Indiana Gov. signs "religious freedom" bill into law

I'll defer to you on this, but isn't that what he's saying?

I thought strict scrutiny applied to defining "compelling government interest" that this law doesn't really spell out.

Also, doesn't it apply specifically to legislation involving vague "religions?"

 

There is no question that proponents of the law expect that it will be used to allow businesses to deny services utilized in gay marriages. But the law itself does not say “Indiana businesses can now refuse to sell services for gay weddings” or "Indiana is establishing Christianity as a state religion." Nor, though, is there language restricting it to gay marriage or even gays, generally. It does, however, create sort of a “stand your ground” affirmative defense for those who discriminate in providing their services to the public.

The language in the Indiana statute in large part tracks that of a Federal law – the Religious Freedom Restoration Act – which was enacted as a reaction to the SCOTUS decision in Department of Human Resources of Oregon v. Smith, (1990). In that case, the majority decision (written by Scalia) restricted the application of a balancing test the Court had previously used to determine whether a person’s 1st A freedom of religion rights were violated by a law. The balancing test used in the previous cases required the government to show a compelling government interest. The Court discussed in detail the difficulties in applying such a rule and why it should not be applied to a generally applicable criminal law. In this case, the Court found that the individuals’ 1 A. rights were not violated when they were fired for using peyote in religious ceremonies and denied unemployment.

There was a broad coalition from both the left and right to restore the balancing test that existing prior to the Smith decision, resulting in the enactment of the Federal RFRA. After SCOTUS held RFRA inapplicable to State laws, a number of states enacted similar provisions.

The Federal Act (and a parallel federal law) has been applied by SCOTUS to protect the rights of adherents of minority religions to engage in practices prohibited by other laws.

The problem with these statutes is in its application – especially in the wake of Hobby Lobby. Prior to that decision, the Act had been used to ensure individuals could engage in activities they felt were required for the practice of their religions but only in situations where this did not impact the rights of others who do not share those religious beliefs.

As Justice Ginsburg wrote in her concurrence upholding the right of the Muslim inmate to have a ½” beard “accommodating petitioner’s belief … would not detrimentally affect others who do not share petitioner’s belief.” Hobby Lobby impacts the rights of women who don’t share those religious beliefs to have insurance that includes all approved means of reproductive healthcare. As the proponents of the Indiana law would use it, the rights of gays to live without discrimination would be directly impacted.

Not only did Hobby Lobby ignore the impact on the rights of others, it did so in the face of flimsy and attenuated connection to any religious practice. The insurance requirement, like any requirement to provide generally available services to gays, does not prevent anyone from exercising his or her religious believes or practices. No one is being forced to use contraceptives against his or her religious beliefs. No one is being forced into a gay marriage against his or her religious beliefs.

 

The "stand your ground" analogy is a good one. The problem with the legislation is in the affirmative way its proponents will use it to license their bigotry.

 

Can you be against st gay marriage without being a bigot?

 

What else would you call it?

Being against it, you're saying a specific group of people should not have the same fundamental rights you have.

 

So how should people who hold certain religious views fix themselves? Can they ever become good people? Can someone be against gay marriage in theory but still love and support a gay person close to them? Or is such a person inherently bad?

 

You could decline to impose your beliefs on people who aren't governed by them.

You could live and let live.

You can leave for them to decide what would make them happy and how they should pursue it, a right guaranteed by the Constitution.

You can fully support the right of your church to not perform same-sex marriages without being a bigot. It's when you meddle in things outside that purview that one can become discriminatory.

 

One can show one's opposition to gay marriage by not marrying someone of the same gender. Otherwise, really, what is there to oppose? Why is it necessary to oppose how and who someone else chooses to love?

 

There must be non-bigoted people who sincerely believe they wouldn't have wanted or deserved the legal advantages and fulfillment of a marriage with their partner had they been born homosexual.

 

So women who work for Hobby Lobby can't have that insurance, huh? Not only can't they have it paid for by their employer. They can't even have it. Wow ... that sure as heck was some far-reaching decision.

 

Wasn't there some photographer out west who tried that? I can't recall how that worked out for her ...

 

But there obviously is a right way to live and a wrong way to live. How do we make sure we're ALL living the right way?