Religious Freedom
1. What does the Indiana RFRA say?
Indiana's new Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), which Pence signed into law on March 26, says government can't intrude on a person's religious rights unless it has a compelling government interest and is acting in the least intrusive way possible
2. In what way could this law possibly allow other forms of discrimination?
[It] could legally protect employers, landlords, and business owners who discriminate against LGBT people on religious grounds
3. Why did then Governor Mike Pence clarify his interpretation of the law?
The change was a result of a week of nationwide pressure from public figures and businesses
4. What happened in the 1990 Supreme Court case that inspired the creation of the first RFRAs?
The laws first came about after a 1990 Supreme Court decision in which the court ruled someone could be fired for using peyote, a hallucinogenic drug, during a religious Native American ceremony
5. Why did "Advance America" support the new law?
In Indiana, Advance America, a local conservative organization, said on its website that the state's RFRA would help "Christian bakers, florists and photographers" so they're not "punished for refusing to participate in a homosexual marriage!"
6. How did the Supreme Court use the federal RFRA to alter the regulations in the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare)?
In 2014, the US Supreme Court cited the federal RFRA to exempt some employers from Obamacare's birth control mandate, which requires all employer-provided health plans to cover FDA-approved contraceptives without any cost-sharing for the patient
7. What situation caused these two parties to end up in the Supreme Court?
The case goes back to 2012. In July of that year, Charlie Craig and David Mullins, a same-sex couple, went to Masterpiece Cakeshop in Lakewood, Colorado, to try to buy a cake for a wedding reception. The owner, Jack Phillips, refused the request, arguing that due to his Christian beliefs, he opposed same-sex marriages and did not want to do anything that looked like an endorsement of a same-sex wedding.
8. What was Craig and Mullins' argument in the case?
Craig and Mullins filed charges of discrimination in response, citing a Colorado law that prohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation by public accommodations (places that are open to the public, such as hotels, restaurants, and bakeries).
9. How did Phillips defend his actions?
He argues that he’s not really discriminating against same-sex couples, because he would have served Craig and Mullins any non-wedding goods that they asked for. His only issue is that from his perspective, baking the couple a wedding cake would force him to celebrate an act he’s opposed to — and forcing him to do that, he argues, violates his First Amendment rights to free speech and religious expression.
10. How do we know that the Trump administration supported Phillips in this case?
It [the US Department of Justice, overseen by President Donald Trump and Attorney General Jeff Sessions] filed a friend-of-the-court briefsupporting Masterpiece Cakeshop’s legal arguments, which could influence the Supreme Court.
11. How do Phillips and his attorneys argue that the wedding cake is different than normal services he provides?
“Phillips serves LGBT individuals; he simply declines to create art that celebrates same-sex marriage,”
12. What do Colorado state laws say that might protect Craig and Mullins?
The basis for this is a state law, the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act, that declares, in short, that it’s unlawful to deny goods or services to someone due to their disability, race, creed, color, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, national origin, or ancestry.
Indiana's new Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), which Pence signed into law on March 26, says government can't intrude on a person's religious rights unless it has a compelling government interest and is acting in the least intrusive way possible
[It] could legally protect employers, landlords, and business owners who discriminate against LGBT people on religious grounds
3. Why did then Governor Mike Pence clarify his interpretation of the law?
The change was a result of a week of nationwide pressure from public figures and businesses
4. What happened in the 1990 Supreme Court case that inspired the creation of the first RFRAs?
The laws first came about after a 1990 Supreme Court decision in which the court ruled someone could be fired for using peyote, a hallucinogenic drug, during a religious Native American ceremony
5. Why did "Advance America" support the new law?
In Indiana, Advance America, a local conservative organization, said on its website that the state's RFRA would help "Christian bakers, florists and photographers" so they're not "punished for refusing to participate in a homosexual marriage!"
6. How did the Supreme Court use the federal RFRA to alter the regulations in the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare)?
In 2014, the US Supreme Court cited the federal RFRA to exempt some employers from Obamacare's birth control mandate, which requires all employer-provided health plans to cover FDA-approved contraceptives without any cost-sharing for the patient
7. What situation caused these two parties to end up in the Supreme Court?
The case goes back to 2012. In July of that year, Charlie Craig and David Mullins, a same-sex couple, went to Masterpiece Cakeshop in Lakewood, Colorado, to try to buy a cake for a wedding reception. The owner, Jack Phillips, refused the request, arguing that due to his Christian beliefs, he opposed same-sex marriages and did not want to do anything that looked like an endorsement of a same-sex wedding.
8. What was Craig and Mullins' argument in the case?
Craig and Mullins filed charges of discrimination in response, citing a Colorado law that prohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation by public accommodations (places that are open to the public, such as hotels, restaurants, and bakeries).
9. How did Phillips defend his actions?
He argues that he’s not really discriminating against same-sex couples, because he would have served Craig and Mullins any non-wedding goods that they asked for. His only issue is that from his perspective, baking the couple a wedding cake would force him to celebrate an act he’s opposed to — and forcing him to do that, he argues, violates his First Amendment rights to free speech and religious expression.
10. How do we know that the Trump administration supported Phillips in this case?
It [the US Department of Justice, overseen by President Donald Trump and Attorney General Jeff Sessions] filed a friend-of-the-court briefsupporting Masterpiece Cakeshop’s legal arguments, which could influence the Supreme Court.
11. How do Phillips and his attorneys argue that the wedding cake is different than normal services he provides?
“Phillips serves LGBT individuals; he simply declines to create art that celebrates same-sex marriage,”
12. What do Colorado state laws say that might protect Craig and Mullins?
The basis for this is a state law, the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act, that declares, in short, that it’s unlawful to deny goods or services to someone due to their disability, race, creed, color, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, national origin, or ancestry.
Comments
Post a Comment