Did Barack Obama once support a law just like Indiana’s Religious Freedom Restoration Act?

[DonViejo]

-snip-

“Then state Sen. Barack Obama voted for (the Religious Freedom Restoration Act) when he was in the state Senate of Illinois,” Pence said. “The very same language."

Those claims rate Half True.

As an Illinois state senator, Obama did vote for a version of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. It passed the Illinois Senate 56-0 and became law on July 1, 1998. However, the language isn’t the “very same,” and the claim is not as simple as lining up one vote next to the other and declaring them equal, experts told us.

The Religious Freedom Restoration Act was originally passed by Congress and signed by President Clinton in 1993 with overwhelming bipartisan support. The intent of the bill was to protect religious practices from government interference, such as whether a Muslim prison guard could wear a beard or whether a Jehovah’s Witness needed special coverage for medical procedures because he or she is against blood transfusions.

States started passing their own laws when the U.S. Supreme Court decided in 1997 that the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act did not apply to the states. Since then, 19 states have passed their own laws. Many, like Illinois, did so in the initial wave. “To say ‘We did what Illinois did’ without acknowledging the fact that Illinois gave protections really misses the real debate.”

Fast-forward to the current climate. The U.S. Supreme Court is expected to weigh in on the constitutionality of same sex marriage bans. Meanwhile, same sex marriage bans in states like Indiana have been struck down by lower courts, dramatically changing the concept of legal marriage at breakneck speed.

Conservatives in Indiana and elsewhere see the Religious Freedom Restoration Act as a vehicle for fighting back against the legalization of same-sex marriage.

-snip-

When Pence signed SB 101 in a private ceremony, three people who work for groups that supported the same sex marriage ban and want to limit civil rights for gays and lesbians were in attendance. One of the lobbyists, Eric Miller of Advance America, heralded the state’s law as protecting Christian bakers, florists, and photographers from penalty “for refusing to participate in a homosexual marriage, among other examples.” This is a direct reference to high-profile cases of Christian wedding vendors refusing to provide services for gay couples in other states.

In one sense, there isn’t all that much difference between the bill that got Obama’s vote in Illinois 17 years ago and the bill that Pence signed into law last week. But how people want the law applied, on top of other legislative changes, has changed the landscape dramatically, said Steve Sanders, a professor of family and constitutional law at the Indiana University Maurer School of Law.

-snip-

full article
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/03/29/fact-checking-the-sunday-shows-march-29.html

See also:
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/mar/29/mike-pence/did-barack-obama-vote-religious-freedom-restoratio/

[gollygee]

1. Somtimes laws are created for good reasons but end up being misused

Sadly, people with an agenda to discriminate are always on the lookout for ways to be able to do it. These laws are now horribly misused, and should contain language prohibiting them from being used to discriminate against someone.
.

[FSogol]

2. Nope. There is a difference in national attitudes between 1998 and 2015.

Pence is moving Indiana backward.

[LiberalFighter]

5. I go with this response too.

[Thinkingabout]

7. Agreed, there has been lots of evolving.

[boston bean]

3. This is much like a reverse racism/sexism argument they are making.

And what, coincidentally, you will hear MRA's spouting about laws, such as the VAWA, as being discriminatory toward men.

These laws were made to help lessen/counter discrimination against a discriminated group, not to be used to write discrimination into law. There is huge difference, and people who make these arguments are usually bigoted POS.

[el_bryanto]

4. This reminds me a bit of Republicans harping on how more Republicans than Democrats

supported the great civil rights bills. Which is technically true, but misses the point. All of those Southern Democrats who fought so very hard to maintain segregation abandoned the Democratic Party after these votes and in reaction to Nixon's Southern Strategy. The Republican Party went through 40 years of first, courting the Southern racist vote, and secondly, purging all moderate/liberal Republicans from the party.

But they love hearing about how Republicans supported civil rights more thoroughly than Democrats.

Bryant

[fredamae]

6. First, the answer is Nooooo

The way I understand it...while the laws are very similar-the Intent is Waaaay different and IN Law is actually "different enough" that it Allows nefarious and bigoted discrimination...

That's Always the GOP/RW "Rationalization" to Excuse (lie) their way out of a "hot zone" is to point Away from themselves and Falsely blame "the other" for that Harm which they, themselves have wrought upon our country.
IF it (Clinton era statute/policy/rule), in reality, accomplished what They want(ed) in the first place, they'd have no Need to rewrite it and pass legislation at the state level, if it really Were already a Federal Law...right? All they'd have to do, is Enforce Current Law.

Secondly....Isn't the question about 7 Years too late?
"We're" supposed to Vet and Know this kind of stuff... Before we Vote, no?

[Zorra]

8. Pence is lying. I've never encountered a christofascist who was not a liar. nt

[Bluenorthwest]

9. I found an interesting blog post from an Indiana civil litigator comparing the Federal Law with

Indiana's and to a lesser extent to those in other States...
Does IRFRA resemble its federal counterpart?

The short answer here is no.

I have seen the point made that federal democrats in 1993 passed a similar bill into law. This is in reference to 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb, which was indeed passed during the Clinton administration. This sound-byte is apparently made to imply that the left cannot complain because they created the blueprint.

Indeed, as Gov. Pence provided in his statement yesterday: “Fortunately, in the 1990s Congress passed, and President Clinton signed, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act—limiting government action that would infringe upon religion to only those that did not substantially burden free exercise of religion absent a compelling state interest and in the least restrictive means.” See Gov. Mike Pence signs ‘religious freedom’ bill in private.

The flaw in this implication is that it is misleading for several reasons.....

https://inadvancesheet.wordpress.com/2015/03/27/the-indiana-religious-freedom-restoration-act-an-analysis-of-its-controversy/

[old guy]

10. Politifact rates anything half true if at least half the words are spelled correctly.

[former9thward]

11. Then I am sure you will show how the laws are different.

I will even help you. The IL law is Ill. Rev. Stat. Ch. 775, §35/1, et seq.

Good luck, but it is the same as the IN law.