YOU DECIDE: Indiana’s RFRA Law

You may have heard about Indiana’s new Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA). The passage of this law last week caused a flurry of controversy in the news and on social media around the country. The source of much of the controversy centers on exactly what the intention of the law. Is the goal of the Indiana law to protect Hoosier state business people who feel that they are being forced by govenrment regulations to violate their religious beliefs? Or is the law providing the means for some to discriminate against others under the umbrella protection of the First Amendment right of Freedom of Religion?

Indiana governor Mike Pence found himself playing defense only a few days after the discussion over the law began. He tried to explain what the new law means and what it does not mean.  Take a look at the RFRA (also known as Senate Bill 568). Read the pros and cons below and think about what this law means to you. Then take the quiz at the bottom of the post.

Does the Religious Freedom Restoration Act Unfairly Discriminate?

No

• The cornerstone of the U.S. Constitution is the protection of a wide range of religious beliefs and practices. It is, therefore, the right of every American to exercise their religion. A photographer should not be punished for refusing to perform services at a union that their faith dictates is not valid.
• Indiana’s RFRA is similar to many other state laws that already exist. This also includes the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act that President Bill Clinton signed into law in 1993. Nineteen other states have enacted similar laws. It is no different than a business posting a sign that says, “We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone,” or a business that enforces a dress code.
• The interpretation of Indiana’s law has been blown out of proportion by angry critics. As a result, Governor Pence actively sought new legislation to clarify that the new RFRA does not give anyone or any business the right to deny services to anyone.

Yes

• Indiana’s RFRA is not the same as the federal RFRA that President Clinton signed into law in 1993. The federal version protect the liberties of religious minorities (such as Native Americans) against government restrictions that impacted their religious practices.
• The language of Indiana’s law is broader than the federal law and could allow people to use “religious freedom” as a means to deny service to others, thereby discriminating against those denied.
• The definition of “person” in Indiana’s law is broader than the federal law and includes religious organizations, businesses, and organizations. In addition, the Indiana law expands the definition of who can be sued.

Dig Deeper This is likely to become a hot topic during the 2016 presidential campaign. Pay attention to how new contenders address their position. Is Indiana’s RFRA a necessary protection to ensure the freedoms of all citizens, or statue designed to put obstacles in the path of equality. Back up your answer.