As many of you have probably heard, Indiana is suffering quite a public relations black eye over passing a state Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA). I tend to side with Professor Reynolds view why this suddenly is:
“Dems need something to agitate the base so it doesnâ€™t pay attention to Iranian nukes, trashed email servers, and an overall culture of corruption. Those who join in are willing enablers.”
There’s also the issue that gay marriage is on the cusp of becoming a settled, and the Dems need red meat for the outrage machine heading into 2016.
Eugene Volokh has an article today on RFRA here. The fact that both sides at various times have hated the Sherbert Test and the RFRA that replaced it, makes me think it probably either offers substantive and good protections that limits both sides in their social experiments, or it’s a weapon too dangerous to let either side play with. I tend to think the former. I have no desire to see people discriminated against because of sexual orientation, but I don’t see much harm or risk of enabling systemic discrimination by carving out some narrow exceptions to accommodate people’s (or closely held corporations) religious viewpoints.
So what’s this have to do with gun rights? Not much. It’s an off topic post. But City of Boerne v. Flores, which is a case that involves the RFRA, and is actually responsible for the many state analogue RFRA’s, is going to be a key case for us when Congress starts using it’s Section 5 powers under the 14th Amendment to preserve Second Amendment rights of American citizens. City of Boerne is going to be Bloomberg’s best friend.