Stirring The Pot On RFRA
Trying to end this subject, but yet another short piece in Reason magazine by Jacob Sullum on the Indiana fiasco. It includes this quote:
"But University of Virginia law professor Douglas Laycock, an expert on religious liberty who supports gay marriage but is sympathetic to the claims of conscientious objectors who do not want to facilitate it, notes that "nobody has ever won a religious exemption from a discrimination law under a RFRA standard." Laycock hopes that people who run "very small businesses providing wedding services or marital counseling services" can use laws like Indiana's to avoid being conscripted into work that violates their religious beliefs. But he says he is "not optimistic," noting that "so far, the religious claimants have lost all of those cases."
Which raises the point someone else asked in the comments: What is the purpose of the law if it won't protect anyone's religious freedom?