First, the Indiana law explicitly allows any for-profit business to assert a right to “the free exercise of religion.” The federal RFRA doesn’t contain such language, and neither does any of the state RFRAs except South Carolina’s; in fact, Louisiana and Pennsylvania, explicitly exclude for-profit businesses from the protection of their RFRAs.
The new Indiana statute also contains this odd language: “A person whose exercise of religion has been substantially burdened, or is likely to be substantially burdened, by a violation of this chapter may assert the violation or impending violation as a claim or defense in a judicial or administrative proceeding, regardless of whether the state or any other governmental entity is a party to the proceeding.” (My italics.) Neither the federal RFRA, nor 18 of the 19 state statutes cited by the Post, says anything like this; only the Texas RFRA, passed in 1999, contains similar language.
Originally Posted by Hicup
Because unlike same sex marriage circumvention and legislation by way of the judiciary ala the 14th Amendment which guarantees civil rights to all and where marriage although religious in nature is not religious necessarily; religious association is quite a different thing, and is specific to the state of mind and covenant with anyone's God, independent from state interference. In other words, marriage is religious in nature only, but legally requires a license to procure, thus state direct involvement, however, a business owner has no such impediment under the law, where competing liberties are at odds.
Reply With Quote
