In my Thanksgiving mode (which I will try to sustain all year): I am very grateful to Marty for asking this question, and to Jim Oleske for providing an impressively comprehensive answer.
On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 12:01 AM, James Oleske <jole...@lclark.edu> wrote: > In addition to the anticipated re-introduction of the Georgia RFRA that > Chip mentions below, a state analog of the federal First Amendment Defense > Act (FADA) has been introduced in Illinois. In addition, a bill has been > introduced in Indiana that would combine statewide LGBT-rights protections > with FADA-style language exempting certain religious objectors. The > Campaign for American Principles, a new Super PAC led by Professor Robert > George, has made the federal FADA a top priority. Meanwhile, the Family > Research Council is urging the passage of state FADAs and offering model > legislation. As a result, it seems likely that additional FADA bills will > be introduced soon for consideration during 2016 state legislative sessions. > > As for the federal and Illinois FADAs that have already been proposed, > both provide that, notwithstanding any other provision of law, the [Federal > Government/State] cannot impose penalties upon or withdraw tax exemptions > from "any person" on the basis that the person "acts in accordance with a > [sincerely held] religious belief or moral conviction that marriage is or > should be recognized as the union of one man and one woman, or that sexual > relations are properly reserved to such a marriage." (The modifier > "sincerely held" does not appear in the Illinois bill.) > > > In the Illinois FADA, "person" is defined to include any corporation, > nonprofit or for-profit. The same was originally true of the federal FADA, > but Senator Lee has since announced revisions that would exclude publicly > traded for-profit corporations; federal government employees; for-profit > federal contractors; and medical providers with respect to visitation, > recognition of designated decisionmakers, and necessary medical care. The > religious exemptions in the Indiana bill are both broader and narrower than > those in the federal and Illinois bills. They are broader in that they > apply to all religious beliefs about marriage (so, presumably, objections > to interracial marriage, interfaith marriage, and re-marriage of divorced > individuals, not just objections to same-sex marriage). They are narrower > in that they extend to commercial entities only if those entities have > fewer than 4 employees. > > > As for Marty's question about whether the Indiana and Arizona experiences > put a damper on these initiatives, I think the answer is "yes, but." On the > one hand, the experiences in Indiana and Arizona (and I'd add Louisiana) > indicate that standalone RFRAs or FADAs will face serious headwinds in > 2016. On the other hand, opposition to the Obergefell decision will likely > fuel the introduction of new RFRAs and FADAs, regardless of their prospects > for ultimate passage. And perhaps in a state that does not yet have > statewide LGBT rights protections, a political compromise to obtain those > protections will include some RFRA or FADA-like provisions. > > > - Jim > > > Latest Version of the federal First Amendment Defense Act: > > > http://www.lee.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/press-releases?ID=8e6fc9c9-730f-49a6-ad32-82e486f6e5bb > > > Illinois Religious Freedom Defense Act: > > > http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/fulltext.asp?DocName=&SessionId=88&GA=99&DocTypeId=SB&DocNum=2164&GAID=13&LegID=92003&SpecSess=&Session= > > > Indiana LGBT Rights/FADA Bill: > > > http://www.indianasenaterepublicans.com/clientuploads/Documents/2016%20Session/SB100_LS6175.pdf > > > > Campaign for American Principles on FADA: "[G]iven our First Amendment > rights, FADA should not even have to exist, but in the current political > environment – where everyone from bakers to religious schools are in the > cross-hairs after the Obergefell decision [–] FADA is must pass > legislation.... This important piece of legislation would protect the First > Amendment religious conscience rights of those American who believe that > marriage is between one man and one woman, without impeding the rights of > Americans who might disagree." > https://campaignforamericanprinciples.com/first-amendment-defense-act/ > > Family Research Council on FADAs (which it calls GNDAs): "Like the First > Amendment Defense Act at the federal level, states need to pass legislation > now to protect individuals and entities from state discrimination on the > basis of their beliefs in natural marriage." > > http://frc.org/gnda > > > On Sun, Nov 29, 2015 at 6:41 AM, Ira Lupu <icl...@law.gwu.edu> wrote: > >> As I understand it, many state legislatures meet only in the first few >> months of the year, and have not been in session since the Obergefell >> decision. I have heard from several reliable sources that Georgia >> legislators will re-introduce a RFRA in January 2016. In spring 2015, it >> appeared that Georgia would enact a RFRA, but the bill was tabled as a >> result of a last minute motion to carve out state and local >> non-discrimination laws (like the Indiana fix). The Bill's sponsor had said >> all along that the RFRA would not protect acts of discrimination, but he >> refused to accede to the carve out and pulled the Bill. >> >> On Sun, Nov 29, 2015 at 4:37 AM, Marty Lederman <lederman.ma...@gmail.com >> > wrote: >> >>> A while back we discussed new statutes in Utah and N. Carolina that >>> attempt to accommodate clerks who don't wish to perform same-sex marriages. >>> >>> Apart from those, does anyone know of the post-Obergefell, post-Indiana >>> state of play on state-law initiatives to craft religious accommodations to >>> marriage laws--either for public officials such as clerks or for private >>> parties such as bakers, etc.--or to enact further religious exemptions to >>> state and local antidiscrimination laws? Did the Indiana and Arizona >>> examples put a damper on such initiatives? >>> >>> Thanks >>> >>> > _______________________________________________ > 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. > -- Ira C. Lupu F. Elwood & Eleanor Davis Professor of Law, Emeritus George Washington University Law School 2000 H St., NW Washington, DC 20052 (202)994-7053 Co-author (with Professor Robert Tuttle) of "Secular Government, Religious People" ( Wm. B. Eerdmans Pub. Co., 2014)) My SSRN papers are here: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/cf_dev/AbsByAuth.cfm?per_id=181272#reg
_______________________________________________ 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.
