Arkansas Governor Won't Sign Bill — Yet
The “license to discriminate” law is being sent back to the legislature, the governor announced this morning.
Advocate.com Editors
www.advocate.com/politics/2015/04/01/arkansas-governor-wont-sign-bill-yet
Daily Archives: April 1, 2015
Arkansas Governor: My Son Asked Me To Veto 'Religious Freedom' Bill
Arkansas Governor: My Son Asked Me To Veto 'Religious Freedom' Bill
WASHINGTON — Arkansas Gov. Asa Hutchinson (R) pulled back his support for a “religious freedom” bill Wednesday, citing the controversy and division it has created not only within his state, but also within his own family.
“The issue has become divisive because our nation remains split on how to balance the diversity of our culture with the traditions and firmly held religious convictions,” Hutchison said in a press conference Wednesday morning. “It has divided families, and there is clearly a generational gap on this issue.”
“My son Seth signed the petition asking me, Dad, the governor, to veto this bill,” he added. “And he gave me permission to make that reference, and it shows that families — and there’s a generational difference of opinion on these issues.”
Seth Hutchinson is a labor organizer with the Texas State Employees Union. He was not immediately available for comment.
The governor’s move is a significant shift: Hutchinson had previously said he would sign the bill, which was approved by the Arkansas state legislature earlier this week.
But since then, Walmart, which is the world’s largest retailer and is headquartered in Arkansas, asked Hutchison to veto the legislation. And the governor was no doubt watching what was going on in Indiana, where Gov. Mike Pence (R) has been facing a wave of national backlash — including a slew of companies and groups canceling events in the state — since he signed his state’s Religious Freedom Restoration Act last week.
Hutchison said Wednesday he wants state lawmakers to rewrite Arkansas’ bill to make it more consistent with the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which has a narrower scope.
HUFFPOST READERS: If you live in Indiana, we want to hear about how this law is affecting you. Email your story or any tips to [email protected]. Include your name, the city you live in, and a phone number if you’re willing to be contacted by a reporter.
Cue The Backlash: Arkansas Passes Its Own “Religious Freedom” Bill, Governor Prepares To Sign It Into Law
Cue The Backlash: Arkansas Passes Its Own “Religious Freedom” Bill, Governor Prepares To Sign It Into Law
Oh, brother. Here we go again.
Evidently, Republican lawmakers in the great state of Arkansas have learned absolutely nothing from the fallout currently taking place in Indiana after lawmakers there passed a bill legalizing discrimination against gay people, because yesterday they voted for their own “religious freedom” bill and–guess what? — it passed!
The bill sailed through the Arkansas Legislature and is currently on its merry way to Gov. Asa Hutchinson’s desk, where it is expected to be signed without delay.
Just like Indiana’s law, Arkansas’ “religious freedom” bill grants business owners the right to discriminate against anyone — gay, Muslim, female, you name it — who they feel “substantially burdens” their religious beliefs, whatever the hell that means.
During Monday’s committee hearing, some lawmakers expressed concerns that the bill may infringe upon people’s civil rights, so they proposed a solution: adding a non-discrimination disclaimer to the legislation.
But Rep. Bob Ballinger (R), the bill’s proud author, said that would be “too confusing,” since people have different definitions of discrimination.
“If that means that you can force somebody who has deeply held religious beliefs to engage in some activity that violates their deeply held religious beliefs, and that the state has the right to force them into doing it, I can’t say that I do agree with that,” he said.
Gov. Hutchinson seems giddy to sign the bill the moment it hits his desk. In a statement last week, he said: “Arkansas is open for business, and we recognize and respect the diversity of our culture and economy” before adding, proudly: “I will sign this bill.”
Related stories:
Six Reasons Why Indiana’s Antigay Law Is Even Worse Than You Imagined
Kid Brother Jeb Bush Jumps Into The Hate Pit With Mike Pence And Indiana Republicans
Graham Gremore
😳😂😳😂😳#turnupwitmebish THIS FRIDAY & EVERY FRIDAY COME JOIN US FOR THE HOTTEST #1 LGBT #GirlcodeFridaze PARTY AT VITA LOUNGE…. —- SEXY… WE GOT IT… BADDDD… WR GOT IT… FINEEEE MAN, THEY DEFINITELY COME THRU!!!! —
Frankie Grande: Smoking 'Ain't Cute,' Guys
Frankie Grande: Smoking 'Ain't Cute,' Guys
Reality and Broadway star Frankie Grande is the son of a pulmonologist and says smoking and cancer ain’t cute.
Frankie Grande
www.advocate.com/commentary/2015/04/01/frankie-grande-smoking-aint-cute-guys
RFRA 101: A Brief History Of Indiana's Religious Freedom Restoration Act
RFRA 101: A Brief History Of Indiana's Religious Freedom Restoration Act
(RNS) Before this week, few people had heard of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act or could even pronounce its acronym, RFRA (Riff-ra), even though there’s a federal version of the law and 20 states have passed their own versions. Is it a “license to discriminate,” as liberals claim, or a “protection of religious freedom,” as conservatives claim?
In fact, it’s both.
There are three sources for Indiana’s RFRA: the religious exemptions movement, RFRA’s own history and, most recently, the Hobby Lobby case.
First, the idea of religious exemptions to civil rights laws is as old as civil rights laws themselves. In the 1970s, for example, conservative Christian organizations demanded exemptions to the Civil Rights Act and similar laws. The most famous of these was Bob Jones University, which maintained race-based admissions and housing policies all the way into the 1990s. The Supreme Court dealt these organizations a blow, however, when it upheld an IRS decision to strip Bob Jones of tax-exempt status.
Religious exemptions are also widespread in the area of reproductive health. Doctors, nurses and even entire hospitals are routinely exempt from having to perform or assist in abortions. These exemptions are now being extended to pharmacists not wishing to dispense contraceptives — and, most famously, to corporations not wanting to pay for insurance coverage for them.
Such exemptions are always a matter of scope. Nearly everyone would agree, for example, that a priest should be exempt from civil rights laws; he should not have to solemnize a same-sex wedding or an interreligious one, if doing so is against his religious belief.
But what about a public pavilion owned by a church that advertises itself as available for rent? Or how about a privately owned hotel not wanting to rent a room to a gay couple? These are all actual cases, and they point out how religious exemptions are a matter of degree.
The second root of Indiana’s crisis is RFRA itself. In 1993, the federal RFRA was passed in response to a Supreme Court case that found Native Americans guilty of drug laws for having ingested peyote. This seemed like the wrong result to a wide variety of people, and so when RFRA passed, it was nearly unanimous — supported as much by Democrats as Republicans.
What RFRA did — in the federal and later in state versions — was change the way courts interpreted competing rights claims. It replaced the balancing test that the Supreme Court had used in the Native American case with a much more exacting standard, requiring a “compelling state interest” justifying a ban on religious practice, an action “narrowly tailored” to that interest, and the “least restrictive” means of pursuing it.
This is a very high standard, and it’s meant to block all but a few government actions.
Until the last few years, though, RFRA cases were victimless. No one is personally affected if the Native American uses peyote, a military officer wishes to wear a yarmulke or a church seeks a zoning variance. None of these carried what lawyers call “third-party harms.”
That all changed in the 2000s, as conservative activists began using RFRA in a new way: as a sword, rather than a shield. Now, they argued, my religious belief should trump your civil rights. Gays and lesbians may see the florist’s refusal as discrimination, but she sees it as freedom of religion.
These two streams — religious exemptions and RFRA — converged in the Hobby Lobby case, decided last year.
In that case, the Supreme Court decided, for the first time, that RFRA could be sword as well as shield. A corporation could deny someone their legal rights, and then claim religious freedom as a defense.
That was a game-changer. With the court’s imprimatur, a host of lawsuits were filed around the country using RFRA to defend against claims of discrimination. Those lawsuits are still ongoing.
Which brings us to Indiana. Yes, as Gov. Mike Pence has said many times, 19 other states also have RFRAs. But Indiana is only the second state, after Mississippi, to pass one in the new, post-Hobby Lobby reality.
Arizona’s governor vetoed that state’s version, Oklahoma dropped its; and Georgia and Texas appear poised to reject their versions. Late Tuesday afternoon (March 31), though, Arkansas passed its own RFRA measure, which will now go to Gov. Asa Hutchinson for his signature or veto.
Now, is Pence right that this law is just about protecting religious freedom? Or are his opponents right that it’s about legalizing discrimination?
Both are — but the opponents more so.
On the surface, Pence is correct. The law prohibits government restriction of religious exercise without a compelling state interest.
In reality, though, this law and others like it have been advanced by social conservatives who repeatedly give examples about LGBT people: a photographer in New Mexico found guilty of civil rights laws for turning a gay couple away, a baker in Colorado, a florist in Washington, that church-owned pavilion in New Jersey. These are all actual, not hypothetical, cases.
And how you see them depends on whose perspective you want to take. The plaintiffs are generally sincere; that New Mexico photographer really felt that her religion forbade her from “participating in” a same-sex wedding. How can the government force her to violate her conscience?
Then again, from the perspective of the customers she turned away, the sting of discrimination is real. And what kind of message would it send, allowing “No Gays Allowed” signs to be posted around town? And why wouldn’t the same logic apply to Jews, African-Americans, women — anyone, really?
One resolution to this conflict might be to remember that corporations have to play by the rules of the marketplace. This is not what the Supreme Court said in Hobby Lobby, but it might help the photographer who feels sincerely torn. Render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s, the Bible says — anti-discrimination law included.
Moreover, taking pictures does not make one complicit in the marital act. Just as you’re not responsible if your client turns out to be a thief, you’re not responsible if your client turns out to be a “sodomite” or sinner of any other kind.
Really, though, the Indiana case is about politics, not religious philosophy. Pence is an ambitious politician, and he gave his conservative backers what they wanted. Now it all may backfire. Seventy-five percent of Americans oppose discrimination against LGBT people, even though only 55 percent support same-sex marriage. Moreover, while America remains a uniquely religious nation, it also respects the rule of law. And letting people discriminate because of religion is not what the rule of law is about.
(Jay Michaelson is a columnist for The Daily Beast and author of the 2013 report “Redefining Religious Liberty: The Covert Campaign Against Civil Rights.”)
Where do Potential 2016 GOP Presidential Hopefuls Stand on Indiana’s RFRA?
Where do Potential 2016 GOP Presidential Hopefuls Stand on Indiana’s RFRA?
-blgo263.jpg)
Since Indiana Governor Mike Pence signed the so-called “Religious Freedom Restoration Act” into law last Thursday, dozens of major companies and prominent elected officials on both sides of the aisle, have come out against the discriminatory legislation.
HRC.org
PHOTOS: Guys With Slick Hands And Sweaty Bodies Party Their Pants Off In L.A.
PHOTOS: Guys With Slick Hands And Sweaty Bodies Party Their Pants Off In L.A.
Every third Friday at The Eagle in Los Angeles is D*ckslap, a wonderland full of free beard rubs, slick hands and magical dancing gogo men. This month featured Andy Bulter of Hercules & Love Affair. And can you spot one of the stars of last season’s Drag Race amongst the throng? Hint: he’s disguised as a boy.
Take a peek at some of the rowdiness below and see the full gallery at GayCities.
Photo credit: Matt Baume
Graham Gremore
What's Really In Indiana's Anti-Gay 'Religious Liberty' Bill: A Legal Analysis
What's Really In Indiana's Anti-Gay 'Religious Liberty' Bill: A Legal Analysis
Governor Mike Pence of Indiana has, along with a group of apologists on the right, gone to great lengths to assure the public that his state’s right-to-discriminate law is no different than the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA). That is an odd position to take for several reasons.
First, it’s not true. There are obvious textual differences. Still, we have to be honest about the fact that through judicial interpretation, the federal RFRA has bloated to the point where it is nearing the explicit and astounding breadth of Indiana’s version. So, maybe it’s not the differences that we should be worried about.
Second, the words don’t match the actions. While averring that Indiana’s RFRA just copies its federal cousin, Governor Pence is also asking his state’s legislature to amend the law to clarify that it is indeed no different than the federal RFRA. That begs the question: if it’s already the same, why does it need to be fixed to make it the same.
And, third, it really misses the point. We shouldn’t be satisfied with a state RFRA that is in fact identical to the current interpretation of the federal RFRA because we shouldn’t be satisfied with the current interpretation of the federal RFRA. That people started to notice the problem when Indiana made its bigotry explicit is, in a sense, a silver lining. But the wolf has been hiding in sheep’s clothing for some time.
So what’s really in Indiana’s right-to-discriminate law? That’s what this column is about. But we will also see that it isn’t so much the textual differences as much as the timing and boldness of Indiana’s bigotry. Make no mistake: this law is about us, and it is about allowing individuals to discriminate against us on the pretextual and undemocratic basis of their personal religious beliefs. The law is animated by animus toward gays, dolled up in the language of religious freedom. And that’s what makes it so dangerous.
CONTINUED, AFTER THE JUMP…
Indiana’s RFRA differs from the text of the federal RFRA in three important ways:
First, Section 7.3 explicitly protects the exercise of religion, and religion-based discrimination, by companies and corporations, not just individuals. Nor does Section 7.3 explicitly limit the right to closely-held corporations, or those owned by a single individual or a family.
This seems to create a giant chasm between Indiana’s and the federal RFRA. But remember that in Hobby Lobby, a majority of the Supreme Court extended the federal RFRA to closely-held corporations, so a provision that permits corporations to use religion as a pretext to discriminate is not so new. Also, Section 7.3 does limit the reach of the law to corporations where “individuals” with a “system of religious beliefs” have “control or substantial ownership” of the company. Corporations that fit that description usually turn out to be closely-held corporations.
But that need not be the case. Indiana’s statute could also apply to a public company where the majority shareholder has a system of religious beliefs that compel him to take the public company in a particular direction. That is not in the federal RFRA. Nor was it included in Hobby Lobby. Still, this isn’t as big a difference as it sounds: there just aren’t many (if any) public corporations run by a majority shareholder who is also a religious zealot, but the law could have the unintended consequence of allowing such shareholders to decide–against all good business sense–to discriminate against gays.
Second, Section 9 of the Indiana RFRA protects persons “whose exercise of religion has been substantially burdened, or is likely to be substantially burdened” by government action. The is likely to be language does not appear in the federal RFRA; under that law, your religious beliefs have to actually be burdened to give you standing to bring the lawsuit. The effect of the added language in Indiana’s RFRA is to open the door to litigating the right to discriminate earlier.
It’s clear to me from this provision that a litigator, or former litigator, may have been involved in writing this statute. The is likely to language tracks the standard we use for a “preliminary injunction,” or an order by a court to stop something, in this case, a law that burdens free exercise of religion rights, from taking effect. We grant preliminary injunctions when, among other things, a party can show a “likelihood of success on the merits.” So, it seems that the Indiana RFRA is explicitly codifying the preliminary injunction language into the statute. This has the effect of giving potential discriminators more weapons. That’s definitely bad, but it’s a little arcane.
The third difference is the most important. Unlike the language of the federal RFRA, Indiana’s law explicitly provides for a defense in a private discrimination suit. The federal RFRA was passed as a weapon for individuals to protect themselves against federal laws that impinge their right to exercise their religion freely. The Indiana law doesn’t just offer a weapon against state laws; it also is a weapon to protect Mary Sue Cakebaker in a lawsuit brought by Abbi and Ilana when Mary Sue refuses to serve them before they are lesbians.
This is why Indiana’s law is a license to discriminate. It is a shield for bigots, not a shield against government encroachment.
But if you look at the law in the Second, Eighth, Ninth, and DC Circuits, you will find appellate court holdings that the federal RFRA does the same thing. Then-Judge Sotomayor dissented from the Second Circuit’s decision in Hankins v. Lyght (2006) finding a private lawsuit defense in the federal RFRA. The Sixth and Seventh Circuits agreed with Justice Sotomayor and said that RFRA only applies when you’re suing the government. Notably, it was Judge Posner who wrote the precedential decision in the Seventh Circuit, tossing, in his unique I’ve-had-enough-of-this-nonsense way, the litigants’ attempt to extend the federal RFRA to purely private actions.
This leaves us with an Indiana law that is clearly different from the federal RFRA, but not as different as some of the heated rhetoric would have you believe. That doesn’t mean that the anger is unwarranted. Rather, it should not be solely directed at Indiana, its legislature, its governor, and its bigoted law. We should be angry–and a little bit worried–that the current judicial interpretation of the federal RFRA is so broad that it extends to some corporations, can be invoked pre-injury in the preliminary injunction context, and could be a defense in a purely private lawsuit (depending on where you are).
The real evil of Indiana’s RFRA is two-fold. Its timing, coming on the heels of marriage equality victories in an avalanche of states in anticipation of a likely victory at the Supreme Court and coming so soon after business owners in Washington and Colorado and elsewhere have tried to refuse service to gays because their religions ostensible require hatred and bigotry, clearly suggests that it was born out of animus and targeted, in purpose and effect, at the gay community.
But it is the second evil in the Indiana law that should leave us shaken. Though so obviously motivated by animus and so obviously targeted at us, the law is couched in the far more palatable language of religious freedom. This makes all RFRAs wolves in sheep’s clothing, not just Indiana’s. They have a built in persuasive message and a built in constituency, several of whom sit on the Supreme Court.
We may win “clarifications” of Indiana’s RFRA to make it more like the federal RFRA. That’s not a victory. In fact, it’s much more dangerous: it implies that the federal RFRA is a good thing that we’re willing to accept. It isn’t and we shouldn’t.
***
Follow me on Twitter and on Facebook.
Ari Ezra Waldman is a professor of law and the Director of the Institute for Information Law and Policy at New York Law School and is concurrently pursuingWhat his PhD at Columbia University in New York City. He is a 2002 graduate of Harvard College and a 2005 graduate of Harvard Law School. Ari writes weekly posts on law and various LGBT issues.
Ari Ezra Waldman
www.towleroad.com/2015/04/whats-really-in-indianas-anti-gay-discrimination-bill.html
Academic Conference on LGBT rights in Central and Eastern Europe
Academic Conference on LGBT rights in Central and Eastern Europe
More details: humanrights.ee/en/2015/02/academic-seminar-on-lgbt-rights-in-tallinn/