Chris,
While you would be willing to grant a child safety exception to appease Marci, I
presume that in your view (and correct me if I'm wrong) that "burden" type RFRAs
(like the North Dakota proposal) would permit the following examples of
discrimination?
1. A pharmacist refusing to dispense Plan B.
2. A Muslim taxi cab driver refusing to transport a person with a bottle of wine
in a grocery bag.
3. A professional photographer refusing to photograph an LGBT civil ceremony.
4. A landlord refusing to rent to an atheist.
If yes, are these acts of discrimination less a "compelling governmental
interest" than anti-discrimination provisions of the Civil Rights Act?
Bob Ritter
On June 15, 2012 at 10:31 AM Christopher Lund <l...@wayne.edu> wrote:
>
> Obviously the sexual abuse of children is tragic and criminal. But I still
> am not getting how state RFRAs have protected it or encouraged it.
>
>
>
> State RFRA cases are more boring than those opposed to Measure 3 might think.
> Plaintiffs generally lose their claims; they sometimes win, but they have not
> won anything remotely like what NARAL was fearing. (In that South Dakota
> piece—which is a bit dated now—I slog through the cases and provide citations,
> to the extent people are interested.)
>
>
>
> I counted somewhere around 25 Florida state RFRA cases, for example. Of
> those 25, plaintiffs won 1 on state RFRA grounds. That case involved a church
> that wanted to feed the homeless in a public park, despite a city rule saying
> that parks could not be used for social-service purposes. The church didn’t
> win the right to use the park of its choosing, but the trial judge enjoined
> the city to let them use some park at some time. The case is Abbott v. City
> of Fort Lauderdale, 783 So.2d 1213 (Fla. App.—4 Dist. 2001).
>
>
>
> Of course, plaintiffs sometimes ask for things they can’t possibly get under
> state RFRAs—the right to use marijuana while driving, for example, keeps
> coming up. But that’s a frivolous claim by a desperate criminal defendant,
> and it simply loses. State RFRAs have been asserted as defenses in some of
> the sex abuse cases. But usually such claims don’t even get separate
> analysis, and they certainly don’t win.
>
>
>
> If people like Marci will be more comfortable with a state RFRA with a child
> safety exception, I’d gladly do it. Not because I think it’s necessary, but
> because I think it isn’t: A state RFRA with a child safety exception will be
> treated exactly like a state RFRA without one. Children will be protected in
> any event.
>
>
>
> It’s also important to keep in mind that the protection of state RFRAs can
> always be legislatively narrowed—and that has happened. Concerned with a
> pending suit by a Muslim to claim a drivers’ license without having to take
> off her headscarf, Florida statutorily (and retroactively) removed such claims
> from the protection of Florida’s RFRA. Judging by Florida’s reaction to it,
> that apparently is the most threatening state RFRA claim that has ever been
> brought. I leave it to the listserv to evaluate how bad it really is, but it
> is certainly less scary than what Measure 3 opponents feared.
>
>
>
> Best, Chris
>
>
>
_______________________________________________
To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see
http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw
Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private.
Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can
read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the
messages to others.
