Indiana's governor signs bill allowing businesses to reject gay customers

[Mountain Man]

What?

This makes absolutely no sense, given the text and history of this and other state RFRAs.

What don't you understand?

[Sam]

What don't you understand?

How you misunderstood the relation of state RFRAs to the federal RFRA so badly, for one. State RFRAs aren't about the "legal authority to enforce the US Constitution in the event that the federal government is unable or unwilling." The federal RFRA doesn't pertain to the states at all, as determined by SCOTUS in 1996. If it was a Constitutional issue, federal courts would be used, whereas the state RFRAs are used in state courts.

Literally the whole thing was misunderstanding the relevant laws.

[Starlight]

seeing how we have a lawless president who has been unanamously overruled by the Supreme Court at least a dozen times

This sounded totally implausible to me at face value, and likely to be just another piece of insane propaganda BS, but I was intrigued to see which cases are being cited as proof of this.

The first problem turned out to be that your BS article doesn't cite any cases.

But fortunately a couple of fact-checking sites have checked this crazy Republican talking-point and found it false.

It turns out that there is one case. One. That was the case on recess appointments. Recess appointments have long been allowed, and Obama has done far less of them:


What's different about one of Obama's recess appointments, was that the rabid republican senate invented a novel strategy for blocking recess appointments: Claim to be "in session" even when you're not. The idea was that the Senate could block the recess appointments from happening by officially not having a recess even though it actually had a recess in practice. Obama went ahead and did a recess appointment anyway. But the Supreme court decided that "the Senate is in session when it says it is"... a decision that got somewhat mocked (I recall seeing a picture of an empty senate chamber with just a teddy-bear at the front and an 'in session' sign hanging above it).

Regardless of whether that Supreme court decision was sensible or not, that remains the only time that the Supreme court has ruled against Obama for executive overreach. And it's not even as if he was doing something he wasn't allowed to do - he absolutely is allowed to make recess appointments. It was simply an argument over when he is allowed to do it.

[Joel]

Also, as a general rule, even when they are not anti-gay, I don't particularly support strong religious exemptions from laws:
* Why should religious people get an exemption from morality? They shouldn't get to opt out from following laws just because they don't want to. We don't let religious people keep slaves, regardless of how strongly they might think their religion tells them it is okay. Historically, a lot of Christians who owned black slaves were absolutely convinced that Genesis 9:25 ("Cursed be Canaan! The lowest of slaves will he be to his brothers.") and other biblical passages gave absolute God-given religious justification for slavery. You might disagree with their interpretation of the bible, but they were convinced - it was a sincerely held religious belief on their part. Which brings us to:
* Some people believe really, really, strange things. As has been mentioned, the Hobby Lobby ruling made clear that beliefs don't need to be well-evidenced or correct in order to be protected by these sort of religious-protection laws. People can believe things that are provably false and therefore might have any weird belief and might want to do any strange thing that we can't even imagine right now. Allowing for generic religious exemptions to laws opens the door to craziness.

Let's fix that. Make the following change to the law:

"Sec. 6. A state action, or an action taken by an individual based on state action, may not substantially burden a person's right to the exercise of religion liberty,..."

Then there would be no issue of any religious exemption. Everyone would be equally exempt.

[Sam]

What's different about one of Obama's recess appointments, was that the rabid republican senate invented a novel strategy for blocking recess appointments: Claim to be "in session" even when you're not. The idea was that the Senate could block the recess appointments from happening by officially not having a recess even though it actually had a recess in practice. Obama went ahead and did a recess appointment anyway. But the Supreme court decided that "the Senate is in session when it says it is"... a decision that got somewhat mocked (I recall seeing a picture of an empty senate chamber with just a teddy-bear at the front and an 'in session' sign hanging above it).

In fairness, I believe Democrats invented this tactic back in the 2007-2009 session. G.W. Bush threatened to do pretty much Obama did (appoint positions regardless of Congress claiming to be "in session" but decided not to do so.

One of the few times, I'd argue, that Bush's lawyers got it right and Obama's lawyers got it wrong. As much as I would do the same thing out of spite or to make a point, the chance that SCOTUS was going to rule that the legislative branch can't decide what "in session" means was remote.

[Spartacus]

Could someone send me a PM in a week or a week and a half reminding me to start a thread on originalist interpretations of the religion clauses of the 1st Amendment? I have some higher-priority stuff coming down the pipe in the immediate future, but if anyone's interested enough in the argument to make sure I actually follow through, this is a doable project.

Basic thesis: if we understand the establishment and free exercise clauses the way the framers did and as a set of policies rather than an ideological manifesto (it's easier to compromise on policies than on ideals, and the constitution is nothing if not a series of compromises), then the establishment clause means only that the federal government cannot make laws about established churches, and the free exercise clause doesn't provide protection very far beyond where you go to church on Sunday.

Obviously this thesis needs evidence and fleshing-out, and it's also worth noting that I myself don't think this is the sort of church-state regime we should have, but, as I understand it, it's the most honest and consistent interpretation of the Constitution itself and is therefore worth understanding on its own terms.

[Sam]

If I remember, I'll remind ya. Interested to see that argument.

[Mountain Man]

How you misunderstood the relation of state RFRAs to the federal RFRA so badly, for one. State RFRAs aren't about the "legal authority to enforce the US Constitution in the event that the federal government is unable or unwilling." The federal RFRA doesn't pertain to the states at all, as determined by SCOTUS in 1996. If it was a Constitutional issue, federal courts would be used, whereas the state RFRAs are used in state courts.

Literally the whole thing was misunderstanding the relevant laws.

This is a wonderful example of acting like you're contradicting someone without actually contradicting them.

[Mountain Man]

But fortunately a couple of fact-checking sites have checked this crazy Republican talking-point and found it false.

Factcheck.org and Politifact.com are not exactly unbiased sources, but seeing how you're a low-information moron, I expect you think they speak the gospel truth.

Curiously, I notice that both of your sources complain not about the fact that Obama actually has had a tough time in the Supreme Court but about the term "executive overreach" which neither I nor my source made any reference to. On the contrary, your sources found that Obama actually has been overruled by the Supreme Court at least 13 times, but they attempt to downplay it by quibbling over exactly why he was overruled. For bonus points, Politifact even found a way to blame Bush.

I just thought of a new slogan for Politifact: "More politics than fact".

Now since you brought up Obama's recess appointment slapdown, you're right in so far as recess appointments are perfectly legal so long as Congress is actually in recess. What got Obama into trouble with his recess appointments is that Congress was still in session, but Obama declared them in recess, which he doesn't have the authority to do, and then made his "recess" appointments. But being a low-information moron, I don't suppose you knew any of that.

[Meta Knight]

I just thought of a new slogan for Politifact: "More politics than fact".

This is the site that once had as its "Lie of the Year" something that wasn't actually a lie.

[Mountain Man]

Could someone send me a PM in a week or a week and a half reminding me to start a thread on originalist interpretations of the religion clauses of the 1st Amendment? I have some higher-priority stuff coming down the pipe in the immediate future, but if anyone's interested enough in the argument to make sure I actually follow through, this is a doable project.

Basic thesis: if we understand the establishment and free exercise clauses the way the framers did and as a set of policies rather than an ideological manifesto (it's easier to compromise on policies than on ideals, and the constitution is nothing if not a series of compromises), then the establishment clause means only that the federal government cannot make laws about established churches, and the free exercise clause doesn't provide protection very far beyond where you go to church on Sunday.

Obviously this thesis needs evidence and fleshing-out, and it's also worth noting that I myself don't think this is the sort of church-state regime we should have, but, as I understand it, it's the most honest and consistent interpretation of the Constitution itself and is therefore worth understanding on its own terms.

Before we start talking about original intent, it's worth asking if our Founding Fathers ever in their wildest dreams thought that America would become a country where religious expression was actively suppressed. Fortunately, their words have been recorded for posterity...

"We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion . . . Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." -John Adams

"I believe that religion is the only solid base of morals and that morals are the only possible support of free governments." -Gouverneur Morris

"The Bible is the best of all books, for it is the word of God and teaches us the way to be happy in this world and in the next. Continue therefore to read it and to regulate your life by its precepts." -John Jay

"Human law must rest its authority ultimately upon the authority of that law which is divine. . . . Far from being rivals or enemies, religion and law are twin sisters, friends, and mutual assistants. Indeed, these two sciences run into each other." -James Wilson

"Religion and morality are the essential pillars of civil society." -George Washington

Do you really think the men who said those words (and many others) believed that the free exercise clause was limited only to where you went to church on Sunday morning?

[Spartacus]

Before we start talking about original intent, it's worth asking if our Founding Fathers ever in their wildest dreams thought that America would become a country where religious expression was actively suppressed. Fortunately, their words have been recorded for posterity...

"We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion . . . Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." -John Adams

"I believe that religion is the only solid base of morals and that morals are the only possible support of free governments." -Gouverneur Morris

"The Bible is the best of all books, for it is the word of God and teaches us the way to be happy in this world and in the next. Continue therefore to read it and to regulate your life by its precepts." -John Jay

"Human law must rest its authority ultimately upon the authority of that law which is divine. . . . Far from being rivals or enemies, religion and law are twin sisters, friends, and mutual assistants. Indeed, these two sciences run into each other." -James Wilson

"Religion and morality are the essential pillars of civil society." -George Washington

Do you really think the men who said those words (and many others) believed that the free exercise clause was limited only to where you went to church on Sunday morning?

Congressional debates surrounding the 1st and 2nd amendments suggest that the free exercise clause was not interpreted as exempting Quakers from the draft. Americans can worship how and where and with whomever they like, but there seems to be no room for religious exemptions from generally applicable laws.

[Mountain Man]

Congressional debates surrounding the 1st and 2nd amendments suggest that the free exercise clause was not interpreted as exempting Quakers from the draft. Americans can worship how and where and with whomever they like, but there seems to be no room for religious exemptions from generally applicable laws.

The draft would be an example of "a compelling state interest".

[Spartacus]

The draft would be an example of "a compelling state interest".

Remind me in 1-2 weeks.

[Mountain Man]

In other news, a similar law was passed in Illinois in 1998, and you'll never guess who voted for it:








Barrack Hussien Obama