Is it time to just remove freedom of religion from the Constitution?

[MomentsofSanity]

Several state RFRAs have the same definition of person (e.g. South Carolina), and the Hobby Lobby decision allowed the federal RFRA to be used by closely held corporations. Partnerships, LLCs, etc. would also be covered by the federal RFRA after that ruling.



As I mentioned above, several of the federal circuits have ruled that the federal RFRA can be used in suits in which the government isn't involved. The Supreme Court has not yet resolved this circuit split.



I don't see how that allows any greater level of discrimination than any of the other RFRAs. It appears to just allow a suit to be filed preemptively before damages have occurred. For example, if the government were to pass a law banning all hats, yarmulke-wearing Jews could sue before the law goes into effect even though they haven't yet been burdened.

In any case, my point was that the Indiana, federal, and other state RFRAs are all different, but not substantially so. Most of the aspects of the Indiana one that some people believe are new and frightening are actually already in effect in other RFRAs. That doesn't make it a good law, but at least its effects are somewhat predictable.

You have a very broad definition of several states. It's one. South Carolina. That is the only other so called RFRA that explicitly extends to businesses. Hobby Lobby extended to closely held businesses. Indiana extended to any and all businesses and organizations.

As to the matter of civil defenses, you're right the circuits are mixed. The indiana law unilaterally removed all of those disputes in one direction, then took it even further. There's an interesting read in the dissent of Hankins v. Lyght by then-Judge Sotomayor. It's worth reviewing should the matter find itself before the USSC on whether the federal RFRA Extends to civil matters.

RFRA by its terms does not apply to suits between private parties.
Two provisions of the statute implicitly limit its application to disputes in which the government is a party. Section 2000bb-1(c) states that “[a] person whose religious exercise has been burdened in violation of this section may assert that violation as a claim or defense in a judicial proceeding and obtain appropriate relief against a government” (emphasis added). In the majority’s view, we should read this provision as “broadening, rather than narrowing, the rights of a party asserting the RFRA.” Maj. Op. at 103. This interpretation would be questionable even if Section 2000bb-1(c) were the only provision of the statute affecting the question of whether RFRA applies to private suits. When read in conjunction with the rest of the statute, however, it becomes clear that this section reflects Congress’s understanding that RFRA claims and defenses would be raised only against the government. For instance, section 2000bb-1(b) of RFRA provides that where a law imposes a substantial burden on religion, the “government” must “demonstrate[] . . . that application of the burden” is the least restrictive means of furthering a compelling governmental interest (emphasis added). The statute defines “demonstrate” as “meet[ing] the burdens of going forward with the evidence and of persuasion.” 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb-2(3). Where, as here, the government is not a party, it cannot “go[] forward” with any evidence.[8] In my 115*115view, this provision strongly suggests that Congress did not intend RFRA to apply in suits between private parties.[9]
All of the examples cited in the Senate and House Reports on RFRA involve actual or hypothetical lawsuits in which the government is a party. See S. Rep. No. 103-111 (1993); H.R. Rep. 103-88 (1993). The lack Of even a single example of a RFRA claim or defense in a suit between private parties in these Reports tends to confirm what is evident from the plain language of the statute: It was not intended to apply to suits between private parties.

It should also again be pointed out that Indiana added the part about civil defences immediately after the New Mexico case of the photographer when the trial judge ruled the RFRA was not a valid legal defense because the government was not a party. Arizona tried that too under Jan Brewer in 2012 and it created such an uproar she vetoed it.

While you dismiss the concerns about the broadening of the definition of burdens, there is enough significant difference between the Indiana law as originally presented and all other RFRAs that many legal experts agreed with those concerns.

 

[norseamd]

Actually thank Dixycrat.

http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?p=37067125&highlight=hate#post37067125

 

[norseamd]

Also OP is probably trolling but the sad fact is that many would actually want to actually take this off the constitution for reasons that are alluded to in the sociological theories quoted by Dixycrat.

 

[Angry Irishman]

Wow...

 

[cubby1223]

Freedom of religion is in the constitution so that it is impossible for states to create over-riding laws, and it's extremely difficult for the federal government to.

Take freedom of religion out of the constitution, and all you've done is allowed states & local governments to create their own laws with respect to religion.

 

[irishScott]

It's refreshing to see a 7th grader think about what they just learned in class. Good job!

 

[irishScott]

Also OP is probably trolling but the sad fact is that many would actually want to actually take this off the constitution for reasons that are alluded to in the sociological theories quoted by Dixycrat.

Thankfully "many" is not really "many" outside of the internet.

 

[norseamd]

Thankfully "many" is not really "many" outside of the internet.

Hope so but if GG is any indication then probably not any majority but still in such numbers as to be noticeable and possibly even cause lots of destructive shit.

 

[Blanky]

1st amendment is freedom of expression, association, etc. ; to remove religion is just a small symptom of it. You cannot remove freedom of religion without obliterating the 1st amendment.

 

[1prophet]

More and more we find that freedom of religion is used merely as a shield to protect hate and discrimination. The out of control law in Indiana is just the latest in a long string of abuses. Maybe we'd all be better off if it was stricken from the Constitution entirely.

Why stop there?

1. More and more we find the right to bear arms as a shield to protect those who shouldn't have guns
2. More and more we find the right not to incriminate oneself is a shield for the alleged criminal to hide evidence, if you are innocent you should have nothing to fear
3. More and more we find the fourth amendment being used as shield against law enforcement trying to protect us from criminals, if you are not a criminal you have nothing to worry about
4. Etc. , etc.

This type of thinking is what brings about things such as the Patriot Act, confiscation without trial laws, zero tolerance policies and laws, the drug laws, etc.

 

[waggy]

Why stop there?

1. More and more we find the right to bear arms as a shield to protect those who shouldn't have guns
2. More and more we find the right not to incriminate oneself is a shield for the alleged criminal to hide evidence, if you are innocent you should have nothing to fear
3. More and more we find the fourth amendment being used as shield against law enforcement trying to protect us from criminals, if you are not a criminal you have nothing to worry about
4. Etc. , etc.

This type of thinking is what brings about things such as the Patriot Act, confiscation without trial laws, zero tolerance policies and laws, the drug laws, etc.

/this

removing it would be bad.

 

[Jaskalas]

Remove Freedom of Expression and you've single handedly killed the country and wasted the blood sacrifice paid to secure it. Such liberties are the entire point of America.

 

[norseamd]

Remove Freedom of Expression and you've single handedly killed the country and wasted the blood sacrifice paid to secure it. Such liberties are the entire point of America.

Freedom of speech is a principal pillar of a free government; when this support is taken away, the constitution of a free society is dissolved, and tyranny is erected on its ruins. Republics and limited monarchies derive their strength and vigor from a popular examination into the action of the magistrates.

 

[norseamd]

“Those who surrender freedom for security will not have, nor do they deserve, either one.”

 

[norseamd]

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Apology_for_Printers

 

[Moonbeam]

Actually thank Dixycrat.

http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?p=37067125&highlight=hate#post37067125

I had never visited that thread but, oddly enough, I heard Dixycrat in that post. But it sounds to me like how I would imagine one philosophy PhD might write to another. The words seem to refer to things I know but I can't be sure. Truth is always some third way, You are what you oppose, the other is the creation and projection for the sake of self deception, many things. The condemnation of Christianity for the actions of some who claim to be members, is bigotry. Anyway......

 

[inachu]

I am not an atheist but I would like edit to say:

From of religion/freedom from religion.

This way USA can not befriend any nation with special status.

 

[piasabird]

Sounds like hate speech against all people of faith.

 

[piasabird]

When it comes right down to it, freedom of religion is freedom of speech. It is the same freedom that protects all minorities whether it is a person belonging to a race or just someone belonging to some group or a believer of a religion or a philosophy. It is the thing that protects us from each other.

 

[Darwin333]

It's just as much freedom of religion as it is freedom from religion.

 

[brandonb]

Wow.

Remove Freedom of Religion because 1 Pizzeria in Indiana won't sell to gays. Sounds like an awesome trade off.

How about use free enterprise? People who do not like their political statement can just stop shopping there. Maybe the business will fold, maybe not? In the end what difference does it make to you? Someone can start a pro-gay Pizzeria next door. Then they can compete and fight to the death. What difference does it make?

Why do people cry over this?

 

[Genx87]

No

 

[sportage]

Freedom of religion simple means the protected right to worship whichever God one choses, or choses not to worship for that matter.
An atheists rights are fully protected as well by our constitution.

Then we have protected individual freedom rights, totally detached from religious freedom rights in the constitution.
The "righties" would love to blur that separation and allow one to trump over the other.

Freedom of religion protected by the constitution simply means ones right to worship as one choses.
The constitution DOES NOT give that person any right to use their protected religion right to interfere with the individuals protected constitutional right.
Again, both religion rights and individual rights protected in the constitution.
As a separate, not as one.

A gay person does indeed have the full protected right to buy a pizza from any vender openly selling pizza to the public. Despite the pizza store owners personal religious rights or beliefs.
And the right to demand and expect all services offered from any store open to the public.
Even if that means baking a cake, hosting a gay wedding reception, or asked to photograph a gay wedding.
And that includes all services offered by a church, as well.

The constitution does not single out nor deny gays from the blanket protections of guaranteed individual rights.
Only misconceived state laws from misguided law makers have attempted to re-define constitutional protections.
Claiming sexual orientation i.e. being gay as separate from the protections already in place.

The constitution does not separate gay people from other citizens when it comes to rights and protections.
Only states have assumed that, then refused to pass laws to re-connect the two.
Which were never separate in the first place.

Actually, a state does not need pass special sexual orientation protection laws, because sexual orientation should be covered and protected under the constitutions blanket protection of all individual rights.
And there are no separations or mention in the constitution that any gay persons individual rights are somehow removed or non existent.

Selling a pizza or photographing a wedding or baking a cake or catering a wedding or conducting a church wedding in no way hinders ones constitutional freedom of religion rights to attend any church and worship any God they so chose.

A gay person eating your pizza is not going to keep anyone from attending church on Sunday.
Nor would catering a gay wedding deny anyone full access to their church.
Yes. Every single Baptist business owner can cater a gay wedding and still attend their church of choice come Sunday morning.
Not one pizza or wedding cake has ever denied another from Sunday worship.

Separation of church and state is the American way.
The way it must be if America is to remain a free nation as originally conceived.
Church could be defined as the constitutions freedom of religion clause.
And a gay wedding defined as the constitutions individual freedom clause.

Only persons that do not think much of our US constitution would even try to redefine and to blur the true meaning of American citizenship.
But still they try, and they try by twisting the meaning of the US constitution, and by twisting their constitutional freedom of religion right.

Gays have guaranteed constitutional freedoms and guaranteed constitutional rights too. And are also full US citizens as well.
Having full rights as guaranteed by the US constitution.
Gays can pursue happiness, pursue religion, and enjoy all the same freedom as everyone else in America.
That includes expecting all services offered from every business open to the public, and expect full access to every church operating in America.

If that idea is distasteful and considered some sort of threat to anyone for religious objections, then those people feeling threatened have the full right to leave America and move to a better suited country.
Some other country not observant of the Constitution of the United States.
.
.

 

[rudeguy]

Freedom of religion simple means the protected right to worship whichever God one choses, or choses not to worship for that matter.
An atheists rights are fully protected as well by our constitution.

Then we have protected individual freedom rights, totally detached from religious freedom rights in the constitution.
The "righties" would love to blur that separation and allow one to trump over the other.

Freedom of religion protected by the constitution simply means ones right to worship as one choses.
The constitution DOES NOT give that person any right to use their protected religion right to interfere with the individuals protected constitutional right.
Again, both religion rights and individual rights protected in the constitution.
As a separate, not as one.

A gay person does indeed have the full protected right to buy a pizza from any vender openly selling pizza to the public. Despite the pizza store owners personal religious rights or beliefs.
And the right to demand and expect all services offered from any store open to the public.
Even if that means baking a cake, hosting a gay wedding reception, or asked to photograph a gay wedding.
And that includes all services offered by a church, as well.

The constitution does not single out nor deny gays from the blanket protections of guaranteed individual rights.
Only misconceived state laws from misguided law makers have attempted to re-define constitutional protections.
Claiming sexual orientation i.e. being gay as separate from the protections already in place.

The constitution does not separate gay people from other citizens when it comes to rights and protections.
Only states have assumed that, then refused to pass laws to re-connect the two.
Which were never separate in the first place.

Actually, a state does not need pass special sexual orientation protection laws, because sexual orientation should be covered and protected under the constitutions blanket protection of all individual rights.
And there are no separations or mention in the constitution that any gay persons individual rights are somehow removed or non existent.

Selling a pizza or photographing a wedding or baking a cake or catering a wedding or conducting a church wedding in no way hinders ones constitutional freedom of religion rights to attend any church and worship any God they so chose.

A gay person eating your pizza is not going to keep anyone from attending church on Sunday.
Nor would catering a gay wedding deny anyone full access to their church.
Yes. Every single Baptist business owner can cater a gay wedding and still attend their church of choice come Sunday morning.
Not one pizza or wedding cake has ever denied another from Sunday worship.

Separation of church and state is the American way.
The way it must be if America is to remain a free nation as originally conceived.
Church could be defined as the constitutions freedom of religion clause.
And a gay wedding defined as the constitutions individual freedom clause.

Only persons that do not think much of our US constitution would even try to redefine and to blur the true meaning of American citizenship.
But still they try, and they try by twisting the meaning of the US constitution, and by twisting their constitutional freedom of religion right.

Gays have guaranteed constitutional freedoms and guaranteed constitutional rights too. And are also full US citizens as well.
Having full rights as guaranteed by the US constitution.
Gays can pursue happiness, pursue religion, and enjoy all the same freedom as everyone else in America.
That includes expecting all services offered from every business open to the public, and expect full access to every church operating in America.

If that idea is distasteful and considered some sort of threat to anyone for religious objections, then those people feeling threatened have the full right to leave America and move to a better suited country.
Some other country not observant of the Constitution of the United States.
.
.

Hi. You're a moron.

Take your pill.

 

[Knowing]

This is a terrible thread and the OP should feel terrible.

The right to discriminate is absolutely essential to being a free people in a free country. There is no right to not be offended.