You've certainly been consistent at trying to lie your way out of admitting that you were wrong.
Daverino: "It's absurd to think that the government would get involved in determining which beliefs are sincerely held."
United States v. Seeger: "Their task is to decide whether the beliefs professed by a registrant are sincerely held"
I still don't see why you think these statements are at odds. I said that the government doesn't get involved in
which beliefs are sincerely held. Emphasis on 'which beliefs.'
Seeger speaks nothing about 'which beliefs' are held or not. Just whether they can be verified as sincere.
Holy shit, are you illiterate? He said nothing even remotely close to that.
"There is a religious exemption to anti-discrimination laws, its not anything thats generally thought of as raising a constitutional problem."
"Then, they would sue him since hes a state officer ... because it would now be a violation of the 14th Amendment for states to refuse to marry gay couples. This bill would not stop the gay couple from suing the clerk, because state law could not take away peoples 14th Amendment rights."
Because the 14th Amendment applies only to conduct by state actors. And he didn't even say that the law "runs afoul of the 14th Amendment" and "will be struck down" in that case, merely that it couldn't protect a state officer from a lawsuit. Seriously, work on your reading comprehension.
Yeah, and?
Bender says that IF there was a Constitutional guarantee for gay marriage, the law could not apply because of the 14th amendment. He then says that the law doesn't protect anyone currently from discriminating against gays in Arizona because discriminating against gays is already legal. He then says:
"The only way this bill would come into play is if the state were to pass a law making it illegal for the photographer to discriminate against gay people (through anti-discrimination law). This bill only makes a difference if, right now, you can sue somebody for discriminating against you because of your sexual orientation. This bill would immunize some people from that kind of lawsuit."
So this law would protect someone with a sincerely held religious belief for discriminating against gays (or any other non-protected group) only if Arizona passed a law making that discrimination illegal.
And for the record, I said it would run afoul of the 14th amendment and be struck down. I never said Bender said that. That's my opinion. Here's my logic in the most concise way I can state it.
1. Recent court activity shows that discrimination against homosexuals does not fly Constitutionally.
2. The Arizona law adds a possible, albeit impractical, means to discriminate against homosexuals (or any non-protected group)
3. If the Arizona law were used to defend someone's religious beliefs, the
actual belief is not relevant, only whether it is actually held and the person can vaguely tie that belief to a higher power.
3a. There are people who 'sincerely believe' gays should be discriminated against in Arizona
3b. They use religion to justify that belief.
4. If the law was used to settle a case I can see two outcomes.
4a. IF the law was used to side with the person with the 'belief,' the loser of that case would have a case that the law contradicts their rights under the 14th Amendment. This is the ACLU's position. I think, based on the way the courts have been going, the law would get struck down. Emphasis on 'I'.
4b. IF the law sided AGAINST the person with the 'belief' when it was obvious the belief was sincerely held then Arizona is making a judgement on the 'belief' itself. That's the absurd part and that's something I think will NEVER happen. That outcome would probably cause the law to self-destruct as well.
That's my story and I'm sticking to it.
Facebook
Twitter