3 ms·

RFRAs don't allow first responders to refuse to do their jobs -- the life of another is a compelling state interest, and there's no narrower way to accommodate

by Digory 9y ago

RFRAs don't allow first responders to refuse to do their jobs -- the life of another is a compelling state interest, and there's no narrower way to accommodate that interest than to require first responders to respond. Merely claiming a religious burden is only one element of the test. I've never heard of any religious emergency service personnel even suggesting they have a religious objection to 'interacting' with LGBT people in emergency situations -- but even if you could, the Indiana RFRA law wouldn't have allowed that.

KirinDave 9y ago
I mean, RFRAs have enabled other prior absurd outcomes, especially in health care. I've read a lot of interpretations of this law that suggest that this would have to be tested in court. There is this curious not of the "obligation" of a first responder, but as we are seeing in Florida it's not clear any such obligation exists or can be realistically enforced.
- Digory 9y ago
  Police don't have to take a bullet for anyone, but the EMT that refuses to help LGBT people on the scene of an accident will be sued into oblivion. RFRAs don't change any aspect of either situation, and we've had 20 years of federal RFRA caselaw that says it's pretty settled. Despite what you may have read from activists, there exists no sizable group of Americans who want to use their religion, or would allow others to use their religion, to deprive LGBT people police, fire, or medical treatment in an emergency. No more, I'd venture, than there are LGBT people who would do so to religious people. There are reasons to criticize religious beliefs or second guess RFRA expansion, but this shows the problem of encouraging a policy of intolerance toward perceived intolerance. It's often prejudice based on fearmongering, even (or especially) in the age of the internet.
  - KirinDave 9y ago
    You need to reexamine this specific rfra. It is different from other examples and was widely criticized for that difference.

by Digory 9y ago

KirinDave 9y ago

I mean, RFRAs have enabled other prior absurd outcomes, especially in health care. I've read a lot of interpretations of this law that suggest that this would have to be tested in court. There is this curious not of the "obligation" of a first responder, but as we are seeing in Florida it's not clear any such obligation exists or can be realistically enforced.

Digory 9y ago
Police don't have to take a bullet for anyone, but the EMT that refuses to help LGBT people on the scene of an accident will be sued into oblivion. RFRAs don't change any aspect of either situation, and we've had 20 years of federal RFRA caselaw that says it's pretty settled. Despite what you may have read from activists, there exists no sizable group of Americans who want to use their religion, or would allow others to use their religion, to deprive LGBT people police, fire, or medical treatment in an emergency. No more, I'd venture, than there are LGBT people who would do so to religious people. There are reasons to criticize religious beliefs or second guess RFRA expansion, but this shows the problem of encouraging a policy of intolerance toward perceived intolerance. It's often prejudice based on fearmongering, even (or especially) in the age of the internet.
- KirinDave 9y ago
  You need to reexamine this specific rfra. It is different from other examples and was widely criticized for that difference.