Wow, the Indiana Court of Appeals has decided that the state abortion ban violates the religious liberty of religious plaintiffs who sued under a state religious freedom restoration act. Its decision on RFRA begins at p.45 public.courts.in.gov/Decisions/ap...
I'm an atheist, and no one ever asks me but I'm absolutely pro-choice because I don't believe there's anything but this life, so we have to take care of the people we have. I can't choose for someone else to have or not have an abortion, just like I can't choose to kill them.
the way this uses the RFRA and cites numerous examples of Christians getting their way under the law for more tenuously connected religious rights is chef's kiss
Oh wow: "Plaintiffs’ claims, in fact, seem to be the other side of the Burwell coin. If a corporation can engage in a religious exercise by refusing to provide abortifacients...it stands to reason that a pregnant person can engage in a religious exercise by pursuing an abortion"
hooooly shit lmao
SCOTUS gonna be 'whoa whoa we've already decided that the protected state religion here is a syncretic stew of evangelical Protestantism, conservative Catholicism, ultra-Orthodox Judaism, and basically secular maga types saying "laws shouldn't apply to me because beliefs."'
Yeah, exactly: it's not that they're not capable of understanding there are other religions, they just don't think of those as ACTUAL religions. So the blind-spot with this bullshit is that, uh, the judiciary might not agree with that presumption.
You are not going to be taken seriously if you say things with no basis in reality and then defend them by airily saying that the Court doesn't care about rules.
SCOTUS is not going to rule on a state constitutional claim. This is basic federalism. It's an issue of feasibility as much as rules.
Liz another basic tenant of federalism. One of the most basics. Is the federal government controls immigration and foreign policy. How did that go over?
Or perhaps the student loan case which was allowed to go forward without standing?
So while you're right it would be totally out
Every single year the Church of Satan finds a display in Springfield and every single year Illinois has to put out a statement explaining that the law requires equal access but they didn’t kiss the goat.
Honestly, I have wondered this exact same thing — if one uses religion so claim something isn't a right for someone, then that same freedom has to be applied the other way.
Well the issue is that they usually can't make laws that are out-and-out discriminatory, which means they have to pretend it can include all religions, but actually it's just supposed to allow for Christian theo-fascism, not, you know, equality and freedom.
