|
|
|
|
|
by forrestthewoods
4095 days ago
|
|
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-freed... |
|
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.