re: #290 Political Atheist

So you don’r see much worthwhile difference between what the media by and large told us about this legislation and what actual legal experts had to say it means?

I don’t see how the public can have sensible opinions on a matter when / if perception over rides reality. I don’t want to live in strawman city.

The misrepresentation is harmful because there are real problems elsewhere….

The original Religious Freedom Restoration Act, far from a hate-inspired antigay measure, sailed through the US House of Representatives on a voice vote and passed the US Senate 97 to 3 before being signed into law by then-President Bill Clinton in 1993.
…
The federal government and 18 states have Religious Freedom Restoration Acts on their books. More than 12 other states have interpreted their state constitutions to provide similar protections to religious individuals.
….
“To be clear: SB 1062 does not say that businesses can discriminate for religious reasons,” the scholars said in their letter.

The proposed amendments provided a defense for a business owner or allowed a business owner to file a lawsuit to enforce RFRA protection. But it is ultimately up to the Arizona courts to decide if such protection is warranted or not, they said.

The scholars said the Arizona statute was substantially different than a measure under consideration in Kansas that has also sparked protests and significant media attention. Rather than a broadly applicable standard, the Kansas bill requires that in any confrontation between gay rights and religious objections, the religious objector would always win.

“The real problem with the Kansas bill is not that it proposes a specific rule, but that it proposes a very one-sided and unfair rule,” the scholars said.

Critics of these bills can discredit themselves by misrepresenting the AZ law and when it comes to raising the alarm about the much more problematic Kansas law people might not pay attention anymore.