Religious Freedom Restoration Act

[Vis]

The law doesn't say anything like that.

The law only says that the state must have compelling interest in order to overrule your religious freedom. Prohibiting discrimination is considered a compelling interest. It actually protects someone who wants to wear a burka rather than allowing people to force someone to wear a burka. Your religious freedom doesn't trump anyone else's. This isn't a law that says you can be forced to anything. It's about what you can't be forced to do.

The law does not specifically allow discrimination, as the media would have you believe. In fact discrimination suits have been won in states that have similar laws.

http://thefederalist.com/2015/03/30...ped-by-religious-freedom-bills-like-indianas/

Right. When I kick you out for non-burka wearing and you sue me, the new standard applies. The Indiana law has sec 9 so it applied in situations between private parties . When you say similar laws you are ignoring that none of those laws had sec 9 so they aren't the same and don't have the same effect. I'm happy to go through the statute line by line if you are.

Even sec 9 would be defeated (albeit at great expense) in places with civil rights laws adding sexual orientation to the list of protected classes. Indiana won't pass such a law. We need to do so as a nation. You want cross over votes, find a GOP candidate willing to say that sexual orientation should never be a reason to deny housing or employment or public accommodations.

 

[oneforthebus]

Right. When I kick you out for non-burka wearing and you sue me, the new standard applies. The Indiana law has sec 9 so it applied in situations between private parties . When you say similar laws you are ignoring that none of those laws had sec 9 so they aren't the same and don't have the same effect. I'm happy to go through the statute line by line if you are.

Yes, it expands it to private parties. Why shouldn't it? It says if you kick me out for wearing a burka, I can sue YOU, it's not just the government who can't legally compel me to give up my burka, you as a landlord or employer or business can't either. Not without a compelling state interest, and not unless there was no less restrictive way to handle it. You have a problem with that?

You would be unlikely to be able to force me to wear a burka, or a cross, or any other religious indentification as that would be a violation of my religious freedom. Certainly you can force me to wear a shirt and shoes in your common areas because you could probably prove compelling health and safety reasons, and you would not be violating my religious beliefs.

 

[Vis]

Yes, it expands it to private parties. Why shouldn't it? It says if you kick me out for wearing a burka, I can sue YOU, it's not just the government who can't legally compel me to give up my burka, you as a landlord or employer or business can't either. Not without a compelling state interest, and not unless there was no less restrictive way yo handle it. You have a problem with that?

You would be unlikely to be able to force me to wear a burka, or a cross, or any other religious indentification as that would be a violation of my religious freedom.

When you sue me and spend the thousands of dollars to do so, the Court (which is the state) now has to apply the new standard to my actions so if my belief is real the state needs a compelling reason to find for you. That reason could be a civil rights law if it applies. Help make it apply to sexual orientation.

 

[oneforthebus]

When you sue me and spend the thousands of dollars to do so, the Court (which is the state) now has to apply the new standard to my actions so if my belief is real the state needs a compelling reason to find for you. That reason could be a civil rights law if it applies. Help make it apply to sexual orientation.

I have no problem with such a law, as should be evident from most of my posts. That's up to the people of Indiana.

I think the courts have pretty consistently found that discrimination against gay people is illegal, and I don't think it will be long before it will be declared unconstitutional. I don't think the hysteria over this Indiana law is warranted or accurate, and I think the push to eliminate laws of this nature is going to end up with unintended consequences that even liberals aren't going to like.

What about discrimination against religious people? I know that's not a concern for someone like yourself who believes religion is the root of all evil, but it is a concern for others. From the Federalist article:

One interesting thing to note about this case is that it occurred back when the ACLU vocally supported RFRAs. Here, in fact, is a picture of the Arocha-Bettenbaugh family receiving an award from the ACLU for fighting for their religious liberty under Texas’ RFRA. A few days ago, however, the ACLU sent out a blistering press release about how awful RFRAs are.

The hypocrisy is real. Religious freedom is only a problem when it applies to Christians apparently.

 

[Vis]

I have no problem with such a law, as should be evident from most of my posts. That's up to the people of Indiana.

I think the courts have pretty consistently found that discrimination against gay people is illegal, and I don't think it will be long before it will be declared unconstitutional. I don't think the hysteria over this Indian law is warranted or accurate, and I think the push to eliminate laws of this nature is going to end up with unintended consequences that even liberals aren't going to like.

What about discrimination against religious people? I know that's not a concern for someone like yourself who believes religion is the root of all evil, but it is a concern for others. From the Federalist article:



The hypocrisy is real. Religious freedom is only a problem when it applies to Christians apparently.

I know you don't. But when you look at the law and you filter scenarios through it you see when it can have a good result and when it can have a bad result. The original Indiana law did lead to some bad results. The change helped.

I am against discrimination against religious people. You may remember my take on the NY City Mosque. The people get all their rights. What I am against is special treatment of religious ideas. The ideas that make up a religion should be subject to the same scrutiny as any other type of idea.

Lets make it religion:

McElroy Bakers (Masters week) run by the devout Seamus McElroy opens one morning and Barry Goldman walks in to arrange getting a Bar Mitzvah cake for his son's upcoming fete. Seamus knows that a Bar Mitzvah is when a Jewish boy becomes a man and sincerely believe it means poor Andrew Goldman is less likely to convert to Catholicism and save his mortal soul. He doesn't hate the Goldmans. In fact he wants to save them according to his beliefs. The Bar Mitzvah makes that harder. It's an affront to Jesus. Does he bake the cake? Yes. Have the civil rights laws that say he has to bake the cake ever lead down the slippery slope to say the Irish Catholics have to admit Jewish people in membership at the church? No, The Church can set the standards for admission and the public bakery acts as a secular service provider and ignores the religion of the owner and the customer. All is good.

 

[Tim Steelersfan]

Depends on the religion of course. Divorce is not actually the sin in the Catholic church...remarriage is. A second marriage is not valid unless the first marriage has been annulled. So by that standard this couple would be committing ongoing adultery. I don't really know all of the doctrines of other religions are on that, they vary widely. Of course many do not consider Justice of the Peace or nondenominational ceremonies to be valid marriages either...so the couple would be committing unrepentant ongoing premarital sex for the rest of their lives technically.

I doubt that the bakery does much investigating into the individual circumstances of everyone they make cakes for.

I am on my first marriage - my wife is on her 2nd. She was Catholic. I Protestant. This very issue, getting the first marriage annulled, is what drove her from the Catholic religion. A friend had done it. It's not an easy process. Family, friends, the former groom and bride must be interviewed before the Church will grant the annulment. She viewed this very badly and it drove her from the Church, as she felt it was wrong to say put someone through this that had been through abuse, rape, whatever. So she's now a happy Methodist.

Yes you're correct, it depends on the type of Christianity we'd be discussing.

 

[Tim Steelersfan]

But that's minority vs minority. There's a lot of black on black violence that is largely ignored as well, but the media will sensationalize any form of white on black racism every chance they get.

Disagreed. Nothing is "minority" about Muslims. Islam is one of the largest religions in the world, and is predicted to be the largest religion IN the world by 2070.

 

[Vis]

This very issue, getting the first marriage annulled, is what drove her from the Catholic religion. A friend had done it. It's not an easy process.

It's easy if you're a Kennedy.

 

[Tim Steelersfan]

It's easy if you're a Kennedy.

Yep, just take your date to a party, drive into a pond, and walk away. Voila!

 

[oneforthebus]

I am on my first marriage - my wife is on her 2nd. She was Catholic. I Protestant. This very issue, getting the first marriage annulled, is what drove her from the Catholic religion. A friend had done it. It's not an easy process. Family, friends, the former groom and bride must be interviewed before the Church will grant the annulment. She viewed this very badly and it drove her from the Church, as she felt it was wrong to say put someone through this that had been through abuse, rape, whatever. So she's now a happy Methodist.

Yes you're correct, it depends on the type of Christianity we'd be discussing.

I had my first marriage annulled. While I did find the process somewhat emotionally draining, it was also therapeutic. No, they didn't ask to interview any family and friends, but perhaps that's because my ex didn't contest the annulment or anything in my version of events. I felt relieved that it was determined by the church that my marriage hadn't been a valid one. My ex later told me that as he was walking down the aisle he knew he shouldn't have been getting married, but he went through with it anyway. He soon made sure to prove for the next year exactly why he never should have gotten married.

I will say that had the annulment not gone through, my current husband and I would have gotten married anyway, outside of the Church. It's not something that was all that important to me, but it was important to my hubby for whom this is a first marriage. I'm glad we did it and are able to raise our kids and participate in sacraments in the church we both grew up in.

 

[oneforthebus]

It's easy if you're a Kennedy.

I'm not a Kennedy and it wasn't hard at all. Or expensive, another common misconception people have.

It's more difficult when the marriage is longer, there are children involved, or one party contests it.

Another misconception people have is that if affects someone's legal rights or their responsibilities with regard to spousal and child support. It doesn't have anything to do with any of that. It only affects how the church views the marriage.

 

[Vis]

I'm not a Kennedy and it wasn't hard at all. Or expensive, another common misconception people have.

It's more difficult when the marriage is longer, there are children involved, or one party contests it.

Another misconception people have is that if affects someone's legal rights or their responsibilities with regard to spousal and child support. It doesn't have anything to do with any of that. It only affects how the church views the marriage.

It's just divorce with a different term and procedure?

 

[Tim Steelersfan]

It's just divorce with a different term and procedure?

I can't tell if you're seriously asking a question, or attempting to bait. I'll take the bait.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annulment_(Catholic_Church)

"In the Catholic Church, a declaration of nullity, commonly called an annulment, is a judgement on the part of an ecclesiastical tribunal determining that a marriage was invalidly contracted. Annulment is the procedure, governed by the Church's canon law, which determines the marriage to be void at its inception (ab initio). A "Declaration of Nullity" is not the dissolution of an existing marriage (as is a dispensation from a marriage ratum sed non consummatum), but rather a determination that consent was never validly exchanged due to a failure to meet the requirements to enter validly into matrimony and thus a marriage never existed."

There is nothing legal about it.

 

[oneforthebus]

It's just divorce with a different term and procedure?

No, I still had to go through the usual procedures to get a legal divorce. In fact, as I recall I had to prove legal divorce to the Church prior to the annulment process.

There is such a thing as a legal annulment in some states, that has nothing to do with the Church.

 

[Vis]

I can't tell if you're seriously asking a question, or attempting to bait. I'll take the bait.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annulment_(Catholic_Church)

"In the Catholic Church, a declaration of nullity, commonly called an annulment, is a judgement on the part of an ecclesiastical tribunal determining that a marriage was invalidly contracted. Annulment is the procedure, governed by the Church's canon law, which determines the marriage to be void at its inception (ab initio). A "Declaration of Nullity" is not the dissolution of an existing marriage (as is a dispensation from a marriage ratum sed non consummatum), but rather a determination that consent was never validly exchanged due to a failure to meet the requirements to enter validly into matrimony and thus a marriage never existed."

There is nothing legal about it.

OFTB can tell. I didn't require the definition, I was asking as a practical standpoint, how it works. How easy is it for the priest to say no. What element have to be shown. Is it really up to each parish or is it standard across the whole church, that sort of thing.

 

[oneforthebus]

OFTB can tell. I didn't require the definition, I was asking as a practical standpoint, how it works. How easy is it for the priest to say no. What element have to be shown. Is it really up to each parish or is it standard across the whole church, that sort of thing.

I don't recall every detail. I had to write a summary of my entire relationship and marriage, and fill out some forms. My parish priest read my account and counseled me on possible grounds. They are pretty specific, it's not things like "we grew apart" "we didn't get along" etc. You have to prove it was never a valid marriage. I believe the grounds for mine were along the lines of one party entering into the contract without sincere intent to keep it. Between my ex admitting he didn't want to say the vows even as he was saying them, and taking up with someone else within several months of the marriage, those grounds weren't hard to establish. Most of the grounds involve things like deception, telling your spouse before the wedding you want kids and then refusing to have them after, lack of actual ability to consent, refusal to raise kids in the church after promising to do so, mental illness or drug abuse etc. that disables a partner from truly consenting or being able to carry out their end of the contract...etc.

I was required to forward my version of events to my ex and allow him time to respond. I did have to reach out to his parents and a couple of friends just to confirm that I had made every attempt to allow him the opportunity to respond.. I had to document all of these attempts, as well as provide documentation of the divorce. He never responded.

I met with one of the Tribunal, they questioned me about some details, counseled me some, and I got my ruling in the mail a few weeks later.

There was a $400 or so processing fee that can be waived in cases of financial need.

 

[Vis]

In case I marry a Catholic girl.

And I'm sorry you had that jerk in your life.

 

[Tim Steelersfan]

OFTB can tell. I didn't require the definition, I was asking as a practical standpoint, how it works. How easy is it for the priest to say no. What element have to be shown. Is it really up to each parish or is it standard across the whole church, that sort of thing.

By the nature of it (and I caveat again that I'm not Catholic, never have been), I don't think "standard" can even apply to annulments. There's too many steps in the process subject to judgment, even within the constrict of guidelines. Each priest can interpret said guidelines (if there are guidelines) through his/her own filters before rendering a verdict.

 

[oneforthebus]

By the nature of it (and I caveat again that I'm not Catholic, never have been), I don't think "standard" can even apply to annulments. There's too many steps in the process subject to judgment, even within the constrict of guidelines. Each priest can interpret said guidelines (if there are guidelines) through his/her own filters before rendering a verdict.

Yes, there are very specific guidelines on what is grounds for annulment and what is not. and grounds are supposed to be proven. The marriage is presumed to be valid unless proven otherwise. I don't doubt there is an element of subjectivity. I went into it very nervous but my experience was they seemed more inclined to look for and find ways to prove grounds than inclined to find ways to disprove them. Maybe this is out of compassion, maybe it's just self-interest in not wanting to lose church members, maybe it's a little of both.

It is not decided by individual priests. It is decided by a tribunal of three, I believe there is one tribunal for each archdiocese (a geographic area within the church...I was in the Washington DC archdiocese at the time).

The exception of course being when one party is contesting it. I'd guess the burden of proof is probably higher in those cases.

 

[SteelChip]

Yep, just take your date to a party, drive into a pond, and walk away. Voila!

 

[oneforthebus]

In case I marry a Catholic girl.

And I'm sorry you had that jerk in your life.

Well, if you didn't get married in the Catholic church you're in luck...your marriage is already not considered valid. The bad news is at a minimum you'll have to agree to raise the kids Catholic for a Catholic priest to marry you. I don't imagine that will sit well with you, lol.

And thanks. Turns out my annulment was all for naught, as he passed away about 6 years ago, 45 years old and had two 2 young daughters. I believe it was drug related but don't know for sure. I dodged a bullet.

 

[Vis]

3 of my kids are fully raised. Married a baptist the first time.

 

[oneforthebus]

3 of my kids are fully raised. Married a baptist the first time.

You have to promise the priest you'll welcome any more though, lol...

 

[Vis]

Most women my age post change.

 

[Tim Steelersfan]

Death knell for freedom? US moving from 'inclusion' to totalitarianism

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2015...-us-moving-from-inclusion-to-totalitarianism/

This just about sums it up. Well done.

Bake me a cake, or go to jail!

Sadly, that is the new message from “inclusive” America. If you don’t want to cater, photograph, preside over, sell pizza at, sell flowers to or otherwise participate in a gay wedding, you will be punished. If you don’t want your business to pay for a kind of birth control that you consider murder, you will pay fines until your business is bankrupt.

Personally, I think both birth control and homosexuality are just fine, and gay marriage is as valid as straight marriage. But forcing everyone to act as if they think that way is just wrong. We have moved from “inclusion” to totalitarianism....

Why force someone who disapproves of your actions to bake you a cake? Lots of other bakers would love the business. This debate has moved from inclusion to demanding that everyone adopt your values.

In a free country, bigots should have the right to be bigots. Americans should also have freedom of association.

American lawyers talk about special protection for religious freedom, and in the Hobby Lobby case the Supreme Court said you could escape onerous parts of ObamaCare by paying lawyers a fortune and convincing judges that you are a closely held corporation with religious objections. But why must you be religious to practice what you believe? This should be about individual freedom.

Of course, government must not discriminate. The worst of American racism and homophobia -- slavery, segregation enforced by Jim Crow laws, bans on interracial marriage, anti-sodomy laws, etc. -- was government-enforced discrimination. That was wrong, and it was right for the federal government to intervene.

But private actions are different. If I start a business with my own money, I ought to be allowed to serve only libertarians, people who wear blue shirts, whatever. It’s my business!

My customers have choices. If I am racist or anti-gay, the free market will punish me. Enough people would boycott my business that I would probably lose money quickly.