What the fuck is the point of RFRA laws except to discriminate or give privilege...

[Humanist_Activist]

to one class of people and organization over everyone else?

I researched it, and it seems that the federal RFRA was basically a reactionary overreach of a case lost by a guy who was using peyote while employed by the federal government, and once tested positive, lost his benefits due to anti-drug laws. My question is, what give him more rights than a person who is using the same drug to just get high?

I was in middle school then, so I wasn't paying attention, obviously, but it seems to me like what happened to him is an argument against anti-drug laws, NOT an argument for giving him a privilege no one else can have.

Since the Federal RFRA is only limited to the actions of the Federal government, so far 19 state RFRAs have been passed, and as far as I can tell, they are almost exclusively used to allow Churches to exempt themselves from inconvenient local laws, such as for zoning. Since the Hobby Lobby decision, many states are now attempting to or have passed expansions of this law to include for-profit corporations under "religious freedom".

So I must ask, what is the point of these laws?

[meow2u3]

1. The original intent of RFRA laws was to protect minority religions from discrimination

Fundamentalist so-called Christians twisted the law to give themselves a license to discriminate against minority groups who aren't legally protected classes, and would even try to discriminate against protected classes of people if they could.

They're hiding behind religious freedom as a pretext to discriminate, even in matters of life or death. Fundie fanatics are twisting laws designed to protect minority religions from the whims of the majority and then turn around and cry persecution when someone gives them a taste of their own medicine.

[Humanist_Activist]

2. Protect them from discrimination in what way?

Exempting minority religions or their followers from inconvenient or unjust laws is great, but only if it also applies to everyone else, otherwise you are giving someone unequal privilege.

Like I said in my OP, the RFRA seems to be a huge overreach for a problem that doesn't really exist, and opens the door to a whole shitload of abuses.

[Dont call me Shirley]

3. My insight says that this ruling is Step #1 in undoing Federal Civil Rights Act state by state.

[Humanist_Activist]

5. Technically that can't happen until the Federal RFRA is expanded, and it might be by this supreme...

court.

Also, I would say this is step 10 or so in trying to overturn the Civil Rights Acts, Fair Housing Acts, protections against gender discrimination, LGBT discrimination, etc. These are bad laws, period.

[Dont call me Shirley]

6. Yes SC has already ripped up the Voting Rights Act, Rights to Privacy, Separation of Church and

State.

Democrats need to come out in droves 2016!

[meow2u3]

8. Does this answer your question?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_Freedom_Restoration_Act

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/chapter-21B


Contrary to Indiana law, Federal law has a provision that allows a "compelling state interest", e.g., anti-discrimination laws, to trump religious expression.

[Humanist_Activist]

10. That seems rather vague, and renders the law more symbolic than practical.

So, again, what is the point?

[Johonny]

11. I think many people agree with you

That law was basically a small push back to the draconic war on drugs. It makes as much sense as the war on drugs. Both seem pointless and they would have better rolling back on the war on drugs than making a rather symbolic law that has rather arbitrary enforcement.

[Avalux]

4. RFRA laws are a cog in the wheel of one singular objective -

making the US a nation where Christianity is the law of the land.

[mythology]

7. I think it's more specific than that.

I think it's that they want to have a very specific vision of Christianity that focuses on exclusion. But it's not really about the religion itself, other than it's their common ground.

I liken it to the way Richard Stallman (one of the people instrumental to the development of Linux) who refuses to do interviews with people who don't use the specific phrase GNU/Linux and instead just use Linux to describe the operating systems that fall under the Linux grouping like Ubuntu or Mint or Android.

Human nature, or perhaps just human learned behavior, is to have in groups and out groups. But to the extent that religious groups practice that, it's because they are made up of humans.

Plenty of non religious groups have done things to discriminate against those perceived as different.

[Avalux]

9. It's a false Christianity.

At least according to the Jesus, who taught inclusion. Human beings are taught to categorize, label and judge others. Christianity (and other religions), as well as non-religious organizations, are vehicles for acting out and perpetrating these learned behaviors in harmful ways.