Could Michigan GOP Undermine East Lansing?
- changemediagroup
- Dec 9, 2014
- 3 min read
MLive.com's Jonathan Oosting did a good story on the license to discriminate legislation approved by the State House.
Unfortunately, as usual, the contribution from the Speaker's office amounts to little more than name-calling and obfuscation. Here are two things to keep in mind:
1) Even if local governments are ultimately successful in defending the application of their nondiscrimination ordinances (or other ordinances of general applicability challenged under RFRA), they will still need to spend untold sums of taxpayer dollars in court to do so. The Speaker's bill isn't a shield to protect religious liberty. It is a sword that can and will be used to challenge the application of all manner of local ordinances.
2) Mr. Adler clearly has his talking point down, but failed to do any research. Here are just a few examples of how RFRA has been used to challenge local laws:
-Citing his religious beliefs, a police officer in Tulsa, Oklahoma, refused to attend, or even assign another officer to attend, a police appreciation community event held by a local Islamic Society. When disciplined, the officer cited the Oklahoma Religious Freedom Act (ORFA) to support his claim that participating in the Society’s Law Enforcement Appreciation Day would impose a substantial burden on his religion. Fields v. City of Tulsa, 753 F.3d 1000 (10th Cir. 2014).
-In Utah, a member of the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (FLDS Church) refused to testify in a U.S. Department of Labor investigation into whether FLDS Church children were involved in a pecan ranch harvest, in violation of child labor laws. Church member Vernon Steed claimed that testifying would violate his sincerely held religious beliefs, which prohibit him from discussing matters relating to the FLDS Church’s internal affairs, and the court agreed. Perez v. Paragon Contractors, Corp., (Dist. Utah, Sept. 11, 2014).
-Individuals sued a town and its Code Compliance Manager under the state RFRA to challenge enforcement of an ordinance that regulates sign postings. This small town of 200,000 people was embroiled in this litigation for four years. Reed v. Town of Gilbert, CV 07-522-PHX-SRB, 2011 WL 5924381 (D. Ariz. Feb. 11, 2011).
- After a citizen was fined $250 for violating a city’s noise ordinance, he appealed, claiming that enforcement of the ordinance violated the state RFRA. Com. v. Parente, 956 A.2d 1065, 1066 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2008).
-In Texas, a RFRA was used to challenge a city ordinance regulating the distribution of food to the homeless. These regulations required facilities to include restrooms and hand washing facilities, to maintain equipment and procedures for disposing waste and wastewater, to have someone who had completed the city’s food safety training course working at all times, among others. Two plaintiffs sued the city, claiming the ordinance violated their religious beliefs, and this litigation has been ongoing since 2007. Big Hart Ministries Assoc. v. City of Dallas, (N.D. Tex. Mar. 25, 2013).
-An individual denied a driver’s license because he refused to provide his social security number on religious grounds sued the state and the Department of Transportation, claiming that requiring a social security number violated Idaho’s RFRA. Lewis v. State, Dept. of Transp., 146 P.3d 684, 686 (Id. Ct. App. 2006).
I could go on...
Check out Oosting's full article, published on Decenber 9th, 2014, here.
Mr. Adler needs to get his facts straight.
Commenti