystery flavour?"

[derspiess]

"Hey, what's that mystery flavour?"

PURE HATE

[Valmy]

PURE HATE

[grumbler]

I thought it was this case that was the direct inspiration:

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/494/872/case.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Employment_Division_v._Smith

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_Freedom_Restoration_Act#Background_and_passage

The actual issue before the courts was denial of unemployment benefits resulting from firings. 

Unemployment Division versus Smith was the USSC case that changed the burden of proof on demonstrating burden, but the peyote issue was much longer-standing and more widespread than the case of Smith and Black.

[Malthus]

I thought it was this case that was the direct inspiration:

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/494/872/case.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Employment_Division_v._Smith

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_Freedom_Restoration_Act#Background_and_passage

The actual issue before the courts was denial of unemployment benefits resulting from firings. 

Unemployment Division versus Smith was the USSC case that changed the burden of proof on demonstrating burden, but the peyote issue was much longer-standing and more widespread than the case of Smith and Black.

The peyote issue was longstanding, yes; I am merely saying that this particular case is often cited as one of the direct inspirations for the federal statute.

There's a whole book on this topic:

http://www.amazon.ca/Religious-Freedom-Indian-Rights-Oregon/dp/0700610642

Here's a legal blog post on it:

http://www.lectlaw.com/files/drg28.htm

This controversial decision by a divided Court has been heavily criticized by constitutional law scholars, religious leaders, and civil libertarians. In 1993, Congress overturned portions of the Smith decision by enacting the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (RFRA), Pub. L. 103-141, 107 Stat 1488 (42 U.S.C. 2OOObb et seq.,).

[grumbler]

I thought it was this case that was the direct inspiration:

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/494/872/case.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Employment_Division_v._Smith

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_Freedom_Restoration_Act#Background_and_passage

The actual issue before the courts was denial of unemployment benefits resulting from firings. 

Unemployment Division versus Smith was the USSC case that changed the burden of proof on demonstrating burden, but the peyote issue was much longer-standing and more widespread than the case of Smith and Black.

The peyote issue was longstanding, yes; I am merely saying that this particular case is often cited as one of the direct inspirations for the federal statute.

There's a whole book on this topic:

http://www.amazon.ca/Religious-Freedom-Indian-Rights-Oregon/dp/0700610642

Here's a legal blog post on it:

http://www.lectlaw.com/files/drg28.htm

This controversial decision by a divided Court has been heavily criticized by constitutional law scholars, religious leaders, and civil libertarians. In 1993, Congress overturned portions of the Smith decision by enacting the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (RFRA), Pub. L. 103-141, 107 Stat 1488 (42 U.S.C. 2OOObb et seq.,).

  Now we've come full circle back to my post #163.

[viper37]

This is a non-story, made into a story by ignorance and the willful promulgation of untruths.  I didn't realize how very stupid actor Harvey Fierstein was until he started his ludicrous tweets about this, so I guess some good has come of this.

Well, the Federal law dates from 1993.  Maybe it's a sign that the world has changed since then, when it comes to religious excess.  In 1993, it was still ok to defend slavery as part of your religion.  Any religious official today advocating slavery in the name of religion would be shunned by public opinion.  But it was only in '95 that the Southern Baptist Church officially renounced their past position on slavery.

I think it's more that, than anything with how the law is written.  All things being equal, the same law in the same place in 1994 might not have sparked outrage.  And there was no Facebook, no Twitter, no Instagram then, it was harder to find something outrageous

[grumbler]

This is a non-story, made into a story by ignorance and the willful promulgation of untruths.  I didn't realize how very stupid actor Harvey Fierstein was until he started his ludicrous tweets about this, so I guess some good has come of this.

Well, the Federal law dates from 1993.  Maybe it's a sign that the world has changed since then, when it comes to religious excess.  In 1993, it was still ok to defend slavery as part of your religion.  Any religious official today advocating slavery in the name of religion would be shunned by public opinion.  But it was only in '95 that the Southern Baptist Church officially renounced their past position on slavery.

I think it's more that, than anything with how the law is written.  All things being equal, the same law in the same place in 1994 might not have sparked outrage.  And there was no Facebook, no Twitter, no Instagram then, it was harder to find something outrageous

I don't think so.  Very similar laws (with the caveat I noted in post #174, after Syt posted a note bringing it up) wherein the language is the same are in 20 other laws, passed between 1993 and 2005 (many in 2004, for some reason).  It is true that social media has been able to spread the "outrage" much more quickly recently, but that's a comment about the nature of social media, not about the language of the law.  As I noted earlier, this language has never, insofar as I know, been used successfully to defend against infringements on civil rights.

I also don't know why you think that "in 1993, it was still ok to defend slavery as part of your religion."  Got a cite for that?

[viper37]

I also don't know why you think that "in 1993, it was still ok to defend slavery as part of your religion."  Got a cite for that?

The Curse of Cain was used a justification for slavery, and later for segregation.  Only in 1995 did the Southern Baptitst Church officially renounced that doctrine.