• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Berkeley reverses decision to cancel speech by conservative pundit Ann Coulter

chromium said:
I do think there's evidence the federal RFRA was created to protect minority religions such as by native tribes. But like many benignly titled laws, a more unwieldy form took over in recent years at the state level, directly in response to the progress that's been made in cities passing anti discrimination laws.

Chuck Shumer who introduced the federal RFRA said the claim that the indiana version mirrors it is "completely false" and "disingenuous" and "in no way resembles the intent or application of the federal RFRA."

Here is the relevant pathetically simplistic federal text:

Government shall not substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion...Exception...(1) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest

So this has nothing to do with lgbt clearly and no court has allowed it to be used for discrimination, as government does have a compelling interest to prevent that.

The indiana version is much longer and protects the religious 'expression' of for profit corporations, which is the most preposterous thing ever and not at all in the spirit of protecting religious minorities (section 7.3). Section 9 also makes clear that action can be taken not only when religious expression is actually burdened but when a claimant *feels* that it *could* be burdened (i.e. by the 'gay agenda')

This is a direct conflict with equal protection, in which the civil rights act protects certain groups but not others. It's nothing more than a license to discriminate. In fact, when the indiana "RFRA" was amended due to the backlash to exclude discrimination, the very groups behind it were displeased. So what does that tell you about the purpose of it all along. The fact is that if the federal and state RFRA were identical, there's no reason for a state version

And yeah, Scalia never met my intellectual standards
Click to expand...

Right, 'coz Chuck Schumer would never lie through his teeth for political hay. Not Chuck.
 
chromium said:
I forgot to add: if the federal and state RFRA were identical, there'd be no need for a state version to come after, except of course politics - to perpetuate us vs them in the same way the state ballots to ban gay marriage did, even where it was already banned, and in the same way Coulter does everything

She goes out of her way to be divisive as hell and THAT was her purpose of feigning an interest in speaking at Berkeley
Click to expand...

The federal RFRA applies to the federal government only, not the states. So yeah, there's plenty of reason for state RFRAs that are identical to the federal act.
 
chromium said:
And yeah, Scalia never met my intellectual standards
Click to expand...

No doubt posters here who have seen you display your profound understanding of constitutional law on these forums will not be surprised to hear that. I don't recall you saying what law school you graduated from, but surely they would not imagine that a dim bulb like Justice Scalia could measure up to you.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom