The Critical Thinking Co.™
"Critical thinking is the identification and evaluation of evidence to guide decision making. A critical thinker uses broad in-depth analysis of evidence to make decisions and communicate his/her beliefs clearly and accurately." "Critical thinking includes the ability to respond to material by distinguishing between facts and opinions or personal feelings, judgments and inferences, inductive and deductive arguments, and the objective and subjective."
(Here is Brandon Ivey with his coach, Master Dennis Kim)
Meet
Brandon Ivey the first Heavyweight Black Belt Taekwondo Champion from
America since 1986. He is a junior at Briar Woods High School in Ashburn, Virginia.
Champions are made, not born. It takes a family to produce a potential champion; and an old Chinese Proverb says that when the student is ready, the teacher will appear. When Brandon was ready, his master teacher appeared. That teacher is Master Dennis Kim from
the USTigers WTF School of Taekwondo, Haymarket, VA.
On March 23 Brando
Ivey represented the USA in the World WTF Taekwondo Championship
Tournament in Taipei, Taiwan, Republic of China. He defeated FIVE heavy weight
black belt fighters from various countries around the World. It was a
single elimination tournament and Brandon went undefeated. All of his fights were razor-edge close. The final match was a sudden death overtime match against Hamza Kattan of Jordan. Brandon won the match 5-4. His opponents
were champions from the republic of the Philippines, Azerbaijzan, Spain, Russia, and Jordan. CONGRATULATIONs to Brandon. He is only 16 years old and a
"master of his game". https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4VsQFy7en4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F2R4i05t0T8 https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?v=10152043623422671&set=vb.91230807670&type=2&theater http://vimeo.com/89990145 The number one athlete in the world has always been recognized as the Heavyweight Boxing Champion of the World. Every other major sport is a team sport. In basketball there are five men on a team who can play at one time. Baseball has nine players, football has eleven players, and soccer has eleven players on the field competing at one time. In boxing there is only one. It is one against one, head to head and toe to toe; and may the best man win. Boxers fight with their fists, but Taekwondo fighters use both their hands and feet. Full contact Taekwondo fighting is closer to boxing than any other sport in the world. Taekwondo tournament fighters are amateurs and do not get paid, whereas professional boxers are professionals and make large sums of money. Beyond that they are similar in many respects. Brandon was successful because of his mental approach to
his sport, Taekwondo. He is a fierce competitor and has mastered a winner's mindset, which he began to develop at a very young age with the help of
his long time coach, Master Dennis Kim.
Brandon had a compelling reason for continuously working hard and sacrificing on a daily basis. When Brandon was only 07 years old, Master Dennis taught him to set and write down his specific goals. He said he wanted to be the Champion of the World.
Master Dennis tells all of his fighters at the USTigers Taekwondo School that there is absolutely no substitute for consistent, daily, hard work! You can't just work hard whenever you feel like it. It can't be a sometimes thing! It has to be an every day thing. This is true in all sports, but especially so in combative sports, like Taekwondo. To
become a champion you have to train yourself to continuously step
outside of your comfort zone, physically, mentally and emotionally. Brandon Ivey was able to do this. Whenever he trained, he didn't just mindlessly go through the motions. He focused on making sure his kicking and punching techniques were precise. Master Dennis believes that one must perform a technique ,at least, one thousand times to learn it, and ten thousand times to perfect it. Only then can you say that you have mastered it.
Master Dennis says that part of the reason for Brandon's success is that he has ice water in his veins and he thoroughly believes in himself. One thing that separates really great athletes from everyone else is
that no matter what happens and no matter how many failures or setbacks
they suffer, they never stop believing in themselves.
It is impossible for a fighter to fight his best when it counts the most if he or she gets too nervous before the fight. Anything more than a case of minor butterflies in the stomach is not good. One can be the best coached, the best conditioned, the strongest, fastest and most talented fighter in the match, but if you cannot control the pre-fight nervousness, you are not going to win. Brandon has never suffered from pre-fight juitters. He has learned to maintain his composure under pressure. In a few of his fights when he was behind on points and the time clock was running out, Brandon remained as cool as a cucumber, and he managed to win the fight.
The 10th WTF World Junior Taekwondo Championships kicked off in Taipei
City, Chinese Taipei on March 23, 2014 for a four-day run.
The biennial World Junior Championships, which took place at the Taipei
Arena in downtown Taipei City, attracted a total of 793 athletes
and 472 officials from a record 107 countries. A total of 90
international referees officiated at the championships.
All the matches were conducted on octagon-shaped mats, and a protector
and scoring system and an instant video replay system were used.
On the opening day, Azerbaijan took one gold and one bronze to top
others in the overall medal tally, followed by the United States (Brandon Ivey, representing the USA), Serbia
Ukraine and China with one gold each. Italy came next with one silver
and one bronze, while host Chinese Taipei clinched two bronzes. On the opening day in the junior male +78kg weight category, the United States' Brandon
Ivey needed a fourth golden-point (sudden death) round to win the gold
medal against Jordan's Hamza Kattan. In that division, the bronze was
shared by Russia's Emil Khadeev and Korea's Jun-sik An. WTF President Chungwon Choue and WTF Council members were present for the Opening Ceremonies of the 10th World Junior Taekwondo Championships.
WTF President Choue said in his speech at the opening ceremony. "We have already witnessed great performances of our junior athletes and
fantastic support of the organizing committee for the past two days of
the WTF Qualification Tournament for the Nanjing 2014 Youth Olympic
Games. Congratulations on the qualifiers and appreciations to all
athletes who came here after years of hard training and tough
competitions".
He continued to say, "Chinese Taipei is one of the front runners in
global taekwondo and has produced numerous medal winners at the Olympic
Games, World Championships and international taekwondo tournaments. I am
sure the people of Chinese Taipei are proud of their taekwondo sons and
daughters."
"Since its inauguration in 1996, the WTF World Junior Taekwondo
Championships have served as a stepping-stone for youth to elevate
themselves into heroes and heroines," he said. "Sports give youth
something to aim for, something to hope for and something to dream
about. It does not favor or discriminate against any age, physical
condition, gender or culture. Sports inspire and empower those who
practice them, and taekwondo is a sport for all."
"A recent decision by the International Paralympic Committee to
shortlist taekwondo for the official program of Tokyo 2020 Paralympic
Games reflects the value of taekwondo as a true sport for all," Choue
said.
At the 2014 World Championships In Taiwan, China these were the points Brandon scored in the Finals.
Height: 6-0 Weight: 168 lbs. High School: Briar Woods High School (Ashburn, Va.) Year of Graduation: 2015 Coach: Dennis Kim
AWARDS:
2013 USAT Junior Male Athlete of the Year
Other Sports Played in High School: football
Hobbies: computers MAJOR COMPETITION RESULTS:
2014 USA Taekwondo Junior National Team Trials (men’s heavy): FIRST
2014 U.S. Junior National Team member (Heavy)
2013 USAT National Championships (Jr. Heavy): GOLD
2013 USAT Junior National Team Member (Heavy)
2012 World Junior Championships (Jr. Lt. Heavy): Round of 16
-lost to Nikos Karamangiolis (GER), 5-2, in Round of 16 2012 U.S. Open (Jr. Lt. Heavy): SILVER
-def. Zeph Putnam (USA), 3-2, in quarterfinals
-def. Jacob Bolanos (USA), 9-4, in semifinals
-lost to Misael Lopez Jaramillo (MEX), 7-4, in finals 2012 Junior World Championships Team Member (Jr. Lt. Heavy)
2012 Junior World Championships Open Team Trials (Jr. Lt. Heavy): 1st
IVEY,
Brandon
United States of America
TaekwondoData Person-ID: 23755N
FIGHTER
Stats*
14 registered fights, fighter won 11 out of them. That's a rate of 78.6%
80 hitpoints distributed and 51 collected during fights.
Won 2 golden point(s) and lost 0.
Participated at 6 tournaments, 6 with international and 0 with national valuation.
* These data may not be used to assessing
an athlete, as the level of the tournament (national / international,
etc.) is not considered. Calculated on the basis of all available data.
Career Ranking
livetime ranking of all international fighters Brandon is on place 1.625 with 74 points.
When California Rep. Jackie Speier is not
chasing military officers looking for sexual sadists, she is following
Social Security Judges trying to "red flag" them. She proposes a system
to review cases from "red flag" judges. Judges who have
high approval rates send up 'red flags'. Speier has had enough. The
Democrat from San Mateo who has been on the front lines fighting to
expose and correct the epidemic of sexual assault and harassment in the
military has turned her attention to her own colleagues. Representative
Speier introduced a bill that would require all House members and staff
to take sexual harassment training every two years. Rep. Jackie Speier, California Democrat, one of the heads the House Oversight and Government Reform subcommittee on health care, say Social Security
employees should be allowed to look at the social media profiles (such as, Facebook, Twitter, etc) of
those applying for disability, reasoning that photos and other
information people post can expose the applicants as able-bodied.
She also said that two Social Security
judges may have approved thousands of bogus disability claims, but the
agency has never gone back to review those judges’ cases to stop the
ones that were fraudulent.
Speier said the agency should come up with a system to review cases from
“red-flag” judges who show inclinations toward rubber-stamping
applications.
In an exhaustive 11-page memo to Social Security acting Commissioner Carolyn W. Colvin, she detailed nearly a
dozen recommendations for improving a disability system that has
received an explosion of applications in recent years and is in danger
of going bankrupt by 2016.
It was indefensible that the Social Security Administration (SSA) hasn’t reviewed applications
approved by two administrative law judges, David B. Daugherty in West
Virginia and Charles Bridges in Pennsylvania, who have been accused of
making bogus disability determinations.
Kia Anderson, a spokeswoman for Social Security, said the SSA takes fraud seriously and will review the lawmakers’ recommendations.
“We
recognize that one case of fraud is too many and work aggressively to
detect and prevent abuses. We continue to enhance our program integrity
efforts by adding tools like data analytics which enables us to identify
patterns of suspicious behavior in disability applications,” she said.
She made a pitch for Congress to grant more funding so the SSA can put more effort into preventing fraud.
The
oversight committee has been looking into the disability issue for some
time and took testimony from Judge Jasper J. Bede, an SSA Regional Chief Administrative Law Judge who told investigators that some judges
appeared to be rubber-stamping applications. (Read more at http://www.amazon.com/socialNsecurity-Confessions-Social-Security-Judge/dp/1449569757) Judge
Bede singled out Judge Bridges, who decided more than 2,000 cases a
year and who often went beyond looking at an applicant’s disability and
considered income or other factors. Judge Daugherty, meanwhile,
approved 99.7 percent of his cases from 2005 through 2011, awarding
disability benefits to 8,413 people — the equivalent of $2.5 billion in
total lifetime benefits.
Major cases of disability fraud have been reported in West Virginia,
Puerto Rico and, most recently, New York City, where investigators said
police officers falsely claimed disability from the Sept. 11, 2001,
terrorist attacks.
Some of those New York cases were exposed in
part because investigators found online photos of the officers engaged
in flying helicopters, going on deep-sea sport-fishing trips and riding
personal watercraft.
That is one reason lawmakers want Social Security
employees to scour social media before approving applications, and
again when they go back for periodic checks, known as continuing
disability reviews (CDR).
“To increase efficiency and reduce the number
of erroneous disability determinations, SSA personnel should be allowed
to review each applicant’s social media accounts prior to the decision
to award benefits. Additionally, we suggest that SSA require that all
CDRs incorporate a review of the beneficiary’s social media accounts,” Ms. Speier said.
Social Security
has repeatedly refused to let its investigators use social media,
arguing that its judges aren’t trained to evaluate the information.
“Adjudicators
should do what they are trained to do: Review voluminous files to
determine eligibility for disability benefits. Office of Inspector
General fraud investigators should do what they are trained to do:
vigorously follow up on any evidence of fraud,” said Ms. Anderson.
From 2010 through 2012, Americans filed 8.6 million disability claims, but judges and Social Security’s
disability review office reported only 411 suspicions of fraud. That
works out to fewer than one out of every 20,000 applications. Part of the problem is that Social Security is lax in reviewing cases of those deemed temporarily disabled to see whether they have recovered.
But
a review of cases from 1980 through 1983 found 40 percent of those
receiving disability benefits were not disabled, suggesting a tremendous
level of bad payments.
Disability judges who have high approval
rates send up red flags because by the time a case gets to an
administrative law judge, it has already been denied by at least one
previous review at the State DDS, and often by a second DDS review, the two lawmakers said.
That would suggest the approval rate for those cases should be low. Social Security
is made up of two trust funds. The main one is the Old Age and
Survivors Insurance Trust Fund, with the Disability Insurance Trust Fund
accounting for a smaller but growing part of the agency’s work.
Mississippi's governor signed into law Thursday April 3rd a measure that allows
individuals and organizations to sue the government over laws that they
feel thwart their ability to practice religion.
“I am proud to sign the
Mississippi Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which will protect the
individual religious freedom of Mississippians of all faiths from
government interference,” Gov. Phil Bryant said.
Seen as a response to recent lawsuits that have required business owners
to bake a cake for or photograph same-sex weddings, the bill managed to escape the controversy that killed a similar bill in Arizona last month.
Bryant signed the measure within hours of receiving it Thursday,
during a private ceremony. The bill says government cannot put a
substantial burden on the practice of religion. Though the bill is
vaguely worded, supporters said an example of it would be a zoning law to
limit the location of a church, mosque or synagogue but not limiting the
location of a secular business.
The small signing ceremony was attended by a few elected officials,
lobbyists for the state's influential Southern Baptist Convention and
Tony Perkins, president of Family Research Council. The council, a
conservative Washington-based group, has pushed states to enact laws
that mirror the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act that President
Bill Clinton signed in 1993.
This is a victory for the First Amendment and the right to live and work
according to one’s conscience,” said Tony Perkins, the president of the
conservative Family Research Council and an attendant at the signing
ceremony, in a public statement. “This commonsense measure was a
no-brainer for freedom, and like the federal [Religious Freedom
Restoration Act], it simply bars government discrimination against
religious exercise. The legislature gave strong approval to a bill that
declares that individuals do not have to trade their religious freedom
for entrance into public commerce.”
Perkins said Mississippi becomes the 19th state to enact its own religious-practices law since 1996.
"Those who understand the importance and cherish the historic
understanding of religious freedom are grateful for leaders who respond
to fact and not fictitious claims of those who are trying to quarantine
faith within the walls of our churches or homes," Perkins said in a
statement.
The thrust of Senate Bill 2681
says no law should impose a "substantial burden" on someone's "exercise
of religion" unless there is a "compelling interest" and a lack of less
burdensome alternatives.
The bill was amended several times in recent weeks as homosexual rights
supporters lobbied lawmakers and brought in stars, including former 'N
Sync singer Lance Bass, to boost their cause. The second half of the
bill adds the phrase "In God we trust" to the state seal, which features
an eagle with a shield.
This year, several other states considered joining the 18 that already
have religious freedom laws. Each has been criticized because it could
pave the way for businesses to legally refuse to serve gays and
lesbians. The law passed in Mississippi is similar to what Arizona has
on its books -- and had sought to expand as part of a controversial
proposal that was recently vetoed by Gov. Jan Brewer.
Governor Jan Brewer shot down a law that she said ‘could result in unintended and negative consequences.
Arizona gov. vetoes controversial ‘religious freedom’ bill
(February 26, 2014)
Governor Jan Brewer shoots down law that she says ‘could result in unintended and negative consequences’
Arizona Republican Gov. Jan Brewer on Wednesday announcing she had vetoed Senate Bill 1062.Ross D. Franklin/AP
Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer on Wednesday vetoed a Republican bill that
set off a national debate over gay rights, religion and discrimination
and subjected her state to blistering criticism from major corporations
and political leaders from both parties. The bill, backed by Republicans in the Arizona Legislature,
was designed to give added protection from lawsuits to people who
assert their religious beliefs in refusing service to gays. But
opponents called it an open attack on Arizona's LGBT community.
The bill thrust Arizona into the national spotlight last week after
both chambers of the state Legislature approved it. As the days passed,
more and more groups, politicians and average citizens weighed in
against Senate Bill 1062. Many took to social media to criticize the
bill.
Prominent Phoenix business groups said it would be another black eye
for the state and warned that businesses looking to expand into Arizona
might not do so if the bill became law.
Companies such as Apple and American Airlines and politicians
including Arizona's senior GOP senator, John McCain, were among those
who urged Brewer to veto the legislation.
The governor was under intense pressure to veto the bill, including
from three Republicans who had voted for it last week. They said in a
letter to Brewer that while the intent of their vote "was to create a
shield for all citizens' religious liberties, the bill has been
mischaracterized by its opponents as a sword for religious intolerance."
SB 1062 would allow people to use their religious beliefs as a
defense against claims of discrimination. Backers cite a New Mexico
Supreme Court decision that allowed a gay couple to sue a photographer
who refused to document their wedding, even though the law that allowed
that suit doesn't exist in Arizona.
Republican state Sen. Steve Yarbrough called his proposal a First Amendment issue during a Senate debate.
"This bill is not about allowing discrimination," Yarbrough said.
"This bill is about preventing discrimination against people who are
clearly living out their faith."
Democrats said it was a veiled attempt to legally discriminate against gay people and cite religious freedom as a defense.
"The heart of this bill would allow for discrimination versus gays and lesbians," said state Sen. Steve Gallardo, D-Phoenix.
"You can't argue the fact that the bill will invite discrimination. That's the point of this bill. It is."
Supporters of the law criticized the governor's decision as a loss for religious freedom.
“Freedom loses when fear overwhelms facts and a good bill is vetoed.
Today’s veto enables the foes of faith to more easily suppress the
freedom of the people of Arizona," said Doug Napier, a lawyer for Alliance Defending Freedom, a conservative group that supported the bill.
The Center for Arizona Policy argued that the law was needed to
protect against increasingly activist federal courts and simply
clarified existing state law. "We see a growing hostility toward
religion," said Josh Kredit, legal counsel for the group.
Similar religious-protection legislation has been introduced in Ohio,
Mississippi, Idaho, South Dakota, Tennessee and Oklahoma, but Arizona's
plan is the only one that has been passed by a state legislature. The
efforts are stalled in Idaho, Ohio and Kansas.
The push in Arizona comes as an increasing number of conservative
states grapple with ways to counter the growing legality of gay
marriage. Arizona's voters approved a ban on gay marriage as a state
constitutional amendment in 2008. It is one of 29 states with such
constitutional prohibitions, according to the National Conference of
State Legislatures.
Federal judges have recently struck down those bans in Texas, Utah, Oklahoma and Virginia, but those decisions are under appeal. Al Jazeera and The Associated Press
Arizona Religious-Freedom Bill Becomes Test Case
Opponents of the measure say it would allow stores
and other businesses to refuse to serve gays and some other minorities.
Zuma Press
Legislation in Arizona that would
allow business owners to deny service to customers based on the owners'
religious beliefs is becoming a test case in a widening clash over
religious freedom and discrimination.
This week, under mounting pressure from business groups, companies including
Apple Inc.
AAPL -0.16%
and gay-rights advocates to veto the bill passed by the state Legislature, Arizona Gov.
Jan Brewer
is expected to decide whether to sign it into law.
Advocates
say the bill doesn't discriminate and merely strengthens and clarifies
the state's existing religious-freedom law to protect business owners
from being forced to act against their consciences.
Opponents say the measure—prompted in
part by a New Mexico photographer who refused to work at a gay couple's
commitment ceremony—would open the door to discrimination against gays,
lesbians and women, and potentially boost similar legislative efforts
in other states.
"Are we going back to the days when we have signs in the windows saying, 'Don't come in, I don't want to serve you?' " said
Sarah Warbelow,
state legislative director for the Human Rights Campaign, which advocates for gay rights.
The Arizona bill adds businesses,
churches and foundations to the list of entities protected under the
state's religious-freedom law, which says the state may not
"substantially burden" the free practice of religion without "compelling
interest." It also allows individuals and businesses to assert
religious freedom as a defense even when the government isn't a party to
a legal proceeding.
The bill is one of
several being considered around the country. In Georgia, lawmakers
introduced an act modeled on the federal version, which has been adopted
in over a dozen states, as well as an act prohibiting teachers from
penalizing students from expressing their religious beliefs in school.
The federal law, passed by Congress in 1993, says the U.S. government
may not put a substantial burden on a person's exercise of religion
unless it advances a "compelling governmental interest" and is "the
least restrictive means of furthering" it.
Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer is expected to decide this
week whether to sign a bill that has become a test case for religious
freedom and discrimination.
Associated Press
In Oregon, backers have launched an
effort to get an initiative on the ballot to allow business owners to
opt out of playing a role in same-sex commitment ceremonies based on
religious belief, and a California pastor is behind a ballot effort that
would protect individuals from "any action that would violate their
liberty of conscience" based on biblical authority.
Other
bills, like ones in Kansas, Tennessee and South Dakota, have failed or
been tabled after an outcry from civil-rights activists.
Bruce Hausknecht,
a judicial analyst for Focus on the Family, a conservative group
whose sister organization, CitizenLink, has been involved in proposing
or backing such bills in several states, said the clash over religious
freedom in the private sector has been building for years.
The
new bills are an outgrowth of expanding definitions of what qualifies
as a "public accommodation," Mr. Hausknecht said, which traditionally
has meant public venues like buses, restaurants and stadiums. Those
spaces are protected from discrimination under federal civil rights law.
But some states and municipalities have been expanding the definition
of public accommodation to include all types of business, he said.
Some
religious groups also are feeling pressured by the expansion of gay
rights and the federal Affordable Care Act's mandate that employers pay
for contraceptives.
"The threat to
religious freedom is really being driven by government officials and
policies that are focused on compelling people to violate their
conscience," said
Brian Walsh,
head of the American Religious Freedom Program, which advocates
for religious-freedom laws.
Though the
Arizona bill and some others like it don't specifically mention sexual
orientation, the bills follow several lawsuits involving business owners
who objected to providing services to same-sex couples.
Arizona is becoming ground zero for a national debate
over religious freedom and discrimination as Gov. Jan Brewer must decide
whether she will veto a bill that allows businesses to refuse service
to gay customers on religious grounds. Tammy Audi and Ashby Jones report
on the News Hub. Photo: Getty Images.
Douglas Napier,
senior vice president for the Alliance Defending Freedom, a
Scottsdale, Ariz.-based conservative group that helped draft the Arizona
bill, said "there's an increased amount of hostility toward people of
faith, especially with regard to the homosexual agenda."
Mr.
Napier's group represents the photographer who was sued for refusing to
photograph the same-sex couple's ceremony. Her case has been appealed
to the U.S. Supreme Court.
The Arizona bill reached Ms. Brewer's desk Monday. A number of fellow Republicans, including U.S. Sen.
John McCain
of Arizona and former presidential candidate
Mitt Romney
—as well as three state senators who had voted for the bill—urged Ms. Brewer to veto it.
An
array of business groups and leaders, including the state's Chamber of
Commerce, also spoke out against the bill, fearing the impact it could
have on tourism and commerce.
Marriott International Inc.
MAR -0.47%
and
American Airlines Group Inc.
AAL -0.68%
have criticized the bill as being potentially damaging to the
state's economy. Apple, which has opened a component-manufacturing plant
in Mesa, Ariz., is urging its veto.
Already,
18 states have passed some form of basic religious-freedom laws. But
the Arizona bill would "take Arizona beyond where any other state has
gone," said Ms. Warbelow of the Human Rights Campaign.
Some
have claimed that a bill recently passed by the Arizona legislature
would give businesses broad license to not serve someone for being gay.
This claim, though, may be a misreading, according a CP legislative
analysis. While the bill is an attempt to broaden who is covered under
its religious freedom protections, in all cases it actually narrows when
a religious belief could be used to refuse service.
Here are six important points to understand about the just-passed bill: 1.
If Gov. Jan Brewer (R) signs it, the bill, S.B. 1062, would make some
modifications to a 1999 Arizona law called the Religious Freedom
Restoration Act (RFRA). 2. Under current
Arizona law, if a business wanted to discriminate against gays, they
would not need this bill to be passed to do so. It is not currently
illegal for a business to deny service to someone because they are gay.
Some cities in Arizona have ordinances against it but there is no state
law against it. If business owners in Arizona wanted to deny service to
gays, they could do so in most of the state under current law. 3. Even
though business owners across most of Arizona (and much of the United
States) have the right to deny service to gays, they are not doing so.
Opponents of the bill claim it would usher in an era of "Jim Crow for
gays," in which gays would be denied service at businesses across the
state. If business owners really wanted to do this, though, they could
already be doing it. The bill does not make that more or less likely.
Business owners do not want to deny service to gays. This is not because
they fear government sanction. Rather, it is because: 1) Their
religious, ethical or moral beliefs tell them it is wrong to deny
service; and/or, 2) the profit motive - turning away customers is no way
to run a business. 4. A RFRA law, either state
or federal, does not give anyone the license to do anything they want
based upon their religious beliefs. Rather, it says what needs to happen
for the government to take away someone's religious freedom. RFRA
provides citizens with religious freedom protections, but that does not
mean that everyone who claims their religious freedom is violated will
win a court case using RFRA as their defense.
5. No
business has ever successfully used RFRA, either a state RFRA or the
federal RFRA, to defend their right to not serve gays. In fact, no
business has even been before a court claiming to have that right. 6. Even
if a business wanted to claim the right to not serve gays under RFRA,
their claim would be even harder to defend under S.B. 1062. So, anyone
who is concerned that someone may one day try to use RFRA to
discriminate against gays should prefer the bill that was just passed
over current law.
To understand these points, it first helps to understand the history of RFRA.
RFRA was first a federal law, passed by Congress in 1993, in response to a U.S. Supreme Court decision, Employment Division vs. Smith (1989).
In that case, the Court did not protect the religious freedom of a
member of the Native American Church who used peyote, a hallucinogenic,
as part of a religious ceremony. The state did not violate Smith's
religious freedom, the Court concluded in an opinion written by Justice
Antonin Scalia, because the law making illegal the use of the
hallucinogenic applied to people of all faiths, not just the Native
American Church.
Many were deeply concerned about what that
decision would mean for religious freedom in the United States. In
practice the decision meant that if a government policy interferes with a
person's right to freely practice their religion, that is acceptable as
long as the policy was not specifically designed to do so.
A
broad coalition of both conservatives and liberals came together,
therefore, in support of the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act.
This law would tell the courts that the state may only violate someone's
religious freedom under certain conditions (more on these later), and
it is up to the government to show those conditions are met. Plus,
having a law that is generally applicable (applies to all faiths and
those with no faith), is not sufficient reason to deny someone religious
freedom.
The law was passed by an overwhelming majority, a
unanimous vote in the House and a 97 to three vote in the Senate, and
signed by a Democratic president - Bill Clinton.
Later, though, the U.S. Supreme Court would rule, in Boerne vs. Flores (1996),
that RFRA cannot be applied to state laws. States would have to pass
their own RFRA if they wanted it to apply to their state and local laws,
the Court said. So, many states did exactly that. Arizona was one of
those states.
The bill passed Thursday by the Arizona legislature
modifies that existing law. More specifically, it more precisely spells
out what RFRA was always understood to mean. Arizona legislators
believed a few points needed to be clarified mainly for two reasons, according to Arizona State Representative John Kavanagh.
First,
the Obama administration's birth control mandate raised the question of
whether RFRA applies to a person's religious freedom when they own a
business. The U.S. Supreme Court will decide that question next Summer.
Two Christian owned businesses, Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Woods
Specialties, sued the government over the mandate, saying it violated
their religious freedom.
Douglas Laycock, the Robert E. Scott
Distinguished Professor of Law at the University of Virginia Law School,
was instrumental in helping get the federal RFRA passed. He points out
for a Feb. 19 ScotusBlog post that
RFRA was always understood to protect corporations, including
for-profit corporations. The birth control mandate cases, though,
demonstrate the possibility that judges may not see it that way, even
though that was the intent of the legislators who passed those laws.
Second,
in a case involving a wedding photographer who refused to work at a gay
wedding based upon her religious beliefs, the New Mexico Supreme Court
ruled that the state's RFRA law only applies when the government is a
party in the case. RFRA was never understood to mean that by the
legislators who passed it, but that case demonstrated the need to make
the Arizona state law more specific.
Given that, here are some of the main changes the Arizona bill would make:
Those
covered by RFRA would include "any individual, association,
partnership, corporation, church, religious assembly or institution or
other business organization."
A religious freedom violation can be asserted "regardless of whether the government is a party to the proceeding."
The
person asserting a religious freedom violation must show three things:
"1. That the person's action or refusal to act is motivated by a
religious belief. 2. That the person's religious belief is sincerely
held. 3. That the state action substantially burdens the exercise of the
person's religious beliefs."
In sum, the bill would
essentially make three changes for RFRA: 1) Clarify that any
association, including for-profit corporations, are covered. 2) Clarify
that the government does not have to be a party in the case. And, 3) to
prevent frivolous RFRA claims, require that those claiming a religious
freedom violation show that there is an actual religious belief behind
their action, that they are sincere in their religious belief, and a
state action has placed a substantial burden on their religious belief.
While
the first two changes are designed to make sure that religious freedom
is protected in the broadest way possible, the third change is to make
sure that people are not concocting their own religion or religious
belief in order to sue. If the bill is passed, those asserting a
religious freedom violation would have to prove to the court that it is
based upon an actual religious belief, and that they hold strongly to
that religion.
While the bill clarifies the broad coverage of
RFRA, it also makes it more difficult to sue under RFRA. Let us assume,
though, the Arizona bill is signed and becomes law, and someone is able
to pass those stricter tests and is allowed to sue under RFRA. Being
allowed to sue does not mean they automatically win in court.
Under
RFRA, government action may still violate one's religious beliefs. To
do so, though, it must show there is a "compelling government interest"
and the "least restrictive means" were used to further that government
interest. Claiming the law is generally applicable (applies to all
faiths or no faith), though, is not sufficient reason, under RFRA, to
take away someone's religious freedom.
This means RFRA is telling
the court to balance the needs of government to accomplish its purposes
against the religious freedom of its citizens. Religious freedom must be
protected, unless there is an important government purpose that
outweighs religious freedom and there is no other way to accomplish that
purpose without violating someone's religious belief.
Recent
cases involving Christian vendors refusing service for gay weddings has,
understandably, been part of the debate over the Arizona bill. Those
recent cases, though, involving wedding photographers and wedding cake
bakers, are not about discrimination against gays. The photogaphers and
bakers in those cases have made clear they would gladly serve gays
outside the context of a same-sex wedding. They are not refusing to
serve gays, they are refusing to serve a same-sex wedding.
Should
the government be able to force them to violate their religious
conscience? A court using RFRA would apply the balancing test: the
answer is yes, only if there is a compelling governmental interest and
the least restrictive means of furthering that interest were used.
At
this point, it should be clear why the Arizona bill would not usher in
an era of "Jim Crow for gays" in that state. Even if there were a host
of Arizona businesses hoping to turn away gay customers (there is not),
this bill would not make that any more likely. In fact, just the
opposite. Sueing under RFRA is made more difficult by the Arizona bill.
(By Napp Nazworth, Christian Post Reporter, 02/24/ 2014)
I am a thoroughly civilized, humane, cosmopolitan, polished, restrained, enjoyable, entertaining Info-maniac. I am a staunch exponent of individual dignity, freedom, equal access to legal services, and equal protection of the law. Here I hope to demonstrate my emotional restraint, humbleness of sentiment, psychological subtlety, lucid style, and simple language, without evading political reality or eternal truth. Daily I am excited that I have the right to create the beginning of a new self and to challenge old habits and attitudes I no longer choose to accept. I choose to relax in the present with my direction firmly in mind. I have an enormous capacity for creative and clever ideas and thoughts. It is phenomenal what I can do. I am capable of so much learning and absorbing a lot of information. My potential is a source of pleasant surprise for me.
Each day, I increase in knowledge, skills, strength, faith, and abilities.With each adventure, the boundary hemming in my potential expands easily to accomodate my growth and achievements.
