After lots of testimony in favor of the fix by members of the business
community, Advance America's Eric Miller made the case against the fix at
length, repeatedly citing the letter signed by 16 law professors in favor
of the Indiana RFRA.
I'm guessing that, while many of those law professors think the fix is
unnecessary, some of them might not join Miller in actively opposing the
fix. Miller has championed RFRA for the very specific reason that he
believes it would provide clear protection to businesses that refuse to
provide marriage-related services to same-sex couples, but the
law-professor letter he invokes does not portray that protection as clearly
forthcoming under RFRA ("But whatever one thinks of the arguments for and
against exempting such individuals, it is not at all clear that the
proposed Indiana RFRA would lead courts to recognize such an exemption....
[E]ven had the New Mexico RFRA applied [to the claim in Elane Photography],
the New Mexico Supreme Court ... would likely have held that enforcement of
the anti-discrimination laws served a compelling interest by the least
restrictive means.").
As some of the professors who supported the original Indiana RFRA are list
participants, I'm wondering if they think my perception is correct. Are any
planning to actively support or oppose the fix?
We also have list participants who signed a letter opposing the original
Indiana RFRA, and it would be interesting to hear from them whether they
plan to actively support or oppose the fix.
- Jim
On Thu, Apr 2, 2015 at 7:33 AM, James Oleske <jole...@lclark.edu> wrote:
> The text of the fix is here:
> http://t.co/58d1K81D1L
>
> It provides that the RFRA "does not:
>
> (1) authorize a provider to refuse to offer or provide services,
> facilities, use of public accommodations, goods, employment, or housing to
> any member or members of the general public on the basis of race, color,
> religion, ancestry, age, national origin, disability, sex, sexual
> orientation, gender identity, or United States military service;
>
> (2) establish a defense to a civil action or criminal prosecution for
> refusal by a provider to offer or provide services, facilities, use of
> public accommodations, goods, employment, or housing to any member or
> members of the general public on the basis of race, color, religion,
> ancestry, age, national origin, disability, sex, sexual orientation, gender
> identity, or United States military service”
>
> The measure exempts tax-exempt churches, non profit religious
> organizations and societies, including church affiliated schools, as well
> as ministers of churches or nonprofit religious organizations.
>
> The hearing on the fix is streaming live here:
> http://iga.in.gov/legislative/2015/session/senate_video_archive/
>
>
>
>
>
_______________________________________________
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.
