Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsFor those saying there is 'No difference' between Indiana's RFRA and what Clinton passed in the 90s
along with 20 some other states. Here is a great article from the Atlantic that explains quite simply how Indiana's law is different from everyone elses and why it is quite simply a law that says 'Yes you are allowed to discriminate'. I'm going to skip to the most important parts of it.
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/03/what-makes-indianas-religious-freedom-law-different/388997/
What Makes Indiana's Religious-Freedom Law Different?
Theres a factual dispute about the new Indiana law. It is called a Religious Freedom Restoration Act, like the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act, passed in 1993.* Thus a number of its defenders have claimed it is really the same law. Here, for example, is the Weekly Standards John McCormack: Is there any difference between Indiana's law and the federal law? Nothing significant. I am not sure what McCormack was thinking; but even my old employer, The Washington Post, seems to believe that if a law has a similar title as another law, they must be identical. Indiana is actually soon to be just one of 20 states with a version of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, or RFRA, the Posts Hunter Schwarz wrote, linking to this map created by the National Conference of State Legislatures.
The problem with this statement is that, well, its false. That becomes clear when you read and compare those tedious state statutes. If you do that, you will find that the Indiana statute has two features the federal RFRAand most state RFRAsdo not. First, the
The new Indiana statute also contains this odd language: A person whose exercise of religion has been substantially burdened, or is likely to be substantially burdened, by a violation of this chapter may assert the violation or impending violation as a claim or defense in a judicial or administrative proceeding, regardless of whether the state or any other governmental entity is a party to the proceeding. (My italics.) Neither the federal RFRA, nor 18 of the 19 state statutes cited by the Post, says anything like this; only the Texas RFRA, passed in 1999, contains similar language.
What these words mean is, first, that the Indiana statute explicitly recognizes that a for-profit corporation has free exercise rights matching those of individuals or churches. A lot of legal thinkers thought that idea was outlandish until last years decision in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, in which the Courts five conservatives interpreted the federal RFRA to give some corporate employers a religious veto over their employees statutory right to contraceptive coverage.
Second, the Indiana statute explicitly makes a businesss free exercise right a defense against a private lawsuit by another person, rather than simply against actions brought by government. Why does this matter? Well, theres a lot of evidence that the new wave of religious freedom legislation was impelled, at least in part, by a panic over a New Mexico state-court decision, Elane Photography v. Willock. In that case, a same-sex couple sued a professional photography studio that refused to photograph the couples wedding. New Mexico law bars discrimination in public accommodations on the basis of sexual orientation. The studio said that New Mexicos RFRA nonetheless barred the suit; but the states Supreme Court held that the RFRA did not apply because the government is not a party.
What Makes Indiana's Religious-Freedom Law Different?
Theres a factual dispute about the new Indiana law. It is called a Religious Freedom Restoration Act, like the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act, passed in 1993.* Thus a number of its defenders have claimed it is really the same law. Here, for example, is the Weekly Standards John McCormack: Is there any difference between Indiana's law and the federal law? Nothing significant. I am not sure what McCormack was thinking; but even my old employer, The Washington Post, seems to believe that if a law has a similar title as another law, they must be identical. Indiana is actually soon to be just one of 20 states with a version of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, or RFRA, the Posts Hunter Schwarz wrote, linking to this map created by the National Conference of State Legislatures.
The problem with this statement is that, well, its false. That becomes clear when you read and compare those tedious state statutes. If you do that, you will find that the Indiana statute has two features the federal RFRAand most state RFRAsdo not. First, the
Indiana law explicitly allows any for-profit business to assert a right to the free exercise of religion.
The federal RFRA doesnt contain such language, and neither does any of the state RFRAs except South Carolinas; in fact, Louisiana and Pennsylvania, explicitly exclude for-profit businesses from the protection of their RFRAs.
The new Indiana statute also contains this odd language: A person whose exercise of religion has been substantially burdened, or is likely to be substantially burdened, by a violation of this chapter may assert the violation or impending violation as a claim or defense in a judicial or administrative proceeding, regardless of whether the state or any other governmental entity is a party to the proceeding. (My italics.) Neither the federal RFRA, nor 18 of the 19 state statutes cited by the Post, says anything like this; only the Texas RFRA, passed in 1999, contains similar language.
What these words mean is, first, that the Indiana statute explicitly recognizes that a for-profit corporation has free exercise rights matching those of individuals or churches. A lot of legal thinkers thought that idea was outlandish until last years decision in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, in which the Courts five conservatives interpreted the federal RFRA to give some corporate employers a religious veto over their employees statutory right to contraceptive coverage.
Second, the Indiana statute explicitly makes a businesss free exercise right a defense against a private lawsuit by another person, rather than simply against actions brought by government. Why does this matter? Well, theres a lot of evidence that the new wave of religious freedom legislation was impelled, at least in part, by a panic over a New Mexico state-court decision, Elane Photography v. Willock. In that case, a same-sex couple sued a professional photography studio that refused to photograph the couples wedding. New Mexico law bars discrimination in public accommodations on the basis of sexual orientation. The studio said that New Mexicos RFRA nonetheless barred the suit; but the states Supreme Court held that the RFRA did not apply because the government is not a party.
In a nutshell - the Federal governor nor 19 out of 20 states did NOT give for-profit businesses the right to discriminate. That is the HUGE difference there. AND the Indiana law even gives those for-profit businesses protection in the case of a lawsuit, again something that is not in the Federal or 19 out of 20 state RFRA laws.
so there you go!
InfoView thread info, including edit history
TrashPut this thread in your Trash Can (My DU » Trash Can)
BookmarkAdd this thread to your Bookmarks (My DU » Bookmarks)
1 replies, 1093 views
ShareGet links to this post and/or share on social media
AlertAlert this post for a rule violation
PowersThere are no powers you can use on this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
ReplyReply to this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
Rec (14)
ReplyReply to this post
1 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
For those saying there is 'No difference' between Indiana's RFRA and what Clinton passed in the 90s (Original Post)
LynneSin
Mar 2015
OP
underpants
(182,788 posts)1. Great read