Wave of State/City RFRAs

[KeithE]

[Ed Pettibone]

Ed: And Keith on what grounds do you insist that a cake Decorator or a Floral Designer must share their artistic talent with whomever gives them a call. Now if there was no other Bakery or Florist Shop within say 25 miles I might see as to how their refusal could be deemed discriminatory. Are their no Gay or Lesbian Photographers, Florist or Cake decorators who need the business.

[KeithE]

[Dave Roberts]

Many legal remedies fit the law of unintended consequences. These definitely do.

[Ed Pettibone]

[Tim Bonney]

People do a bad job of separating requirements for a public business and their personal life, particularly in a small business.

When you open a business there are laws about serving the public that apply differently than having people in your home or church. You can't start a business and say that you are only going to service white people, or Christians, or moral people. You can start a church and do that, you can start a private membership club and do that. But a business is public and you are supposed to serve the public.

Anyone who has ever waited on tables knows you often serve people you wouldn't really like or that you wouldn't associate with in your private life. But you don't get to not serve people because you don't like them. You serve the customer because you are working for a business.

Serving the public is what business is about and that is why Apple, Microsoft, Eli Lilly, Walmart etc. etc. have opposed this law. It is bad business. It is confusing personal religious values with public business expectations and requirements.

If someone doesn't want to associate with people different from them then they really don't want to live in an open democracy. There are plenty of countries where Christianity is the state religion. The US isn't one of them.

[KeithE]

[Tim Bonney]

Keith,

I can't put my finger on when the shift occurred. But it seems to me that there has been a shift from "religious freedom" being "my right to practice my religion and your right to practice your religion" to now meaning for many, "my right to my religion and my right to not even be exposed to your religion."

The whole wedding cake issue just strikes me as ridiculous. There is no Christian admonition to not cook for people you disagree with. In fact, Jesus purposefully ate with tax collectors and sinners. He didn't avoid meals with them.

A wedding cake is not part of a religious ceremony. Would the same caterer refuse to cook food for a Bar Mitzvah? Could they refuse to provide Horse Radish for Passover Meals? What about baking a cake for a party after a woman pastor is ordained? If the caterer doesn't believe in women's ordination can they refuse to bake the cake for the party?

How ridiculous is all this?

[William Thornton]

Should a Jewish singer be required to sing at a Christian wedding?

[Tim Bonney]

[KeithE]

[William Thornton]

Should a jewish butcher be req. to make sausage?

[Ed Pettibone]

[William Thornton]

I'm trying to get Timothy and Keith to admit that there are occasions that religious liberty in regard to an individual extends outside of church/synagogue/mosque events/buildings and ceremonies.

[Tim Bonney]

[Tim Bonney]

Ed, do you know any wedding photographers? I know several. They don't pick photo gigs based on what religion, denomination, or ceremony is being conducted. They don't ask the bride and groom if they were divorced previously or if they would approve of the relationship of the bride and groom. They take pics and they get paid for taking pictures. It is a business to make money.

The fact that you conflate the party afterwards with the worship being conducting doesn't mean the rest of us should or that the law should.

Again, should we make laws to protect persons who are so intolerant that they can't witness someone practicing a religion they don't agree with?

If so this could force all religious groups to be required to hold all worship in private. Public worship could become illegal because someone else might be offended by it.

[KeithE]

[Tim Bonney]

[Tim Bonney]

If you can imagine a world where you can't get a cab in Indianapolis because you are a Christian, you can't sit in the restaurant because they don't service Christians, you can't go to the bakery and buy a cake, you can't get gas all because the business owners don't serve Christians then you can see the potential impact for Indiana's first go at the RFRA.

When we don't protect the rights of other we all eventually end up paying the price.

Also when we started equating business with people that was the first step in this kind of law. People have rights under the US constitution that businesses do not.

[ET]

Except that in all the instances where the "equal rights" crowd has sued someone it has been over a refusal to endorse a same-sex wedding. The people persecuted - I mean prosecuted - for the refusal had no history of refusing to sell a cake or flowers to or take photographs of a same-sex couple. They did not refuse to let some gay person sit at the lunch counter or hire their cab. They refused to take part in something - a same-sex "marriage" ceremony - they found violated their religious beliefs.

For years I've seen signs in businesses that say, "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone..." or something like that. I've seen signs of "no shoes. no shirts. no service." I guess all those people don't want to "live in an open democracy".

[ET]

[William Thornton]

People assert their RF rights all the time. There's a body of case law on it. The new wrinkle is the sea change on gay marriage and how this will be managed. Different states have different laws. The objections recently are partly hysterical, partly genuine in that extending RFRA to all manner of businesses is new, post Hobby lobby.

We're in for some years of litigation, I think.

Social cons got waxed this week. We will see where this goes.

Brent Walker, BJCPA, says everyone should chill. Not bad advice.

Neither Keith nor timothy demonstrate much understanding of first amendment religious liberty issues. Timothy is excused because he's a Methodist these days. Even lib Baptists should have a firm grasp of this. Perhaps the problem is that this cannot be graphed and made visual for K.

When I get a chance, I'll link Walker and Aaron Weaver who has a good piece on this.

[Sandy]

[KeithE]

[William Thornton]