Right, 'coz Chuck Schumer would never lie through his teeth for political hay. Not Chuck.I do think there's evidence the federal RFRA was created to protect minority religions such as by native tribes. But like many benignly titled laws, a more unwieldy form took over in recent years at the state level, directly in response to the progress that's been made in cities passing anti discrimination laws.
Chuck Shumer who introduced the federal RFRA said the claim that the indiana version mirrors it is "completely false" and "disingenuous" and "in no way resembles the intent or application of the federal RFRA."
Here is the relevant pathetically simplistic federal text:
Government shall not substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion...Exception...(1) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest
So this has nothing to do with lgbt clearly and no court has allowed it to be used for discrimination, as government does have a compelling interest to prevent that.
The indiana version is much longer and protects the religious 'expression' of for profit corporations, which is the most preposterous thing ever and not at all in the spirit of protecting religious minorities (section 7.3). Section 9 also makes clear that action can be taken not only when religious expression is actually burdened but when a claimant *feels* that it *could* be burdened (i.e. by the 'gay agenda')
This is a direct conflict with equal protection, in which the civil rights act protects certain groups but not others. It's nothing more than a license to discriminate. In fact, when the indiana "RFRA" was amended due to the backlash to exclude discrimination, the very groups behind it were displeased. So what does that tell you about the purpose of it all along. The fact is that if the federal and state RFRA were identical, there's no reason for a state version
And yeah, Scalia never met my intellectual standards