Gov. Jindal's office announced today that he will support newly proposed legislation in Louisiana that would give businesses the right to refuse to provide marriage-related services and benefits for religious reasons (see my message below for more details and background on the proposal). Meanwhile, the sponsor of the bill has indicated that he might modify it so it does not apply to employee benefit programs.
http://www.nola.com/politics/index.ssf/2015/04/bobby_jindal_will_support_loui.html http://www.nola.com/politics/index.ssf/2015/04/religious_freedom_bill_altered.html At this point, I'm not sure a bill like this would be politically feasible in any state outside the context of a tradeoff (e.g., exemption included in new law prohibiting sexual-orientation discrimination in the marketplace), but if it is, Louisiana would seem to be one of the most promising venues for supporters. Gov. Jindal will be very motivated to make it happen given his target demographic in the Presidential primary, and according to at least one recent poll, the state has the ninth lowest support of same-sex marriage in the nation. It will be interesting to see if the NFL takes a stand on the bill (Louisiana has hosted 10 Super Bowls). - Jim On Sun, Apr 5, 2015 at 11:55 AM, James Oleske <jole...@lclark.edu> wrote: When asked about the Indiana RFRA on Meet the Press today, Gov. Jindal said > the following: > > Let's remember what this debate was originally all about. This is about > business owners that don't wanna have to choose between their Christian > faith, their sincerely held religious beliefs, and being able to operate > their businesses. Now, what they don't want is the government to force them > to participate in wedding ceremonies that contradict their beliefs. > > > http://www.nola.com/politics/index.ssf/2015/04/bobby_jindal_religious_freedom.html > > Longtime advocates of RFRAs would understandably object to this > characterization as ignoring all the many less-controversial religious > liberty claims that originally motivated the push for RFRAs, but in terms > of the political impetus for the new state RFRAs, Gov. Jindal is > undoubtedly correct as to what the debate is "all about." > > Accordingly, it seems appropriate that the coming debate in Louisiana > won't be about a new RFRA or new RFRA amendment (like those considered in > Indiana and Arizona) that would leave the answer to the wedding vendor > cases unclear and subject to future judicial balancing. Rather, the coming > debate in Louisiana will be over proposed legislation (introduced Friday) > that would clearly give businesses the right to refuse marriage-related > services and benefits to same-sex couples. > > Bill: > http://www.nola.com/politics/index.ssf/2015/04/louisiana_religious_freedom_bi.html > Story about the Bill (in which Doug is quoted): > http://www.nola.com/politics/index.ssf/2015/04/religious_freedom_fight_headed.html > > The Louisiana bill would, in Steve's words below, have the "benefits of > clarity," but it would likely "cut too broadly" even for many who support > carve-outs from antidiscrimination laws in the same-sex marriage context, > as the language of the proposal would allow vendors to refuse service to > interracial couples, interfaith couples, couples involving divorced > individuals, or any other type of couple to which there is a religious > objection. > > The legislation closely mirrors the proposed Marriage and Religious > Freedom Act that was introduced in the last Congress and was sponsored by > 103 Representatives and 17 Senators. It is also similar to an exemption > proposal first offered by a group of law professors in 2009, although that > group subsequently modified its proposal to limit it to small businesses > and include a hardship exemption that would require services to be provided > when no other business was available to provide them. The group has also > suggested that states could make a race exception to the religious > exemption if they are concerned about the exemption allowing discrimination > against interracial couples. (The Louisiana proposal, like its federal > counterpart, begins with the following finding: "Leading legal scholars > concur that conflicts between religious liberty and changing ideas about > the institution of marriage are very real, rapidly increasing, and should > be addressed by legislation.") (note: the federal version explicitly says > "same-sex marriage" in this finding, rather than "changing ideas about the > institution of marriage"). > > I have argued that exemptions designed to allow businesses to refuse > services and benefits to same-sex couples, such as the exemption proposed > in Louisiana (and previously, in Oklahoma, Oregon, Washington, Minnesota, > Kansas, South Dakota, Tennessee, and the U.S. Congress), would be > vulnerable to challenge under the Equal Protection Clause. Others have > argued that they would be vulnerable to Establishment Clause challenge. I > suspect both arguments, however, would be strongly disputed by proponents > of the exemptions. > > - Jim > >
_______________________________________________ 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.
