http://www.ncaa.org/about/resources/media-center/news/statement-indiana-religious-freedom-bill
If the new Indiana RFRA had been enacted last year, I think it's fair to
say, the NCAA would have pulled the Final Four out of Indianapolis; and I
think it's safe to predict that the NCAA tourney won't
Ryan’s candor is refreshing: he very much wants businesses to be able to
discriminate against same-sex couples, and he thinks that state RFRAs are
important to that goal. That’s precisely why sports leagues, pharmaceutical
companies, technology companies, and even certain houses of worship are
Three quick points:
1. As Marty suggests below, if the Court had ruled in Hobby Lobby’s favor
but issued a narrow opinion (narrow in its reasoning and holding) making it
clear that the ruling in favor of Hobby Lobby gives no support to RFRA claims
challenging anti-discrimination laws
I agree with Ryan and Doug that RFRA is sound public policy and many of the
outrageous claims about RFRA should be condemned. For instance, the claim
that EMTs would be able to refuse service to gays and lesbians is just
ludicrous.
Having said that, I think further enactment of RFRAs is
To be clear:
A wiser course is for both sides to come together and build trust. This was
done in Utah, and can be done elsewhere. Otherwise, the polarization over
these issues will deepen, and future generations will view support of
religious rights as hate speech. If one cannot express a view
I've looked over the new Indiana law, and what jumped out at me was not
that this looked like a law designed to allow people to decline to render
services to others on the grounds of sexual orientation; it looks more like
the original RFRA and a law designed to overcome the results of cases like
If the Hobby Lobby decision that complicity with evil simpliciter, no matter
how attenuated, is a substantial burden is followed, then the fears about state
RFRAs will be realized. If however, the (in my judgment vain) attempt by
Justice Alito to tie the substantiality of the burden to the
“No one”? Well, maybe not its more sensible advocates.
On Mar 27, 2015, at 3:22 PM, Ryan T. Anderson ryantimothyander...@gmail.com
wrote:
What you call discriminate I call freedom to operate in public square in
accordance with well-founded beliefs about marriage. As Doug pointed out, no
What you call discriminate I call freedom to operate in public square in
accordance with well-founded beliefs about marriage. As Doug pointed out,
no one is talking about discrimination against gay and lesbian people as
such. No religion teaches that, and no case is about a blanket policy of
Interesting that you think that people who want to use this legislationl to
discrimiate will wait until July to do so.
On Mar 27, 2015, at 1:57 PM, Kniffin, Eric N. eknif...@lrrlaw.com wrote:
I would caution against reading too much into a reactionary statement from
the NCAA’s Director of
Paul’s point is supported by those Christians who interpret “shall not be
unevenly yoked” broadly as requiring separation — including discrimination
against others of other beliefs. I have relatives who (formerly) were of
exactly this belief and know some Christians who still adhere to them.
There is a big difference between a regime where the law says you cannot or
should not and a law that says its ok in the way people respond.
Most people do not sue most of the time every time their rights are infringed,
so the “show me the cases” standard seems a bit off to me.
Nonetheless, I
If it is a mistake to prohibit discrimination in hiring based on mutable
characteristics and vaguely defined concepts, then clearly we should not
prohibit discrimination based on religion.
Other prohibited grounds for discrimination might also fall victim to an
insistence that the
Are those purported instances based on religious beliefs against serving people
of other religions? (Or, Gordelpus, a specific religion, as you seem to be
implying?) Or on the perception that They are all evial terrorists, which is
not a tenet of any religion I can call to mind.
- Original
Doug:
I appreciate your analysis of the cases. Case law will not limit private
action if the actors think the law allows them to discriminate.
But, it seems to me that the Indiana law encourages the exact sort of behavior
that has not held up in court. Does it really matter if months or
Both are immutable characteristics. In that way they are very much alike.
Indeed, while one can choose to convert to a new religion, people do not
choose to be gay, just as they don't choose to be white or black or some
other race.
*
Paul
The reaction to Indiana strikes me as similar to Arizona. Arizona took
place well before Hobby Lobby ruling. So the causal relationship you
suggest here seems off. Something else explains this.
On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 1:41 PM, Marty Lederman lederman.ma...@gmail.com
wrote:
The Supreme Court hadn’t decided Hobby Lobby yet, but several federal appeals
courts (including the 10th Circuit in the Hobby Lobby case) had already ruled
in favor of corporations wanting to exclude contraceptive coverage from their
insurance policies, and in the process adopting extremely
Exactly my point: Justice Alito basically went out of his way to signal
that the Court would treat them differently when it came to exemptions from
antidiscrimination laws. Small wonder, then, that Indiana legislators were
eager to enact the state RFRA -- and that supporters of gay rights are
Covering closely held corporations is one issue. Discrimination is a different
issue, and we know how courts have treated it. Making women do without
contraception is yet a third issue, and we know that Hobby Lobby did not reach
that issue, and found a solution that preserved free
That's a disputed claim, and the weight of the evidence does not support it.
Paul McHugh, MD, University Distinguished Service Professor of Psychiatry
at the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, and Gerard V. Bradley,
Professor of Law at the University of Notre Dame, explain:
[S]ocial
Exactly my point: If this is what the NCAA concluded it had to do to
counter the p.r. debacle with respect to a law *that has not even gone into
effect yet*, imagine how it, and other large organizations, will treat the
prospect of holding large events/conventions in Indiana going forward.
Sexual orientation is not the same as race.
On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 2:34 PM, Marty Lederman lederman.ma...@gmail.com
wrote:
or, imagine if Justice Alito had not included the references to race and
racial in this sentence:
The Government has a compelling interest in providing an equal
If the cases I am talking about arise the discriminating party may lose. Doug
and I agree on that.
But the law encourages this kind of discrimination (as well as against people
of other faiths), and encourages people to push to see how far they can extend
their private prejudices into the
The NCAA is the victim of the most absurd propaganda. There is no conceivable
way that the Indiana RFRA would affect any athletes next week. There are no
cases of religious believers simply refusing to serve gays; the only cases
involve weddings, and the religious objectors have lost every
Right. The widespread exaggeration of what Hobby Lobby did may be adding
fuel to the fire. But this propaganda began before Hobby Lobby, and it
worked, so it continues. This is really the Big Lie in action. And a lot of
people who know better feel compelled to go along. I know that is true of
Before the ruling -- but not before the lower court decisions and the slew
of briefs --including by many Catholic groups that were insistent upon
reading RFRA narrowly back in 1993 -- urging the Court to do at least as
much as it did (indeed, more so).
The converse point works, too: If the Court
or, imagine if Justice Alito had not included the references to race and
racial in this sentence:
The Government has a compelling interest in providing an equal opportunity
to participate in the workforce without regard to race, and prohibitions on
racial discrimination are precisely tailored to
The Green family not paying for an employee's abortifacients, and a 70-year
old grandmother not making floral arrangements for a same-sex wedding
is becoming
the political equivalent of a state adopting the confederate flag, or
refusing to recognize MLK Day. Good to know.
The reactions to AZ and
The wedding cases are special (although not in the view of courts so far),
because many religious folks understand marriage to be an inherently
religious relationship and a wedding to be an inherently religious event.
There are no cases about alleged religious reasons for discriminating
against
Show me a case. It just hasn't happened. We have a woman dead in Kansas for
lack of a state RFRA; that's a real case. These wild discrimination
hypotheticals are so far just that - wild hypotheticals. And probably that's
all they will be for the future too.
Discrimination against gay customers
We have all sorts of stories where business will not serve Muslims in the news.
**
Paul Finkelman, Ph.D.
Senior Fellow
Penn Program on Democracy, Citizenship, and Constitutionalism
University of Pennsylvania
and
Scholar-in-Residence
National Constitution Center
And I don't think we want to create a society where we the only exercise of
religion we protect is religious exercise that the elites are comfortable with.
Perhaps I'm misreading them, but it seems that many contributors to this
list are only fans of protecting religious liberty in the
The Indiana law is not the same as the federal RFRA. This section of the new
Indiana RFRA makes it applicable in suits between private parties:
Sec. 9. A person whose exercise of religion has been substantially burdened,
or is likely to be substantially burdened, by a violation of this
Derek is offering exactly the kind of argument that as used to support
segregation or the rights of people not to have to serve blacks, it that is
what they chose to do.
But, even if Derek's solution (to allow discrimination) is approved, where
does ti end?
Doug (in an earlier post) wants to
Josh Blackman has done a good job of addressing claims that the Indiana RFRA
goes beyond the original federal law:
http://joshblackman.com/blog/2015/03/26/comparing-the-federal-rfra-and-the-indiana-rfra/
[cid:image001.gif@01D01458.B0F295B0]
Eric N. Kniffin, Of Counsel
Lewis Roca Rothgerber
At least 3 circuits have already interpreted the federal RFRA to provide a
defense in a case involving private parties and the Obama DOJ has also endorsed
that position in the past. So, the Indiana RFRA is not breaking new ground
here.
From: Nelson Tebbe
Sent: Friday, March 27, 2015 5:59 PM
I have to disagree with Doug and Ryan that the earlier controversy over the
Arizona bill casts any doubt on Marty's point about the consequences of the
Hobby Lobby decision. Recall, the Arizona bill wasn't an initial RFRA
enactment. Rather, it was a proposed amendment to the existing Arizona RFRA
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/28/us/politics/indiana-law-denounced-as-invitation-to-discriminate-against-gays.html
On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 1:41 PM, Marty Lederman lederman.ma...@gmail.com
wrote:
http://www.ncaa.org/about/resources/media-center/news/statement-indiana-religious-freedom-bill
39 matches
Mail list logo
