Skip to main content

View Diary: Rachel, Jed Lewison are mischaracterizing SB1062 (241 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Maybe (0+ / 0-)

    But studying the law, I don't think it does any of those things.

    The Hindu Doctor: I'm not certain about the ins and outs of Hinduism, but I do not believe that there is a prohibition on treating people who do not abide by Hindu dietary restrictions.  So it wouldn't be a substantial burden on the doctor's beliefs.  Also, doctors are generally able to refuse patients now, for any reason they choose that's not an illegal reason.  There's no discrimination protection for non-vegetarians.  Although the motivation for discriminating against meat-eaters is religious, the doctor would treat atheist vegetarians.  No change in status.

    Muslim Lawyer: Lawyers never have to take certain clients.  It's not a public accommodation and anti-discrimination laws don't require lawyers now, in any state, to take certain clients.  And again, if the lawyer would take teetotalling vegetarian Christians, it's not religious discrimination at all.

    Sikh Teacher: Not clear to me if Sikhism requires you to shun anyone else.  But even if it did, the state has a compelling interest in giving all students an education, and the claim would be swiftly denied.

    Jewish cop: Only Jews are required to remember the Sabbath, and you can violate the Sabbath for emergency purposes anyway.  So there's no substantial burden on Judaism here.  Plus you've got the state-based compelling interest.  What the cop could claim is that he should be entitled to be free of work on Saturdays, a religious employment accommodation likely already protected under federal law, if the schedule can work it.

    Jain plumber: Plumbers don't have to take any clients they don't want to.

    Taliban: I'm not sure what he's doing other than scowling.

    White supremacist: Federal civil rights law will trump the Arizona law, which wouldn't protect him since his racism is not a religious belief.  

    •  the problem with so many religions is how (0+ / 0-)

      it is interpreted. im no expert on religion, but Christianity can mean an eye for an eye or turn the other cheek
      that is a heck of a lot of leeway

      one more reason I am an atheist

      i am not sure either how religion is defined. i have an bad feeling we are going to find out and it wont be pretty

      •  There is a lot of leeway (0+ / 0-)

        That's true, but these things have actually been litigated fairly extensively.

        There's a federal statute that actually does most of the same thing, called RFRA, although it's a bit smaller in scope.  As you can imagine, there's been a ton of cases on it, but the pattern usually finds that it's difficult to declare something to be a burden on your religion.  There are a lot more losers than winners at this step.  There's a guy who challenged a complex permitting procedure to hunt an eagle for a Native American ceremony, a debt priority issue between cemetery maintenance and other creditors, Quakers objecting to war.  That's next to a whole bunch of losers.  

        The big issue being litigated now is the contraception mandate, we'll see where that ends up.

        Even jumping past that step, you still need to prove that there's a compelling interest.  And the government has a lot of compelling interests.  Wildlife protection, health care (including abortion) to state university students, and yes, non-discrimination policies.

        Arizona actually has a narrower version of this law, which requires a more direct interaction with the government.  So far, nobody has won a case citing to it since it was passed almost 15 years ago.

    •  Taliban would be throwing bombs into schools (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Nattiq

      and such which would be protected by the Georgia law which is far more broad than the Arizona one as it exempts people and businesses from any government action or legal proceeding that "directly or indirectly constrains, inhibits, curtails, or denies the exercise of religion by any person or that directly or indirectly pressures any person to engage in any action contrary to that person's exercise of religion.

      From the Anti-Defamation league's analysis of the Georgia law:

      "It would create a strong new affirmative for criminal defendants charged with drug-related crimes, sexual assault or rapes of spouses or children, or child endangerment."
      I see no reason why it wouldn't also apply to murder as well.  At least Arizona doesn't go that far, yet.

      You have watched Faux News, now lose 2d10 SAN.

      by Throw The Bums Out on Wed Feb 26, 2014 at 07:03:30 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I don't think so (0+ / 0-)

        The Georgia law still says that it does not apply if the supposed religious burden is in furtherance of a compelling government interest, and accomplished by the least restrictive means.  It actually specifically includes child welfare as a compelling interest.  Stopping murder is never going to be anything other than the most compelling government interest.

        Interestingly, it also withholds its protection from anyone who has used it dishonestly.

        •  Well I hope you will forgive me if I trust (0+ / 0-)

          the Anti-Defamation League's analysis rather than yours.  You would think that preventing "sexual assault or rapes of spouses or children, or child endangerment" would be a compelling government interest as well so how could it provide a strong affirmative defense for someone charged with those things?

          You have watched Faux News, now lose 2d10 SAN.

          by Throw The Bums Out on Wed Feb 26, 2014 at 07:44:30 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  You can trust who you want (0+ / 0-)

            Preventing sexual assault, rape, and child endangerment are obvious compelling government interests.  

            Maybe the ADL can prove me wrong, but I am not aware of any violent crime being excused on religious grounds.  

            Moreover, the ADL has supported similar laws to this one in the past.  http://archive.adl.org/....  

            New York, NY, June 25, 1997...The Anti-Defamation League (ADL) today expressed disappointment with the United States Supreme Court's decision that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) is unconstitutional. This legislation codified the requirement that government not infringe on a religious observance unless it could demonstrate a "compelling interest" for doing so.
            The Georgia law says this:
            A person's civil right to exercise of religion shall not be burdened even if the burden results from a rule, law, ordinance, regulation, or policy of general applicability unless demonstrated, by clear and convincing evidence, that application of the burden to the person is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest and is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.
            The challenged federal law said this:
            Government shall not substantially burden a person's exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability, except as provided in subsection (b) of this section.

            (b) Exception
            Government may substantially burden a person's exercise of religion only if it demonstrates that application of the burden to the person--
            (1) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and
            (2) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.

    •  Acts 17:26 (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Brown Thrasher, sfbob

      your white supremacist very much can turn his racism into a religious belief. They did and they are.

      Dawkins is to atheism as Rand is to personal responsibility. uid 52583 lol

      by terrypinder on Wed Feb 26, 2014 at 07:07:29 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Christianists can deny (0+ / 0-)

      service to any man who trims the corners of his beard, or the hair on his temples, for it is an abomination.  They can deny service to women since they have no beards (being a "beard" doesn't count).

      "When I was an alien, cultures weren't opinions" ~ Kurt Cobain, Territorial Pissings

      by Subterranean on Wed Feb 26, 2014 at 08:55:06 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  stuff (0+ / 0-)

      Hinduism has a lot of rules for ritual purity, most of which I do not know, so I won't speculate.  But I think it's fair to say that even if the diarist's speculation is off-base, there's probably something else somewhere that would fit the bill.

      However, I disagree that arguments such as this are very relevant.  Mostly the minority groups are not going to discriminate often in business; if not because of being such paragons of virtue, then because they do not have the luxury of surrounding themselves and having their businesses solely patronized by people just like them (or who could pass as such if not questioned too closely).  Whereas wingnut Christians mostly do have that privilege.

      So not only is this kind of "reverse" discrimination unlikely to be a significant issue outside of the odd ethnic enclave that most of the rightwing types would never dream of setting foot in anyway; its' also kinda lousy as a form of persuasion aimed at wingnuts' self-interest. They won't believe it could happen to them, and in general, they'd be right to believe that.

      And as a side note, it amazes me how in all of the discussion I've seen so far on this (which admittedly is not that much yet), no one is pointing out that there is nothing whatsoever in Christianity that prohibits contact with, sale to, or any other kind of transactions with certain taboo classes of people.  The very freedom the bill purports to protect is a mirage.  So to compare it to prohibitions in other religions that -- whether legitimate or not -- at least actually do exist, is buying into a false framing to begin with.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site