1. What does the Indiana RFRA say? It says the "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? Now the law "will bar businesses and individuals from using the law to refuse employment, housing, or service to people based on their sexual orientation or gender identity."
4. What happened in the 1990 Supreme Court case that inspired the creation of the first RFRAs? After people were being fired for using a drug during Native American ceremonies, "the court ruled against the religious argument in that case, it suggested that governments could establish explicit protections that would exempt people from certain laws if they have a genuine religious objection"
5. Why did "Advance America" support the new law? They supported the law so Christian bakers, florists, etc. would not have to perform their service for someone who is homosexual.
6. How did the Supreme Court use the federal RFRA to alter the regulations in the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare)? They cited the RFRA to exempt some employers from having to provide birth control within their healthcare since it went against some employers' religion, like Hobby Lobby.
7. What situation caused these two parties to end up in the Supreme Court? A homosexual, engaged couple went to a bakery where the baker refuse to make their wedding cake because it was against his beliefs, and did not want it to seem like an endorsement.
8. What was Craig and Mullins' argument in the case? They were filing discrimination charges based on " a Colorado law that prohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation by public accommodations."
9. How did Phillips defend his actions? He would have served them any non-wedding cake items in the bakery, but a wedding cake is forcing him to celebrate something he opposes.
10. How do we know that the Trump administration supported Phillips in this case? They filed an amicus curiae brief on behalf of the baker's legal argument.
11. How do Phillips and his attorneys argue that the wedding cake is different than normal services he provides? They claim it is a result of his artistic expression and that the law stifles said expression. The wedding cake is a celebratory message, while everything else does not convey a specific message.
12. What do Colorado state laws say that might protect Craig and Mullins? " 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."
No comments:
Post a Comment