Why there is so much confusion about Indiana's RFRA Law

[sunnystarr]

and why that's dangerous. The media can't seem to do their homework and point out what is clarified in a post response to a Washington Post article.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2015/03/27/19-states-that-have-religious-freedom-laws-like-indianas-that-no-one-is-boycotting/

Sean Molin

4:52 PM CDT [Edited]

I emailed the author directly as follows:

"Your article is based on a serious factual inaccuracy. Indiana’s RFRA law is different than other state RFRA laws. Additionally to being worded differently, Indiana does not acknowledge LGBT persons as a protected class.

Indiana’s version of the RFRA is different from all the others currently enacted, because it states that individuals who feel their religion has been burdened can find legal protection in the bill “regardless of whether the state or any other governmental entity is a party to the proceeding.”

The hypothetical scenario has already played out in other states. A same-sex couple approaches a wedding vendor to order something for their ceremony, the vendor refuses claiming a religious belief against same-sex marriage, and then the couple files a complaint that the vendor has discriminated against them based on their sexual orientation. So far, the couples have won these cases at every turn, but none of them have played out in a state with a RFRA like the one that is now law in Indiana.

New Mexico has had a RFRA since 2000, but it only applies to burdens from government agencies. Thus, it didn’t have any impact when the state Supreme Court unanimously ruled against photographer Elaine Huguenin for refusing to photograph a same-sex couple’s commitment ceremony. Huguenin certainly tried to invoke the state’s RFRA, but the Court concluded that it was “inapplicable to disputes in which a government agency is not a party.” A law like Indiana’s, which explicitly states the government does not have to be party to the case, could have had a very different impact on the case.

Additionally, a religious law scholar Carolyn Homer has done a marvelous unbiased analysis of the law that is worth reading: https://www.facebook.com/cmhomer/posts/10105487786..."

The RFRA laws in other states vary and aren't identical. Additionally many states have anti-discrimination laws which protect the LBGT community.

[valerief]

1. The Billionaires' media DOES NOT WANT to cite the differences. The Billionaires' media

supports Pence.

[Fred Sanders]

2. The Billionaires media has lawyers who understand perfectly well the legal implications, but are silenced.

Release the Billionaires Media emails.

[onecaliberal]

3. Mostly because the governor was on teevee telling fat lies about it.

Without being called out on the lies.

[Zorra]

4. A lot of the MSM is clearly deliberately clouding the issue. nt

[WorseBeforeBetter]

5. Glad to see so much flak over that Fix piece by Hunter Schwarz.

I grew up on the Washington Post and it's sad to see what a joke it's become. Hunter The Blogger needs to be canned. Maybe BuzzFeed will take him back. He was more concerned with Miley's use of profanity than getting the facts straight re: the fucking law.

[rhett o rick]

6. I think that everyone in Indiana should get buttons that say, "I am gay".

Seriously. I'd wear one. By the way, I am not gay but have been told I have a strong feminine side. I am not sure what that means, but I take it as a compliment.