3 ms·

The text of the bill seems really.... non-offensive. "A governmental entity may substantially burden a person's exercise of religion only if the governmental e

The text of the bill seems really.... non-offensive. "A governmental entity may substantially burden a person's exercise of religion only if the governmental entity 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." [1] That seems... pretty reasonable? The government can't limit exercise of religious freedom unless they have a reason and they do so in the least restrictive way possible? Sexual orientation could be added as a protected class. That'd perhaps be the best of both worlds? There's seemingly not been a lot of traction on that. I'm not sure why exactly. Can anyone explain? [1] http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/indianas-religious-freedom-restoration-act-explained_900641.html?page=2 http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/indianas-religious-freed...

tzs 12y ago
Several cities in Indian have added sexual orientation as a protected class. This law effectively overrides that if the person doing the discrimination claims it is for religious reasons. In other jurisdictions when their RFRA laws conflicted with their anti-discrimination laws, the anti-discrimination laws have tended to win. The anti-discrimination laws won because the RFRA laws were interpreted as prohibiting government action that burdened the exercise of religion. They did not provide a defense when a person was sued under an anti-discrimination law by a person claiming to have been discriminated against, because government was not a party to the lawsuit. The Indiana law contains specific language that says it applies to lawsuits even if no government entity is a party.
- forrestthewoods 12y ago
  On your first point, it doesn't quite override that if they claim it's for religious reasons. It simply sets the benchmark with which the law must be judged. There must be a substantial burden. There must be a compelling government interest. And the restriction must be the least restricting way to achieve that interest. That at bare minimum makes it not as apocalyptic as more than a few news reports had led me to believe.

tzs 12y ago

Several cities in Indian have added sexual orientation as a protected class. This law effectively overrides that if the person doing the discrimination claims it is for religious reasons. In other jurisdictions when their RFRA laws conflicted with their anti-discrimination laws, the anti-discrimination laws have tended to win. The anti-discrimination laws won because the RFRA laws were interpreted as prohibiting government action that burdened the exercise of religion. They did not provide a defense when a person was sued under an anti-discrimination law by a person claiming to have been discriminated against, because government was not a party to the lawsuit. The Indiana law contains specific language that says it applies to lawsuits even if no government entity is a party.

forrestthewoods 12y ago
On your first point, it doesn't quite override that if they claim it's for religious reasons. It simply sets the benchmark with which the law must be judged. There must be a substantial burden. There must be a compelling government interest. And the restriction must be the least restricting way to achieve that interest. That at bare minimum makes it not as apocalyptic as more than a few news reports had led me to believe.