Indiana Religious Freedom Restoration Act

[Page]

Like voter ID laws, they were passed in response to an imaginary problem to make bigots' lives easier.

Yep. Totally makes sense. Chuck Schumer is a total bigot, as is Bill Clinton.

Even liberals have to pander to Christian fascists to stay electable.

[Greed and Death]

You mean like back in '93 when it was introduced at the federal level, or when the other 20 states that already have this law on their books did it?

Like voter ID laws, they were passed in response to an imaginary problem to make bigots' lives easier.

Actually it was passed in response to Native Americans being fired and denied unemployment compensation because they part took of a religious sacrament(Peyote).

See Department of Human Resources of Oregon vs. Smith, 494 U.S. 872 (1990).

[Occupied Deutschland]

Honestly, I am not surprised. With the large amount of homophobic people in the United States, such a law was bound to happen eventually.

You mean like back in '93 when it was introduced at the federal level, or when the other 20 states that already have this law on their books did it?

It has 'religious freedom' in its name, it MUST be a part of the vast right-wing conspiracy.

[Fartsniffage]

Yep. Totally makes sense. Chuck Schumer is a total bigot, as is Bill Clinton.

Even liberals have to pander to Christian fascists to stay electable.

Okay, what you need to do is step back for a moment, do a little reading on the history and applicability of these laws and then try again.

[Greed and Death]

The Federal RFRA does not apply to the states, so if states want a general rule on religious exemptions and they do not already have the same rule from the state constitution then states will have to pass their own RFRA.

so why bother passing it NOW? what is suddenly so important that they have to rush this through? might it be gay marriage and the horror of wedding shops having to serve whoever comes in the door?

It went through the normal committee process and seems to just be the legislature performing its normal day to day job of clarifying laws.

[Greed and Death]

Because certain figures in the media and the left want to remind LGBT people that they need the Democrats as the supreme court is likely to strike down gay marriage bans before the 2016 election.


Also look at Hillary's criticism of the law, her response is not that it allows discrimination against LGBT people it is that invites discrimination. What she is saying is people will misread the law and discriminate even when they are not allowed to.

And you are suggesting they won't?

Seriously now. The governor said this law was to protect religion and give them legal routes. Protect from what? What happened that required this "law"

With Gay rights becoming the norm it becomes more and more likely other issues hold sway on LGBT voting patterns so what was maybe a 80-20 voting pattern becomes a 60-40 voting pattern.

Protect them from when laws of general applicability force them to choose between violating their religion obeying the law. Social security, working on Sunday, head gear in court, and Native American ceremonial drug use are all prominent examples that would be covered under the RFRA.

[Insaeldor]

I will say this law does word itself in a way you can definetly interpret it as a non-discriminatory peice of work, however that doesn't mean it can't be used in such a way. What I really baffled on is why this needed to pass in the first place. What's the perceived importance behind it other then reaffirming the governmebt can't do what I already can not do?

[Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States]

I will say this law does word itself in a way you can definetly interpret it as a non-discriminatory peice of work, however that doesn't mean it can't be used in such a way. What I really baffled on is why this needed to pass in the first place. What's the perceived importance behind it other then reaffirming the governmebt can't do what I already can not do?

Every law can be interpreted in a discriminatory way. Judges should interpret a law in such a way that it serves the common good. Take any law, and there is a way to make it racist, discriminatory or generally unfair. I hope the courts will use it in the right way.

[Greed and Death]

I will say this law does word itself in a way you can definetly interpret it as a non-discriminatory peice of work, however that doesn't mean it can't be used in such a way. What I really baffled on is why this needed to pass in the first place. What's the perceived importance behind it other then reaffirming the governmebt can't do what I already can not do?

No the decades of legal precedent is what says it can not be used in a discriminatory way ?

Why codify criminal law since the common law murder, assault, and rape definitions did just fine?

Legislatures codify items all the time that already have the same protections.

[Insaeldor]

I will say this law does word itself in a way you can definetly interpret it as a non-discriminatory peice of work, however that doesn't mean it can't be used in such a way. What I really baffled on is why this needed to pass in the first place. What's the perceived importance behind it other then reaffirming the governmebt can't do what I already can not do?

Every law can be interpreted in a discriminatory way. Judges should interpret a law in such a way that it serves the common good. Take any law, and there is a way to make it racist, discriminatory or generally unfair. I hope the courts will use it in the right way.

I completly agree and I would assume that be the way in which the courts interpret the law. My question still remains as to why they want to do this. Sounds like when my state made it illegal for the Feds to unlawfully take ones firearm. The Feds really couldn't do that to begain with but it was a nice political manuver for the governor.

[Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States]

Every law can be interpreted in a discriminatory way. Judges should interpret a law in such a way that it serves the common good. Take any law, and there is a way to make it racist, discriminatory or generally unfair. I hope the courts will use it in the right way.

I completly agree and I would assume that be the way in which the courts interpret the law. My question still remains as to why they want to do this. Sounds like when my state made it illegal for the Feds to unlawfully take ones firearm. The Feds really couldn't do that to begain with but it was a nice political manuver for the governor.

Probably. Maybe it's a political move by the legislature, some compromise made somewhere, or just them wanting to pass something. I don't know what happens in Indiana. It's a bit too far away to make me care that much. But I guess it's some political manoeuvring.

[Greed and Death]

Every law can be interpreted in a discriminatory way. Judges should interpret a law in such a way that it serves the common good. Take any law, and there is a way to make it racist, discriminatory or generally unfair. I hope the courts will use it in the right way.

I completly agree and I would assume that be the way in which the courts interpret the law. My question still remains as to why they want to do this. Sounds like when my state made it illegal for the Feds to unlawfully take ones firearm. The Feds really couldn't do that to begain with but it was a nice political manuver for the governor.

Because a Indiana court decision about the state Constitution could be overturned by a latter state supreme court, making a statute means only a future legislature could overturn it. As with what happened with federal protections for religious freedom in 1990, SCOTUS changed its mind and scaled back the standard of protection for the free exercise clause. Congress disagreed and reinstated the standard in 1993.

As for any political points gained it is the left's rage about the bill doing that.

[Insaeldor]

I will say this law does word itself in a way you can definetly interpret it as a non-discriminatory peice of work, however that doesn't mean it can't be used in such a way. What I really baffled on is why this needed to pass in the first place. What's the perceived importance behind it other then reaffirming the governmebt can't do what I already can not do?

No the decades of legal precedent is what says it can not be used in a discriminatory way ?

Why codify criminal law since the common law murder, assault, and rape definitions did just fine?

Legislatures codify items all the time that already have the same protections.

Legally yes, that doesn't mean it can not be used in that manner though.

I don't really see how that relates

But why? It's a waste of time a resources to do that. Unless it's closing up a loophole in the system I don't see the need for it practically.

[Greed and Death]

No the decades of legal precedent is what says it can not be used in a discriminatory way ?

Why codify criminal law since the common law murder, assault, and rape definitions did just fine?

Legislatures codify items all the time that already have the same protections.

Legally yes, that doesn't mean it can not be used in that manner though.

I don't really see how that relates

But why? It's a waste of time a resources to do that. Unless it's closing up a loophole in the system I don't see the need for it practically.

Sure it could be used in a discriminatory manner, if the Indiana state supreme court ignores decades of Precedent both federal and state, ignores the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment and relevant case law, and otherwise does something so completely unpredictable that you are more likely to get struck by lighting twice.

100 years ago criminal law was dictated by the courts in with the crimes of common law murder. These criminal laws generally worked fine but they could be adjusted by the courts as they saw fit. People began to feel in a democracy maybe the legislature should control the definition of murder or any other major crime. And hence was born the predecessor to our modern criminal code. The exact same reason applies here maybe the religious exemptions should be dictated under terms created by the legislature instead of judges it seems democratic.

The ACA was not closing a loophole it was creating new system your logic would also defeat that (and the new deal), legislature are allowed and encouraged to be proactive, and it is a mark of a poor legislature that is solely reactive.

[Christian Democrats]

You mean like back in '93 when it was introduced at the federal level, or when the other 20 states that already have this law on their books did it?

Which is why i am proposing that we divide the country up into too. Like here:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c ... isions.svg

Religious "freedom" exercisers in the red, Human rights advocates in the blue.

It'd be nice if you looked up an actual map of RFRAs.

The color scheme is backwards, but this map will do the trick:

http://www.indianahouserepublicans.com/clientuploads/PDF/RFRA/BothStateFederalRFRA2.pdf

[AiliailiA]

That's not an answer.

Care to explain why the law was even needed. Where has the evil government been preventing adherence to Religious beliefs?

Just this year, the U.S. Supreme Court has used the federal RFRA in Holt v. Hobbs.

Holt v. Hobbs was an appeal by a Muslim prisoner against prison rules (state prison not federal) preventing him from growing a beard.

Since 1997 the federal RFRA can't be applied to state government actions (City of Boerne v. Flores). Holt won his case under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (2000) which does apply to states, in fewer circumstances.

You weren't far wrong. The principle from the federal RFRA was behind the decision (serves state interest, is not excessive to achieve the purpose) but it's important to note that RLUIPA applies to the states in more limited circumstances than RFRA attempted to.

So for instance, a business (unless operating on Federal land) couldn't use the federal RLUIPA to defend its actions. A business is not a religious institution nor a prison.

[Russels Orbiting Teapot]

Have any examples been provided as to why this act is necessary? What problems are they afraid would happen if this act wasn't in place to prevent it?

[Liriena]

It worries me that there's people out there who feel that "religious freedom" means having the right to impose your religious views on others in non-religious enviroments. If you want to sell products or services as a form of religious expression, with the right to pick and choose your customers according to your faith, start a church or a NGO, not a licensed business.

[Greed and Death]

Have any examples been provided as to why this act is necessary? What problems are they afraid would happen if this act wasn't in place to prevent it?

Native American could go to jail for using peyote in accordance with their religion, people could be denied their day in court for refusing to remove religious head gear, and forcing Orthodox Jews to work Saturdays in order to get unemployment insurance.

Yes those are currently protected by court rulings but they can also disappear in a single ruling as that is what happened in Employment division v. Smith(citations omitted).

Those claiming this allows LGBT discrimination might as well be yelling Death Panels.

[AiliailiA]

Have any examples been provided as to why this act is necessary? What problems are they afraid would happen if this act wasn't in place to prevent it?

Native American could go to jail for using peyote in accordance with their religion, people could be denied their day in court for refusing to remove religious head gear, and forcing Orthodox Jews to work Saturdays in order to get unemployment insurance.

Yes those are currently protected by court rulings but they can also disappear in a single ruling as that is what happened in Employment division v. Smith(citations omitted).

Those claiming this allows LGBT discrimination might as well be yelling Death Panels.

The example of Native Americans though ... wouldn't they be covered by federal RFRA since their religious ceremony would almost certainly be performed on a reservation?

[Christian Democrats]

Just this year, the U.S. Supreme Court has used the federal RFRA in Holt v. Hobbs.

Holt v. Hobbs was an appeal by a Muslim prisoner against prison rules (state prison not federal) preventing him from growing a beard.

Since 1997 the federal RFRA can't be applied to state government actions (City of Boerne v. Flores). Holt won his case under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (2000) which does apply to states, in fewer circumstances.

You weren't far wrong. The principle from the federal RFRA was behind the decision (serves state interest, is not excessive to achieve the purpose) but it's important to note that RLUIPA applies to the states in more limited circumstances than RFRA attempted to.

So for instance, a business (unless operating on Federal land) couldn't use the federal RLUIPA to defend its actions. A business is not a religious institution nor a prison.

1. Apologies for my momentary confusion. RLUIPA builds on RFRA, and both acts are in the same section of the U.S. Code.

42 U.S.C. §2000bb–1 -- Religious Freedom Restoration Act

(a) In general
Government shall not substantially burden a person's exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability, except as provided in subsection (b) of this section.

(b) Exception
Government may substantially burden a person's exercise of religion only if it demonstrates that application of the burden to the person—
(1) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and
(2) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.

42 U.S. Code § 2000cc -- Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act

No government shall impose or implement a land use regulation in a manner that imposes a substantial burden on the religious exercise of a person, including a religious assembly or institution, unless the government demonstrates that imposition of the burden on that person, assembly, or institution—

(A) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and
(B) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.

The only substantive difference between the acts is their application to different areas.

2. Why do we need state RFRAs? To fill in the "hole" left by the federal RFRA and RLUIPA. As you note and as others have noted, the Supreme Court created the "hole" through its decisions in Smith and Flores, essentially abandoning the Sherbert test.

3. The new Indiana RFRA does for that state what the federal RFRA does for the federal government. It blocks infringements on religious liberty with two exceptions: (1) strict scrutiny is met, or (2) the legislature makes a statute immune to RFRA challenges.

These "anti-gay" accusations have popped up out of the blue.

[Greed and Death]

Native American could go to jail for using peyote in accordance with their religion, people could be denied their day in court for refusing to remove religious head gear, and forcing Orthodox Jews to work Saturdays in order to get unemployment insurance.

Yes those are currently protected by court rulings but they can also disappear in a single ruling as that is what happened in Employment division v. Smith(citations omitted).

Those claiming this allows LGBT discrimination might as well be yelling Death Panels.

The example of Native Americans though ... wouldn't they be covered by federal RFRA since their religious ceremony would almost certainly be performed on a reservation?

Not all tribes and reservations are federal. So no.


Also if the federal reservation is not a natural source of Peyote they would have to go off reservation to get it.

[Gauthier]

Chik-Fil-A and Hobby Lobby ought to be announcing their corporate relocation to Indiana any day now...

[Fartsniffage]

Chik-Fil-A and Hobby Lobby ought to be announcing their corporate relocation to Indiana any day now...

Why? Georgia and Oklahoma already have the same law in place.

[AiliailiA]

Holt v. Hobbs was an appeal by a Muslim prisoner against prison rules (state prison not federal) preventing him from growing a beard.

Since 1997 the federal RFRA can't be applied to state government actions (City of Boerne v. Flores). Holt won his case under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (2000) which does apply to states, in fewer circumstances.

You weren't far wrong. The principle from the federal RFRA was behind the decision (serves state interest, is not excessive to achieve the purpose) but it's important to note that RLUIPA applies to the states in more limited circumstances than RFRA attempted to.

So for instance, a business (unless operating on Federal land) couldn't use the federal RLUIPA to defend its actions. A business is not a religious institution nor a prison.

1. Apologies for my momentary confusion. RLUIPA builds on RFRA, and both acts are in the same section of the U.S. Code.

42 U.S.C. §2000bb–1 -- Religious Freedom Restoration Act

(a) In general
Government shall not substantially burden a person's exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability, except as provided in subsection (b) of this section.

(b) Exception
Government may substantially burden a person's exercise of religion only if it demonstrates that application of the burden to the person—
(1) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and
(2) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.

42 U.S. Code § 2000cc -- Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act

No government shall impose or implement a land use regulation in a manner that imposes a substantial burden on the religious exercise of a person, including a religious assembly or institution, unless the government demonstrates that imposition of the burden on that person, assembly, or institution—

(A) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and
(B) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.

The only substantive difference between the acts is their application to different areas.

2. Why do we need state RFRAs? To fill in the "hole" left by the federal RFRA and RLUIPA. As you note and as others have noted, the Supreme Court created the "hole" through its decisions in Smith and Flores, essentially abandoning the Sherbert test.

3. The new Indiana RFRA does for that state what the federal RFRA does for the federal government. It blocks infringements on religious liberty with two exceptions: (1) strict scrutiny is met, or (2) the legislature makes a statute immune to RFRA challenges.

Yes. The next section though, was also added by RLUIPA

religious exercise of institutionalized persons

Incidentally, States could violate the religious exercise rights of institutionalized persons, if they were prepared to give up any federal funding to the institution.

It could be a good thing that this state law would take away that option in Indiana.

These "anti-gay" accusations have popped up out of the blue.

Well unlike Illinois, Indiana does not have any law prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. So it's not clear that the courts would recognize preventing discrimination as a compelling state interest.