Seattle Mayor bans city-funded travel to Indiana.

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

Sections 1 and 2

Specifically apply RFRA to all laws and regulations already on the books, as well as any passed in the future that aren't explicitly exempted by state law.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

Responses

You have me at a disadvantage. If the Unitarian was told he or she cannot marry a same sex couple, I think that would because of state law, not because of another religion said so. If you have other info then I am all ears.

RFRA laws do not apply to public officials when performing their public duty. Muslims can be told to serve a ham sandwich in a public eatery. I know liberals think otherwise because Holder told state attorney generals to "follow their conscience" when enforcing state laws about same sex marriage. Holder was dead wrong and violated his ethical duty as a public lawyer. The Utah clause doesn't add anything except comfort.

Again, when it comes to RFRA we are talking about personal participation. I realize Hobby Lobby confuses this point but HL was about a regulation not having to do with protected classes of people. I also understand the ambiguities inherent in a one person bakery outlet . Personal participation in an objectionable wedding is still where we start. Beyond that the courts will need to split the necessary hairs. Courts do that all the time.

I also don't think RFRA considerations should turn on how many bakeries are in a town. If RFRA protects an individual baker from personal participation in a same sex wedding, the absence of other bakers shouldn't make a difference.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

It was the state law, the state law the others fought to keep

A group of people fought to preserve state law (actually fought to codify it into the constitution) to prevent the Unitarians from marrying. That would be my point. At no point did the state suggest someone's religious conviction could be used to determine if they could be married.

Thanks for that on public servants.

The bakery issue is a hard one. For example, while I get the concept that your religious right should not change depending on such factors, I assume we all agree that the ER Dr., nurse, EMT should not have that right. So we are setting up exceptions already, or we have to answer the question why a Dr is not allowed to have religious convictions but a lawyer can.

We decided 50 years ago one could not raise a religious objection to providing services to blacks. I'm just not seeing, morally, why this is different. Legally, I get the point. But morally, if one can't use religion to fail to serve a black, I fail to see where the logic doesn't follow today.

 

[Ladoga]

And his state has

a more restrictive state REFRA than Indiana. Indiana requires that to raise the defense, one must demonstrate a "substantial" burden on religious liberty. Connecticut, on the other hand allows the defense is there is any burden. That is MUCH more restrictive than Indiana law.

The Governor of Connecticut needs some help in his understanding of his own state's law. May be he should bar state travel in Connecticut.
This post was edited on 3/30 4:08 PM by Ladoga

 

[outside shooter]

What boycots are backed by the "power of the government"?

They seem to be grass-roots citizen-directed efforts

 

[zeke4ahs]

Or people who have had sex

Before marriage, or women who have had abortions, or on and on.

 

[zeke4ahs]

Connecticut has laws that include

Gays as a protected class, correct?

 

[meridian]

Was he serious or with his tongue in cheek? **

**

 

[Marvin the Martian]

he was serious -nm

Go iu

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

More embarrassment.

In this case, Gov. Malloy is embarrassing himself, but, as usual, it's only serving to heap more embarrassment on us, as well.

Looking forward to the GA doing something about this this week and finally putting an end to this nonsense.

goat

 

[outside shooter]

here is a lawyer's careful analysis

here:



good read

 

[dugger1973]

That's about the dumbest anology ever.

Just because someone has had sex before marriage or had an abortion doesn't make the marriage itself sinful. Don't you think officiating an actual marriage between two gay guys might be a little more of a conflict for a pastor than marrying a man and woman who had sex prior to the wedding?

This entire argument is stupid but how nobody can see that,when trying to eliminate discrimination from this country, we are in fact discriminating......unless I suppose you think nobody should be allowed to act as they see fit according to their point of view. Isn't that kind of what freedom and liberty are all about?

 

[zeke4ahs]

Not quite as dumb

As this bill. Aren't they all sins in the Bible? Adultery is one of the 10 Commandments, so I'd think that's a pretty big sin. Marrying a same sex couple is not..

 

[dugger1973]

Yes, they are all sins.

Requiring a pastor to marry a same sex couple against his wishes is akin to a requiring a doctor to perform an abortion against their wishes. If you don't understand the conflict there there's no use in even discussing it. Marriage between a heterosexual couple is not a sin, even if prior to the marriage the heterosexual couple did some very sinful things. You seemed to imply that since the pastor has married sinful people before that he should be required to marry gay people. Ridiculous.

 

[zeke4ahs]

uh ok but it's

Ridiculous to think this law would require a pastor to marry a same sex couple any more than it is to think a doctor would be forced to perform an abortion.
Posted from Rivals Mobile

 

[outside shooter]

that's just plain silly... you don't perform civil ceremonies, do you?

No person, gay or straight, is entitled to have a church wedding.

"If gay marriage is the law of the land then I would have to if it were not for this law."

Couples are entitled to have their marriage recognized as legal by the state if they meet all requirements, and are entitled (if state laws demand it) to have a civil ceremony available to them.