Religious expression defending itself with a shield or attacking with a sword?

[UTEopia]

The First Amendment reads, in part: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

States are passing laws or considering passing laws to somehow protect the free exercise of religion. The LDS Church held a press conference a couple of months back to encourage legislation in Utah to protect LGBT from discrimination in housing and employment but much of the press conference was devoted to identifying an "attack" being waged on religion and encouraging legislation that will protect individuals from consequences of certain conduct so long as they engage in the conduct in furtherance of the free exercise of religion. The NCAA, the NFL, the coaches in the Final Four have all adopted positions striking back at States that enact religious exemptions that would allow discrimination in providing goods and services in commerce.

I sit in my LDS High Priest Group in little old Holladay, Utah and hear some around me voice that we need to stand up to the attack on the free exercise of religion and wonder what world I have landed in and whether I am oblivious to what is going on around me because I don't feel any pressure or attack on my religious expression. Admittedly, I am a lawyer, more liberal than not, have relatives and friends from a diverse collection of races, cultures, religions and sexual persuasions.

A couple of questions to get the ball rolling:

Are States that pass legislation giving preference to religious expression over other rights making laws respecting the establishment of religion?

Has anyone ever heard of a corporation being a member of a Church?

Does my right to exercise my religious beliefs (good, bad, stupid, intolerant) end when I leave the Church and home and enter the world of commerce?

Are mainstream Republicans really interested in the type of legislation in question in Indiana and Georgia?

Will Indiana and Georgia cave in to the threat of economic consequences or will they stick to their principals/prejudices?

If I am an atheist flower shop owner in Indiana refuse to sell to an obviously gay couple simply because I find the behavior yucky or do I have to be a religious flower shop owner in Indiana to have that right?

[LA Ute]

First, i want to make clear that if I were a baker I'd make the gay couple the wedding cake and if I were a photographer I'd do their wedding photos. I can't help thinking that people have chosen the wrong battle to fight, maybe on both sides of this issue.

Second, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act doesn't authorize or immunize any kind of behavior. (I'm talking about the federal act, which was a response to a Supreme Court decision. many states have copied the federal act because the Supreme Court later said the federal act didn't apply to the states.) All the RFRA does is give someone who feels that a law has excessively burdened his or her religious beliefs an argument to make in court. Whether or not the person making that argument wins in court, as you know, will depend on a number of factors. There is much less here than meets the eye, IMO.

Here's one view of the controversy:

http://www.wsj.com/articles/the-new-intolerance-1427760183

Here's another view of it:

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/03/what-makes-indianas-religious-freedom-law-different/388997/

You can decide which one you like. I like this one best:

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/416248/indianas-law-not-return-jim-crow-jonah-goldberg

Third, the way Gov. Pence handled the Indiana law was stupid. It's great to say the law is not about stopping gay rights from expanding, but if that's the case, don't surround yourself at the signing ceremony with a bunch of high-profile nationally-known gay marriage opponents.

I like Utah's law on this subject. It's an effort at meeting in the middle. Not easy to do on this issue.

[UTEopia]

Interesting articles LA. Thank you for posting. I guess my real questions is what is the motivation for this type of legislation?

Is it that people, including some leaders of the LDS Church, believe that government is doing something that prohibits the free exercise of religion and, if so, what are the things that government is doing that causes that belief?

Is it simple bigotry?

Is it some misguided (IMO) belief that you are failing to carry the cross of Christ if you don't stand up to sin and this is the way they are standing up to sin?

I'm guessing that there are people who fall into each of these categories and more who are behind these types of laws, but the mentality is disturbing and while the brouhaha created by the media and others about the Indiana law might be over the top, the message of intolerance and bigotry that these laws engender is scary. Most of the atrocities committed throughout history have been the result of overzealous religious people who refuse to tolerate those who think, act or believe the way they do.

[LA Ute]

Why do I like Utah's law? Because it addresses the concerns about of both sides in the debate. Religious folks fear they will be forced to violate their conscience; gays fear the laws designed to prevent that from happening will authorize discrimination against them in access to publicly available goods and services. I guess those are the motivations. The Utah law tries to address both. The Indiana law at first didn't address the discrimination issue, and then they scrambled to amend it to do so. A mess. Overreactions on both sides, IMO.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[jrj84105]

"In response, Congress passed a law barring the government from putting a burden on religious practice without a compelling state interest."

What if instead, Congress passed a law barring the government from putting a burden on ANY practice without a compelling state interest.

That's how you address the concerns of both sides equally. That would eliminate any religious interference with gay marriage AND any gay interference with devotional cake-baking.