Skip to comments.Exclusive–Bipartisan Law Profs Warn Jan Brewer: SB1062 'Egregiously Misrepresented'
Posted on 02/26/2014 5:39:10 AM PST by SoConPubbie
The mix of eleven professors consists of Republicans and Democrats, religious and non-religious, "some...[who] oppose same-sex marriage [and] some... who support it." Their letter was obtained exclusively by Breitbart News ahead of its public release.
Their letter focuses on the important role RFRA plays in "[enacting] a uniform standard to be interpreted and applied to individual cases." And the professors said such a "standard makes sense" as "we should not punish people for practicing their religions unless we have very good reason."
SB1062 amends Arizona's RFRA in two ways:
1. "It provides that people are covered when state or local government requires them to violate their religion in the conduct of their business."
2. "It would provide that people are covered when sued by a private citizen invoking state or local law to demand that they violate their religion."
Countering misrepresentations, the professors pointed out that "SB1062 does not say that businesses can discriminate for religious reasons."
In concluding, they urged Gov. Brewer to be sure SB1062 is "accurately considered," so that in passing judgment on it she is not "misled by uniformed critics."
The eleven signatories:
Prof. Douglas Laycock, University of Virginia School of Law
Prof. Helen M. Alvare, George Mason University School of Law
Prof. Carl H. Esbeck, University of Missouri School of Law
Prof. Christopher C. Lund, Wayne State University Law School
Prof. Gregory C. Sisk, University of St. Thomas School of Law (Minnesota)
Prof. Mary Ann Glendon, Harvard Law School
Prof. Michael W. McConnell, Stanford Law School
Prof. Thomas C. Berg, University of St. Thomas School of Law (Minnesota)
Prof. Richard W. Garnett, Notre Dame Law School
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...
The Homo Mafia seeks total capitualtion.
They don’r want their message clouded by facts.
What bothers me is that this law has to be enacted at ALL. By taking action, this sends the message that Government had the already had right to regulate religious activity.
State laws requiring segregation of blacks from whites are another matter and are unconstitutional (14th Amendment). The feds have a Constitutional right to interfere with state laws that require segregation of blacks form whites.
However, the feds have no other Constitutional authority to interfere with any other form of discrimination on the state level and the feds have no Constitutional authority to interfere with the God given right of individuals and businesses to exercise their freedom of discrimination (freedom to choose) as they see fit.
“No shoes. No shirts. No service. Unless you’re gay or muslim.”