Not sure how to bring it up exactly…is anyone following the New Mexico photographer and AZ law?

[Richard Herd]

[Mitch Ives] “[Bill Davis] “The AZ statute was designed to elevate the rights of “religious groups” ABOVE the rights of other protected classes, among them, those with a specific sexual orientation.”

That’s a rather subjective opinion. Having read the Law, I didn’t come to that conclusion.”

Actually, it does say that (in a legal way). It’s really hard to cut and paste the text because it’s a legal pleading format, but here it is anyway:

7 B. Except as provided in subsection C, government OF THIS SECTION,
8 STATE ACTION shall not substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion
9 even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability.
10 C. Government STATE ACTION may substantially burden a person’s
11 exercise of religion only if it THE OPPOSING PARTY demonstrates that
12 application of the burden to the person PERSON’S EXERCISE OF RELIGION IN THIS
13 PARTICULAR INSTANCE is both:
14 1. In furtherance of a compelling governmental interest.
15 2. The least restrictive means of furthering that compelling
16 governmental interest.
17 D. A person whose religious exercise is burdened in violation of this
18 section may assert that violation as a claim or defense in a judicial
19 proceeding, and obtain appropriate relief against a government REGARDLESS OF
20 WHETHER THE GOVERNMENT IS A PARTY TO THE PROCEEDING. THE PERSON ASSERTING
21 SUCH A CLAIM OR DEFENSE MAY OBTAIN APPROPRIATE RELIEF. A party who prevails
22 in any action to enforce this article against a government shall recover
23 attorney fees and costs.

The above selected quote does exactly what Bill says it does, “elevate the rights of religious groups above the rights of other protected classes.” It is done by limiting State Action (in line 8 and 9). But they did not just stop there, the authors realized that there may be instances where line 8 and 9 need to be limited, so they wrote lines 14 and 15. One example of a compelling governmental interest is National Security. I’ll just state it outright: Religious-based Terrorists cannot use the AZ law to get out of trouble.

And to make the law even stronger, line 17 and following define the adjudication when a person whose Religious Rights (as defined by this law) are violated. Not only does line 7 – 9 define State Action, but line 19 and following broaden the law to disputes between private parties.

I bring this up, because other States will pass very similar laws.

[Herb Sevush]

[Mitch Ives] “[Herb Sevush] “No, I would guess A*holes come in at around 30% of the population, give or take. What group are you talking about?”
Is there a poll for that? I’m guessing it’s gotten much higher in the last 5 years…”

Yes, early polling data unearthed in Wadi Qumran next to the dead sea scrolls indicate that this number hasn’t fluctuated much since the time of Hammurabi, it’s just that more of them are on television now.

[Mitch Ives] “Really? The photographer in NM… the cake bakers in Washington (?). Seems they had little choice. Remember, nothing is a problem until it affects you… then it’s Defcon1.”

You left out the florist, but let’s see, that’s 3 cases in a country of 300 million, and in each case the business owner, instead of just politely refusing the business, made a a point of standing on their religious “right” to be a bigot. Yes, I’m definitely worried about this now, might have to take out special “I’m an idiot” insurance to cover the liability.

[Mitch Ives] “Too late for that. It’s precisely what you’ve identified that got us here. Chicken and egg argument?”

It’s never too late to be reasonable.

Herb Sevush
Zebra Productions
—————————
nothin’ attached to nothin’
“Deciding the spine is the process of editing” F. Bieberkopf