I think the governor’s point about following the federal act is a good one. I like consistency. The problems we’ve seen with the bakers and florists is one where the state imposes itself between parties to enforce what the .gov sees as a larger state interest. The Act would allow the baker/florist to have an argument, assuming they have strongly-held beliefs, and the .gov would have to support how their solution is the least intrusive into the religious practice of the individual.
My point was that following the language and practice of the federal law leaves AR less open to problems and challenges because the federal law has been in place for over 20 years. The federal law was successfully used in the Hobby Lobby case about abortifacients being required by to be covered for qualifying ObamaCare policies.
Without a state-level RFRA, any business run by a religious principled person that declines to provide a service on religious grounds could be taken to court or the state civil rights commission for discrimination. With a RFRA in place, they have a potential argument to make in their case. Further, the state must show an overriding interest to force the matter but can only do so in a way that least interferes with the religious practice.
Any better??
yes, thanks. I’ll have to think about that. I appreciate the clarification. No pun intended.