Religious Freedom Bill passed in Missisippi.

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Yes. I agree completely with your first sentence.

I think that's a sticky area, because I see what you're saying and I also see the least restrictive part as being a safeguard for balance in some situations. It also has a potential to work as a preventative measure for not allowing the law to over-reach, in favor of the rights of one party -- to the point of infringing on the rights of another, by forcing someone to do something they really believe is wrong, or penalizing them for not doing it, simply because some other party that could achieve the same thing in another way wants to insist/force that person to do that thing, even when they think it is wrong.

I understand that concern, too. I think that this problem can be resolved - at least in part - if we as a society stop conflating freedom of religion with freedom of conscience. Not all matters of conscience have to do with religion, and not all aspects of religion are matters of conscience.

For instance, hopefully we both agree that requiring church-run daycares to have the child-to-caregiver ratio of other daycares is not an infringement on anyone's freedom of conscience... though some states allow church daycares to be exempt from these sorts of rules.

 

[FunctionalAtheist]

The news article you posted is remarkable in its failure to actually describe what the law does. How about we have people look at the actual bill before making any assumptions about what it does or does not say and do. Here, I'll even make it easy for you guys:



Oh, I'm sorry! I'm supposed to not think critically and have a knee-jerk "OMFGs HOW DARE THEY" reaction by listening to internet hearsay about what this law is and what it does. I shouldn't be looking at what the law actually says.

And really, I shouldn't... that wasn't entirely sarcastic there. I don't have the legal expertise to make sense of it or fully understand how it would be implemented in practice. But I am certainly not going to base my assessment off a vague article from a news outlet of questionable reputation. Anybody around here have a law degree? Or a story from a reputable news outlet that covers it more appropriately? I think I've put in my homework contribution by finding the bill itself.

Thanks for posting the text. Knee-jerk or not, what this bill does is twofold. First it expressly codifies defiance of the US Supreme Court. Second it broadens and generalizes judicial jurisprudence. All the big words in there do only one thing. They distract you from the important word. “Substantial!”

What this means is that in any particular case a white, Christian, male, age 40-75 will decide if your religion is free or not. I.e. this law allows any case brought to the state court to be handled on a case-by-case basis without any criteria of what is freedom of religion except the judge’s opinion of whether or not denying your right to practice is a substantial burden.

If the judge thinks serving gays is a substantial burden to one’s freedom of religion, they don’t have to. If the judge thinks not praying Christian prayers in school is a substantial burden, then they must be allowed.

What is substantial?

 

[4consideration]

I understand that concern, too. I think that this problem can be resolved - at least in part - if we as a society stop conflating freedom of religion with freedom of conscience. Not all matters of conscience have to do with religion, and not all aspects of religion are matters of conscience.

I agree. I am really concerned about freedom of conscience. I would prefer that the law referred to that, rather than specifically to religion.

For instance, hopefully we both agree that requiring church-run daycares to have the child-to-caregiver ratio of other daycares is not an infringement on anyone's freedom of conscience... though some states allow church daycares to be exempt from these sorts of rules.

I agree that special rules are not needed, or justified, for things like this.

 

[nazz]

I'm not a libertarian.

I thought I recalled you saying you were?

 

[nazz]

The way I see this potentially playing out (I'm guessing) is that in situations where there is some dispute, like those situations often mentioned, i.e. a person refusing to take pictures at a gay wedding, or a person refusing to provide, or assist in, abortion or certain types of birth control...

...is that in situations where the state, or someone else, is going after one party for refusing to do something based upon a religious reason, the state or other party would have to demonstrate this part of the law is fulfilled:

(edit: my highlighting)

"(5) (a) 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 paragraph (b) of this subsection. (b) Government may substantially burden a person's exercise of religion only if it demonstrates the application of the burden to the person: (i) Is in furtherance of compelling governmental interest; and (ii) Is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest."

So, I think that may provide that in some examples, the party who wishes to have an abortion, or have photographs taken at a gay wedding, may not have a good case, if they are only and simply going after that person because they were angry about the person's position and following their belief they should not provide those services.

If that person were actually denied those services completely, I see that may fall within the scope of a compelling governmental interest.

I think it may prevent one party from successfully insisting that another part do something against their own conscience/religion -- even though there were other options available. So that, while a person may have a right to have an abortion at a medical facility that provides them, they may not have the right to legally insist that a specific individual doctor or all medical staff be required to perform them.

A person may be angry about a business (or individual) that refuses to photograph a gay wedding, but if there are other options available than that one business/person, that option may be enough to be considered a lesser restrictive approach than legally forcing someone to do it against their will/beliefs.

finally, a sensible view!

 

[1137]

Then what of the social contract? What of the other part of religious freedom, which is freedom from religion? What of the right of equal application of the law? It seems leaning one way distorts and prohibits these for many just so a few can enjoy them with fewer restrictions, rather than leaning the other way so the many can have their rights undisprupted while the few yield to overall greater good of society. People who cannot find work or shelter because they are a minority are people the tax payer has to support.


If you don't indicate sarcasm in electronic communication, you have to take what you get.
And I am not being hypocritical. I don't care if people want to be a bigot. However, I do favor collective social well being, and because the needs of the many out weight the needs of the few (and in this case legal protections for minorities that help keep them educated, employed, sheltered, and fed, and off government support), people who think they have a right to discriminate just need to realize that expressing hatred in a public place is not a right. I do not support Westborrows Baptist Church's right to protest at funerals, I do not support Hobby Lobby's "religious right" over a woman's right to reproductive options, and I do not support legislation that protects discrimination.


The thing is, they don't loose money. Plenty of businesses, even in the north, stayed open and done alright for themselves despite discriminatory policy.
But when the general public is examined, people potentially loose out on education, employment, shelter, and other needs for being a minority just because some people think they have a right to never have to leave their comfort zone.


How about a "right" of children to learn biology versus the "right" of the church to teach Creationism in schools? When you allow religious freedoms over other freedoms, where is the line drawn and where does it stop before religious rights trump over other things in which it shouldn't?


They do not have my sympathies. I've worked in customer service and have had to deal with people I don't like. It's a given for any job where you work with the public there will be people you don't like. If you cannot accept that, then you are clearly in the wrong job.


While that is true, I do not have much hope that this law will not be abused. I wouldn't be too surprised if we see a flood of law suits and legal challenges that are trying to define what exactly is the government being too over bearing, what is the line between religious right and public safety, health, and especially education.

I stopped at "religious freedoms over other freedoms" since that is still just a false representation. Maybe you should actually read the bill - 4consideration is even helping out.

I'm no legal expert, so these are just my thoughts on the bill. (I'm posting it in two parts in order to conceal how long it is. )

In reading the text of the bill provided on the first page, it appears to me the purpose and stated intention of this law is to implement on the state level a standard previously used at the federal level, whereby the government must justify ("with compelling justification") there is valid reason for substantially burdening exercise of religion in application of laws, even those laws that are neutral to religion -- apparently, in a attempt to hold the state to a higher standard than the federal government, following a recent Supreme Court decision that the state is saying removes a requirement that the government justify forcing someone to do something that may be viewed as against their religion.

I do not see that it provides for unlimited behavior on anyone's part under the umbrella of religious belief.

(my highlighting)

"(2) The Mississippi Legislature finds the following: (a) The framers of the Constitution, recognizing free exercise of religion as an unalienable right, secured its protection in the First Amendment to the Constitution; (b) Laws "neutral" toward religion may burden religious exercise as surely as laws intended to interfere with religious exercise; (c) Government should not substantially burden religious exercise without compelling justification; (d) In Employment Division v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872 (1990), the United States Supreme Court virtually eliminated the requirement that the government justify burdens on religious exercise imposed by laws neutral toward religion; and (e) The compelling interest test as set forth in prior federal court rulings is a workable test for striking sensible balances between religious liberty and competing prior governmental interests."

See people, this is what happens when you go to the source and read critically versus skimming through Reddit and believing the first thing you see.

 

[Sunstone]

I think that denying a person equal service in a place of business due to their race, religion, ethnicity, sex, gender, or sexual orientation is detrimental to the best interests of society and the social contract.

 

[Mycroft]

I'm no legal expert, so these are just my thoughts on the bill. (I'm posting it in two parts in order to conceal how long it is. )

In reading the text of the bill provided on the first page, it appears to me the purpose and stated intention of this law is to implement on the state level a standard previously used at the federal level, whereby the government must justify ("with compelling justification") there is valid reason for substantially burdening exercise of religion in application of laws, even those laws that are neutral to religion -- apparently, in a attempt to hold the state to a higher standard than the federal government, following a recent Supreme Court decision that the state is saying removes a requirement that the government justify forcing someone to do something that may be viewed as against their religion.

I do not see that it provides for unlimited behavior on anyone's part under the umbrella of religious belief.

(my highlighting)

"(2) The Mississippi Legislature finds the following: (a) The framers of the Constitution, recognizing free exercise of religion as an unalienable right, secured its protection in the First Amendment to the Constitution; (b) Laws "neutral" toward religion may burden religious exercise as surely as laws intended to interfere with religious exercise; (c) Government should not substantially burden religious exercise without compelling justification; (d) In Employment Division v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872 (1990), the United States Supreme Court virtually eliminated the requirement that the government justify burdens on religious exercise imposed by laws neutral toward religion; and (e) The compelling interest test as set forth in prior federal court rulings is a workable test for striking sensible balances between religious liberty and competing prior governmental interests."

The thing is. Where does it end? Once you give certain people (whoever they are) certain boons based on whatever, in this case religion, where will it go from there? Will religious people then want to decline services to people who have had an abortion? Or have wear mixed fibers? Or ate a quail? Etc. At some point there comes a point where you just have to say to these people: You know what? Just deal with it.

Like Sunstone said, it's not in the best interest of Social Contract. And there's no supporting evidence that this should be in any way a law in Biblical text. I don't see Jesus getting upset about having to serve gay people? In fact the Bible shows that Jesus actively sought out such people instead. And I think that if your religion segregates or discriminates against other peopel for any reason, no matter what religion it is, then it should not be respected and people have the right to ignore it.

What if they wanted to deny Muslims service due to being blasphemers (believing in a different god)? Or atheists (for believing in no god)?

What if certain people wanted to deny black people service (religious liberty has been used to validate racism before).?

 

[nazz]

I think that denying a person equal service in a place of business due to their race, religion, ethnicity, sex, gender, or sexual orientation is detrimental to the best interests of society and the social contract.

Once again, that is not what it is about. It's not about giving people the right to discriminate against a class of people. It is about preventing the government from infringing on one's right to not engage in activities ones deems immoral. So I ask you, as I have asked others, do you want the government to have the right to force you to do something you find immoral?

 

[Sunstone]

Once again, that is not what it is about. It's not about giving people the right to discriminate against a class of people. It is about preventing the government from infringing on one's right to not engage in activities ones deems immoral. So I ask you, as I have asked others, do you want the government to have the right to force you to do something you find immoral?

Once again, that's merely your interpretation of the law. Get back to me when you have something more substantial, please.

 

[nazz]

The thing is. Where does it end? Once you give certain people (whoever they are) certain boons based on whatever, in this case religion, where will it go from there? Will religious people then want to decline services to people who have had an abortion? Or have wear mixed fibers? Or ate a quail? Etc. At some point there comes a point where you just have to say to these people: You know what? Just deal with it.

Just deal with the fact that you are not getting it. Do you want to force people to have an abortion? Do you want to force people to wear mixed fibers? Do you want to force people to eat quail? Do you want to force people to do anything that violates their conscience?

 

[Mycroft]

Just deal with the fact that you are not getting it. Do you want to force people to have an abortion? Do you want to force people to wear mixed fibers? Do you want to force people to eat quail? Do you want to force people to do anything that violates their conscience?

Do you wish to force people to be unable to exercise their right to participate equally in society?

See it goes like this: In 1946 a guy tried to do something very similar against black people and the Supreme Court threw it out. It was tried again in 1983. Bob Jones University excluded African Americans completely until the early 1970s, when it began permitting black students to attend so long as they were married. In 1975, it amended this policy to permit unmarried African American students, but it continued to prohibit interracial dating, interracial marriage, or even being “affiliated with any group or organization which holds as one of its goals or advocates interracial marriage.” As a result, the Internal Revenue Service revoked Bob Jones’ tax-exempt status.


Now let me be absolutely clear about this: people of faith do not exist in a vacuum. heir businesses compete with other companies who are entitled to engage in this competition upon a level playing field. Their personnel decisions impact their employees, and their decision to refuse to do business with someone — especially for reasons such as race or sexual orientation — can fundamentally demean that individual and deny them their own right to participate equally in society.

This is why racist people like Theodore Bilbo are not allowed to refuse to do business with African Americans, and it is why anti-gay business owners should not be given a special right to discriminate against LGBT consumers. And this is also something that the United States has understood for a very long time. The Case of Bob Jones University is not a new case at all. A whole generation of Americans spent their entire professional careers enjoying the protections of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Religious liberty is an important value and it rightfully belongs in the Constitution, but it you should not allow it to be used to destroy the rights of others.

Ultimately the question facing anti-gay employees is: why it is acceptable to exclude gay people simply because of who they are, when we do not permit this sort of behavior by racists such as Bilbo. And is it fair to allow religious employers to exempt themselves from the law would be fundamentally unfair to the employees who are supposed to benefit from those laws?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Just deal with the fact that you are not getting it. Do you want to force people to have an abortion? Do you want to force people to wear mixed fibers? Do you want to force people to eat quail? Do you want to force people to do anything that violates their conscience?

Are rules of the form "if you CHOOSE to operate a business, here are the rules that will apply to your business" really forcing to do something?

 

[nazz]

Do you want to force people to shop elsewhere based on the decidedly non-biblical whims of some religious extremists?

With legal penalties for non-compliance? NO

How about we force these people to employ non-religious folk and they can serve gay people instead. We'll give gay people little badges so the religious people can scurry away into the back and cry or whip themselves or whatever it is they do with their whacko brains.

How about we not

How about we just put people of conscience in concentration camps. Would that make you happy?

 

[nazz]

Are rules of the form "if you CHOOSE to operate a business, here are the rules that will apply to your business" really forcing to do something?

Certainly people can choose not to engage in that business. Another form of taking away their rights and making them second class citizens.

 

[nazz]

I guess we need to force Jewish butchers to sell pork too. After all, not doing so discriminates against pork eaters!

 

[Mycroft]

I guess we need to force Jewish butchers to sell pork too. After all, not doing so discriminates against pork eaters!

That doesn't endanger people's rights to operate equally in society.

My question again: Do you wish to force people to be unable to exercise their right to participate equally in society?

 

[Mycroft]

Another form of taking away their rights and making them second class citizens.

Which by turns is what this law does to LGBT people.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Certainly people can choose not to engage in that business. Another form of taking away their rights and making them second class citizens.

It's only in bizarro-land that not allowing one person to discriminate against another makes the person who wants to discriminate a "second-class citizen".

 

[nazz]

That doesn't endanger people's rights to operate equally in society.

What? You just mentioned gay people will be forced to patronize non-discriminating businesses! That's what I, as a pork eater must do as well! Double standard!