Posted on 03/26/2015 1:03:27 PM PDT by E. Pluribus Unum
Indiana Governor Mike Pence on Thursday signed into law a controversial religious freedom bill that could allow businesses and individuals to deny services to gays on religious grounds.
Supporters of the bill, which was passed overwhelmingly by both chambers of the Republican-controlled state legislature, say it will keep the government from forcing business owners to act in ways contrary to strongly held religious beliefs. Opponents say it is discriminatory and broader in scope than other state religious freedom laws.
Social conservatives have pushed for such laws following court rulings legalizing same-sex marriage, and
Indiana Governor Mike Pence on Thursday signed into law a controversial religious freedom bill that could allow businesses and individuals to deny services to gays on religious grounds.
Supporters of the bill, which was passed overwhelmingly by both chambers of the Republican-controlled state legislature, say it will keep the government from forcing business owners to act in ways contrary to strongly held religious beliefs. Opponents say it is discriminatory and broader in scope than other state religious freedom laws.
Social conservatives have pushed for such laws following court rulings legalizing same-sex marriage, and anticipating a U.S. Supreme Court ruling this year on whether states can ban same-sex marriage.
"The Constitution of the United States and the Indiana Constitution both provide strong recognition of the freedom of religion but today, many people of faith feel their religious liberty is under attack by government action," Pence said in a statement after signing the bill.
Legal experts say the Religious Freedom Restoration Act sets a legal standard that will allow people of all faiths to bring religious freedom claims, but opinions differ over its impact.
Gay rights groups worry it will be used by businesses that do not want to provide services for gay weddings. Gay marriage became legal in Indiana last year following an appeals court ruling.
Pence said that the bill is "not about discrimination" and that 19 states have similar statutes.
Jennifer Pizer, senior counsel for Lambda Legal, a New York-based national gay rights legal group, said Indiana's law is broader than other state religious freedom laws in giving businesses religious rights. She compared it to a bill Republican Arizona Governor Jan Brewer vetoed earlier this year due to concerns it could harm the economy.
"It is a signal to those who want to discriminate that they have greater leeway to do so," said Pizer.
But Indiana University Maurer School of Law professor Daniel Conkle, who supports gay rights, said the law sets the same legal test which allowed a Muslim prisoner to practice his faith by wearing a beard. A Pennsylvania religious freedom law prevented the city of Philadelphia from barring a group of churches from feeding homeless people in parks, Conkle said.
Conkle thinks an Indiana caterer who objects to serving a gay wedding could use the law to have his day in court but would be unlikely to prevail.
Whatever the legal intricacies, opponents say the law sends the wrong message, and some big Indiana employers have argued that it could be economically damaging.
The Republican mayor of Indianapolis criticized the act.
"We are a diverse city, and I want everyone who visits and lives in Indy to feel comfortable here," said Mayor Greg Ballard.
Gen Con, a major gamers convention, said it would consider not holding its annual conference in Indianapolis because of the law. The convention, which draws tens of thousands of people, is under contract with the Indiana Convention Center until 2020.
G-F-Y
What? If you go to a restaurant, wear shoes and a shirt and don't cop an attitude about your sex-life.
It is only common courtesy.
Good. Homos suck and I am tired of hearing about them.
Pence is another potential candidate to take on Hitlery.
‘Could’.
Interesting statement and probably the most accurate reporting I’ve seen.
Has Pense or anyone made any national statements to combat the hysteria? I’ve seen good articles from Reason showing this is a run of the mill law common among states. Reason is generally pro gay in their libertarian views so I belive this to be true. They are the only ones I’ve seen reporting it.
Well yeah it is, but if the choice boils down discriminate or violate your own strongly-held religious beliefs then something has to give. And since in all the cases to date the person being denied a service is not being denied something needed for their health or safety then religious freedom should trump any discrimination.
The powers to be will force Indiana to fold. Any over/under on months before Indiana caves?
Aaaaaand the free market will handle this just as it does everything else. There will be a baker who refuses to make wedding cakes for gays, and another baker across town who will gladly do it to pick up the customers turned away by baker #1.
Discrimination is a good thing when it comes to proper use of bodily functions.
What these “activists” forget is that their rights end where mine begin. Good for Indiana. Wish more states would do this.
Great point that got lost in the hysteria when the "thought police" decided that the first baker needed to be compelled to make the cake. Now the push back against this pc garbage begins.
The trick is to find an openly gay baker and demand that he bake a cake for a decidedly Christian event that teaches heterosexual monogamy. The downside is that gay bakers lack diversity. All their cakes are packed with fudge.
I’m looking for a Halal market to sell me some bacon.
So far, no luck.
Sometimes you just got to fight fire with fire.
However, since religious expression is already constitutionally protected from abridgment by the states by Section 1 of the 14th Amendment (14A), several states now in violation of Section 1 because they punished Christian business owners for refusing their services to gay couples, I’m surprised that the referenced article didn’t mention Section 1.
14th Amendment, Section 1: All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection [emphases added] of the laws.
So while pro-gay activist judges and state officials are using a PC interpretation of Section 1’s Equal Protections Clause (EPC) to force constitutionally unprotected gay marriage on the states and harass Christian business owners, it’s strange that there seems to be no mention that Section 1 also prohibits the states from unreasonably abridging constitutionally enumerated protections like religious expression.
Is the possibly pro-gay Toronto Sun deliberately ignoring 14A protections?
But we don’t want free markets we want to be able to force you to like us.
Hope the queers are happy. They lived in a country that didn’t give a damn who they were or what they were doing. Then they demanded we call they normal.
He is a lot more principled than coward Gov. Brewer.
Funny how the media don’t give a crap about bills that “could” affect Christians.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.