Skip to main content

View Diary: Okay-to-discriminate laws rocket to the top of the Republican agenda (83 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  It seems so desperate (9+ / 0-)

    and out of touch with the broader culture. And even if they passed one of these laws, it would stand almost no chance in the federal courts, clearly an establishment clause violation.

    •  Desperation is their modus operandi. (0+ / 0-)

      They've got nothing.

      "Onward through the fog!" - Oat Willie

      by rocksout on Tue Feb 25, 2014 at 11:14:31 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Actually, probably not an Establishment Clause (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      worldlotus

      violation, because the law doesn't define which religious beliefs are protected; it just says that if you have them, you can act on them. ("Establishment" cases are usually where the state is endorsing a particular religion, such as the nativity scenes on the state house lawn, religious symbols in public schools, etc.)

      It might get into trouble for privileging religious beliefs over secular ones, but in this Supreme Court, I wouldn't bet on that. There are other places where they have allowed religious exemptions, such as vaccination laws and forced medical treatment, and not working on Saturdays or having your store closed on Saturdays rather than Sundays, and wearing religious headgear (hijab, yarmulkes) even where hats are otherwise banned.

      The better arguments against this law are that it is impractical, and so broadly written as to allow discrimination by anyone against anyone on any pretext whatsoever -- and that the backlash will damage the state economy.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site