NM Supreme Court Forces Christian to Take Gay Wedding Photos

[Auralia]

Do you have any examples of SCOTUS saying that private sector antidiscrimination law trumps RFRA-like legislation?

City of Boerne v. Flores. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/City_of_Boerne_v._Flores
The federal RFRA was ruled unconstitutional and an overreach of government power under the Fourteenth Amendment.

As applied to the states, not the federal government. States remain free to enact their own RFRAs, and New Mexico has done just that.

[Auralia]

The Catholic Church teaches that participation in gay "commitment ceremonies" is wrong.

You may not have noticed, but New Mexico is not located in Vatican City.

Irrelevant. We're talking about the RFRA.

[Geilinor]

After SCOTUS struck down federal RFRA laws, the Sherbert Test was reintroduced. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sherbert_Test#The_Sherbert_Test

[Geilinor]

You may not have noticed, but New Mexico is not located in Vatican City.

Irrelevant. We're talking about the RFRA.

Please read all of my posts with the SCOTUS cases.

[Wikkiwallana]

It's not my job to justify my religious beliefs to you.

In which case, it's not the law's job to give a damn.

[The Parkus Empire]

So should we go back to pre-Civil Rights Act segregation?

To be fair, that was also government enforced segregation.

Yeah, no. The government stopped segregating a while before the Civil Rights Act.

[Geilinor]

Employment Division v. Smith ruled that "neutral laws of general applicability do not violate the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Employment_Division_v._Smith
A general anti-discrimination law does not violate the free exercise of religion, just like general anti-drug laws don't apply to Native American rituals.

Although states have the power to accommodate otherwise illegal acts done in pursuit of religious beliefs, they are not required to do so..."It is a permissible reading of the [free exercise clause]...to say that if prohibiting the exercise of religion is not the object of the [law] but merely the incidental effect of a generally applicable and otherwise valid provision, the First Amendment has not been offended....To make an individual's obligation to obey such a law contingent upon the law's coincidence with his religious beliefs, except where the State's interest is 'compelling' - permitting him, by virtue of his beliefs, 'to become a law unto himself,' contradicts both constitutional tradition and common sense.' To adopt a true 'compelling interest' requirement for laws that affect religious practice would lead towards anarchy."

Prohibiting the free exercise of religion is not New Mexico's goal. It is merely the incidental effect of a generally applicable and otherwise valid provision. Adopting a true "compelling interest" requirement, as Auralia said, according to SCOTUS, will lead to anarchy.

[Wikkiwallana]

Speaking as a Christian. It's a religion. Just because I feel close to Him does not change the fact that He is a supernatural being whom I worship.

I never said otherwise, it was just a joke.

Sorry, this whole thread has been framed as "atheists vs Christians" by quite a few of the people involved, and it's put me on edge.

[Auralia]

After SCOTUS struck down federal RFRA laws, the Sherbert Test was reintroduced. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sherbert_Test#The_Sherbert_Test

SCOTUS did not strike down the federal RFRA. They just said it couldn't be applied to the states. To this day, it still applies to the federal government. In fact, it's the reason why the HHS contraceptive mandate is probably going to be declared illegal.

[Auralia]

Employment Division v. Smith ruled that "neutral laws of general applicability do not violate the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Employment_Division_v._Smith
A general anti-discrimination law does not violate the free exercise of religion, just like general anti-drug laws don't apply to Native American rituals.

Although states have the power to accommodate otherwise illegal acts done in pursuit of religious beliefs, they are not required to do so.

Yes. That was why RFRAs were enacted: to effectively restore the strict scrutiny standard for religious freedom.

[Mavorpen]

No. Because that's not my claim.

Well then whatever it is that you are claiming is irrelevant to this discussion.

SCOTUS stating that racial discrimination>religious freedom is irrelevant to a discussion about racial discrimination and religious freedom?

I know you're desperate, but seriously?

[Blasveck]

To be fair, that was also government enforced segregation.

Yeah, no. The government stopped segregating a while before the Civil Rights Act.

What about Jim Crow laws?

When were those repealed?

[Wikkiwallana]

You may not have noticed, but New Mexico is not located in Vatican City.

Irrelevant. We're talking about the RFRA.

The one you still hasn't proved is applicable, btw, despite my repeated requests for an explanation of how a photographer having to take photographs is a burden, let alone an undue one.

[Mavorpen]

Employment Division v. Smith ruled that "neutral laws of general applicability do not violate the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Employment_Division_v._Smith
A general anti-discrimination law does not violate the free exercise of religion, just like general anti-drug laws don't apply to Native American rituals.

Yes. That was why RFRAs were enacted: to restore strict scrutiny.

Yes. Which doesn't include getting rid of private discrimination.

[Spoder]

To be fair, that was also government enforced segregation.

Yeah, no. The government stopped segregating a while before the Civil Rights Act.

Not the whole of the government. There's a documentary (Forgot the name.) about a group of black children who moved into the white high school, instead of their high school because they were learning far beyond what the local black school could prove. At some point, people started throwing rocks at them, so the President sent homeland in to protect the black students. A few months later, after homeland left, the army was ordered by the governer to not allow the students into the school.

[Geilinor]

Employment Division v. Smith ruled that "neutral laws of general applicability do not violate the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Employment_Division_v._Smith
A general anti-discrimination law does not violate the free exercise of religion, just like general anti-drug laws don't apply to Native American rituals.

Although states have the power to accommodate otherwise illegal acts done in pursuit of religious beliefs, they are not required to do so..."It is a permissible reading of the [free exercise clause]...to say that if prohibiting the exercise of religion is not the object of the [law] but merely the incidental effect of a generally applicable and otherwise valid provision, the First Amendment has not been offended....To make an individual's obligation to obey such a law contingent upon the law's coincidence with his religious beliefs, except where the State's interest is 'compelling' - permitting him, by virtue of his beliefs, 'to become a law unto himself,' contradicts both constitutional tradition and common sense.' To adopt a true 'compelling interest' requirement for laws that affect religious practice would lead towards anarchy."

Prohibiting the free exercise of religion is not New Mexico's goal. It is merely the incidental effect of a generally applicable and otherwise valid provision. Adopting a true "compelling interest" requirement, as Auralia said, according to SCOTUS, will lead to anarchy.

Auralia, the Supreme Court addressed the compelling interest requirement.

[Wikkiwallana]

In fact, it's the reason why the HHS contraceptive mandate is probably going to be declared illegal.

If that happens, I'm going to be extremely pissed all over again.

[Auralia]

Well then whatever it is that you are claiming is irrelevant to this discussion.

SCOTUS stating that racial discrimination>religious freedom is irrelevant to a discussion about racial discrimination and religious freedom?

I know you're desperate, but seriously?

SCOTUS may have said that racial discrimination overrules religious freedom, but in what context? Was it government-sponsored discrimination, or private-sector discrimination? Did a law like the RFRA exist at the time, and would it have changed things?

[Mavorpen]

Yeah, no. The government stopped segregating a while before the Civil Rights Act.

Not the whole of the government. There's a documentary (Forgot the name.) about a group of black children who moved into the white high school, instead of their high school because they were learning far beyond what the local black school could prove. At some point, people started throwing rocks at them, so the President sent homeland in to protect the black students. A few months later, after homeland left, the army was ordered by the governer to not allow the students into the school.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Rock_Nine

[Mavorpen]

SCOTUS stating that racial discrimination>religious freedom is irrelevant to a discussion about racial discrimination and religious freedom?

I know you're desperate, but seriously?

SCOTUS may have said that racial discrimination overrules religious freedom, but in what context? Was it government-sponsored discrimination, or private-sector discrimination? Did a law like the RFRA exist at the time, and would it have changed things?

It was private sector discrimination.

[Auralia]

Employment Division v. Smith ruled that "neutral laws of general applicability do not violate the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Employment_Division_v._Smith
A general anti-discrimination law does not violate the free exercise of religion, just like general anti-drug laws don't apply to Native American rituals.
Prohibiting the free exercise of religion is not New Mexico's goal. It is merely the incidental effect of a generally applicable and otherwise valid provision. Adopting a true "compelling interest" requirement, as Auralia said, according to SCOTUS, will lead to anarchy.

Auralia, the Supreme Court addressed the compelling interest requirement.

Yes, for the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment. The federal and state RFRAs are different, though.

[Auralia]

SCOTUS may have said that racial discrimination overrules religious freedom, but in what context? Was it government-sponsored discrimination, or private-sector discrimination? Did a law like the RFRA exist at the time, and would it have changed things?

It was private sector discrimination.

And on what grounds did the Supreme Court declare it illegal?

[Blasveck]

Auralia, the Supreme Court addressed the compelling interest requirement.

Yes, for the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment. The federal and state RFRAs are different, though.

And your religious freedom isn't harmed. You're still free to believe in whatever God you want to.

[Geilinor]

Auralia, the Supreme Court addressed the compelling interest requirement.

Yes, for the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment. The federal and state RFRAs are different, though.

Let's talk about state RFRAs, then. You brought up SCOTUS in the first place. Gay rights are a compelling state interest, just as the rights of racial minorities are a state interest, as I have said numerous times.

[The Parkus Empire]

Yeah, no. The government stopped segregating a while before the Civil Rights Act.

What about Jim Crow laws?

When were those repealed?

Oh, yeah, state government. But overt discrimination was still going on even without Jim Crow laws, like with that hotel thing.