Indiana wants balance of rights, freedom

Indiana Gov. Mike Pence steps off the podium after a news conference discussing the state's new religious-freedom law, Tuesday, March 31, 2015, in Indianapolis.
Indiana Gov. Mike Pence steps off the podium after a news conference discussing the state's new religious-freedom law, Tuesday, March 31, 2015, in Indianapolis.

Despite what you've been hearing, the recently signed Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) in Indiana doesn't mandate that gay people be burned at the stake.

It's not even, as is often heard in the react-first-learn-facts-later crowd, "a license to discriminate."

Indeed, it's a law similar to one in Tennessee passed and signed by Democratic Gov. Phil Bredesen in 2009, which states "... no government entity shall substantially burden a person's free exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability."

Nineteen other states have the same type of law, which cropped up following the national Religious Freedom Restoration Act that was co-sponsored by the late Sen. Ted Kennedy in the Senate and signed by President Bill Clinton in 1993. Then-state Sen. Barack Obama supported the Illinois version of the law in 1998. The American Civil Liberties Union helped defend the Texas version of the law in 2009.

When the United States Supreme Court upheld religious liberty in last summer's Burwell v. Hobby Lobby ruling, based on the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act, Gov. Mike Pence felt Indiana needed a similar law since the federal law didn't apply to individual states.

The new law does not provide for individuals or entities to deny services but offers a mechanism for those who believe their religious beliefs were "substantially burdened" to address claims (unless the government can prove a compelling interest in imposing that burden such as in preventing discrimination).

An Indiana University law professor who is a supporter of gay rights and same-sex marriage wrote as much in the Indianapolis Star last week.

"The proposed RFRA would provide valuable guidance to Indiana courts," Dr. Daniel O. Conkle said, "directing them to balance religious freedom against competing interest under the same legal standard that applies throughout most of the land. It is anything but a 'license to discriminate,' and it should not be mischaracterized or dismissed on that basis."

Similar religious freedom legislation forced Florida to offer kosher meals to a Jewish prisoner who petitioned and allowed a Muslim prisoner in Arkansas who petitioned to keep the 1/2-inch beard his faith commands.

Christians deserve no less a chance to petition for their religious freedom if they feel "substantially burdened."

Upcoming Events