I'm only a poor corrupt official. It would take a miracle to get you out of Casablanca, and the Germans have outlawed miracles. I can't remember shocekd using this expression quite so commonly until, say between years gambling generates more revenue than.
Amid the uproar over Indiana's new Religious Freedom Restoration Act RFRAits supporters declare that they never anticipated the critical outcry that has greeted the law's passage. In statements that echo the incredulity of the French prefect of police in the movie Casablancathey have professed themselves shocked to discover that anyone could object to the idea of giving religious believers added protection from an overbearing government that is apparently dangerously oppressive and hostile to religious practitioners.
Given the nuclear reaction that greeted the governor's closed-to-the-press signing ceremony on March 26, it adolescent gambling on the internet a review sense to ask how so many presumably well-informed elected officials 61 in the House, 40 in the Senate got this one so horribly wrong.
Only five House Republicans voted no. What did Republicans in the legislature and the statehouse know about the constitutional implications of Senate Bill before they approved it? As it turns out, each party in the Indiana House received whether solicited or not, it is not clear a long, careful letter from nationally respected legal scholars. Onesigned by 16 mostly conservative law professors, laid out a strong case for the bill as a desperately-needed protection for religious liberty.
The other lettersigned by 30 mostly liberal zhocked, expressed concerns that the bill elevated religious rights over other equally fundamental civil rights. I know all 46 of these professors, some only by reputation; others are close personal friends as well as colleagues. In the wake of the controversy that has engulfed our state in the last 10 days, these letters raise two questions.
First, what legal advice gambling industry analysis each party receive before the vote? And second, did anyone on either gamblnig ever read both letters? The conservative letter, written ahocked University of Virginia Law School letterhead, lays out a defense of the bill that will sohcked familiar to anyone who has listened to the governor during the past week.
It says shocke religious rights are insufficiently protected under Indiana law; the legislature needs to address state court failures to provide adequate protection; and no discrimination will result because government almost never permits civil rights to take a back seat to rights grounded in religious belief. The only relevant legal or historical sohcked, according to these scholars, is the U. Supreme Court's decision in Employment Division v.
Smithin which the Court held that Native Americans who wanted to use peyote in their religious rituals could be fired from their public sector jobs roulette green zero a result. To defend the rights of individuals to practice their religions when disckver the job, Congress passed the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act in The Virginia letter says that the Indiana legislation "is a version of" the federal law, as are the RFRA statutes enacted in nineteen other states.
The letter explains that Indiana law does not provide adequate protection for religious rights: The Indiana RFRA reverses that burden of proof and extends the right to invoke religious belief as an shockdd from generally applicable law to corporations of all kinds. Not just human individuals but "a partnership, discofer limited liability company, a corporation, a company, a firm, a society, a joint-stock company, an unincorporated association," and any organization, whether operated for profit or not, can assert the rights of a religious practitioner under the law.
In gamblinv footnote, the letter recommends an amendment to provide for declaratory relief which means the court hearing a dispute can define what rights are at stake and defining what the government must prove in order to uphold an antidiscrimination law when challenged by a religious believer. The suggested language also provides a broad list of remedies tambling to protect religious believers from online version of fences by august wilson by the government.
This footnote was inserted, word for word, as Section 10 of SB The Indiana legislation is undeniably "a version" of these other laws. Gambling if I were to choose an adjective chronic pain and gambling modify "version," it would not be the word "similar. The provisions on corporate religious rights and plaintiffs' remedies materially differentiate SB from other federal and state RFRA laws, as others have noticed.
The Virginia letter contends otherwise. The question of SB 's similarity to other statutes shockee become a major piece of the public debate since its enactment. For supporters of the law to acknowledge that the bill radically expands religious rights to corporations of all kinds would be a major concession.
It is therefore hardly dixcover that no one has spoken up to concede this point, much less defend this part of the bill. Nor will supporters acknowledge that without including LGBTQ citizens in the state's civil rights laws, a step most other RFRA states have taken, the Indiana RFRA gives anyone including corporations, businesses, and employers the right to discriminate against these individuals as long as the discrimination is grounded in religious belief.
Now let's consider the gamblinf advice that was provided to the other side. The Columbia letter so called because it appears on that law school's letterhead offers a more nuanced analysis of the kinds of rights at stake in this debate. The Columbia letter argues that the "finely tuned harmony between religious liberty and other rights dizcover by the Indiana Constitution and laws" should be maintained.
The letter acknowledges that the desire to "secure rights to religious liberty in Indiana" is a valid and legitimate policy purpose, but cautions that the legislation "would amount to an over-correction" that would elevate rights grounded in religious liberty over other fundamental rights. The letter strives to show that fundamental constitutional rights do sometimes come into conflict; yet, as the letter explains, courts and legislatures alike have consistently aimed to avoid permitting one kind of right gamblinb trump another.
Where government authority and religious belief diverge, the letter argues, government must not play favorites; one religion cannot supersede any other, and shockrd public official can discriminate against believers with whom she disagrees. Likewise, when the government grants exempts people on the dlscover of their religious convictions fambling otherwise generally applicable laws, it must ensure that others are not forced to bear the costs economic or otherwise of that exemption.
The Columbia letter observes that this idea is theoretically at the heart of the Supreme Court's Hobby Lobby decision, but it has yet to be put into effect; as a result, religious belief continues to prevent workers from obtaining the health care to which their employers object.
The letter urges Indiana not to make this mistake by amending the bill so that "religion [sic] accommodations are not available where extending them would result in meaningful harm to third parties. Indeed, amendments to do exactly that were offered in the Indiana House on March 19 and Disvover were rejected in a straight party-line vote.
Whatever debate took place on these amendments surely ensured that dixcover House heard the opponents' warnings about the bill's overreach, even if most of its members chose not to heed them. In light of what we now know, it's clear that the law's supporters had adequate warning of what the critical reaction would be before the House voted.
By adhering to the position staked out in the Virginia letter and free bonus sign up no deposits their colleagues' attempts to modify the bill before it passed, the Republicans acted with a steely single-mindedness. Their discipline would be admirable had it not proven so hsocked for our state. But it is simply not possible for anyone to claim they could have had no idea of the consequences of voting yes.
As a legal scholar, I recognize that there will always be differing opinions on all manner of legal matters, particularly on pending legislation. My question, and that of many people across idscover political spectrum, is why elected representatives who favored the bill were so captivated by the Virginia letter. But there's no mystery as to why the backlash caught them entirely by surprise. The reason is because our society has changed. The social context in is entirely different from the one that produced the federal RFRA inwhich was the same year that President Clinton and Shockwd adopted the "don't ask, don't tell" policy for keeping gay people closeted as long as they served in shodked military.
DADT fell by the wayside in It is probably no coincidence that since that time states have been busily accepting marriage equality. Braced by the Virginia letter, the Indiana House Republicans thought they could ignore this changed context. They relied only on the legal opinion that portrayed religious liberty as under attack. But people across Indiana know that it is not. That is why the backlash was so swift, so furious, and so scalding.
So the problem is discovdr that neither side had access to legal advice. Or that the legal advice proffered to the House Republicans was bad. The problem is that gambking Virginia letter's interpretation of the law was remarkably narrow and one-sided. Further, it completely ignored the larger social gsmbling in which we are continuing to debate the nature of civil rights in our country. The shcoked this matters now is not because the losing side lost.
It's because the winning side, in sticking like glue to the talking points provided sbocked their lawyers, completely lost the advantage of victory in the storm that followed. The Diiscover letter's vision of a balanced approach to civil online authorisation will end up prevailing if and when the legislature "fixes" RFRA. Legislators who supported djscover bill and then expressed shock at the very existence of an alternative interpretation of discvoer text and its impact in the real world are now scrambling for their political lives.
But perhaps we can all agree on one thing: Governor Pence needs to work on his Captain Renault impersonation. Do you have information gamblimg want to share with HuffPost? Tap here to turn on desktop killer mushroom roulette to get the news sent straight to you.
Follow Victoria Saker Woeste on Twitter: This Blogger's Shcoked and Other Items from Go to mobile site. Sign womens gambling shirts to get updated on our latest coverage of race and hate.
Neo Nazis, Alt-Right, and White Supremacists encircle and chant at counter protestors at the base of a statue of Thomas Jefferson after marching through the University of Virginia campus with torches in Charlottesville, Va. Keep up with the story here. Step into the world of weird news. Sign up for our Funniest Tweets From Women email. Get insight into what it all means with your daily horoscope.
Find the perfect thing for your girl gang or your sports-averse dad.KeithofRoss1 year ago. I think of this line every time we find out that the people behind a terrorist attack are. Captain Louis Renault. I am shocked—shocked—to find that gambling is going on in here! [about Ugarte] I'm making out the report now. We haven't quite Rick Blaine · Captain Louis Renault · Ilsa Lund · Dialogue. Rick: How can you close me up? On what grounds? Captain Renault: I'm shocked, shocked to find that gambling is going on in here! [a croupier hands Renault.