Buddhist Catholic Contemplative Evangelical General Christian Hindu Jewish Latter-day Saint Muslim New Visions Progressive Christian

Beliefs

Topics

Columnists

Resource Library

Research Tools

Video

Podcasts

Thought Readers

Faith In Media Tracker

Newsletters

Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In Subscription Support

Follow Patheos

Catholic News

Home

Home
Catholic
Religion News
The fix that wasn’t: law professor says Indiana legislature demoted religious freedom

The fix that wasn’t: law professor says Indiana legislature demoted religious freedom

Last updated on: April 10, 2015 at 10:20 pm by CNA Daily News

The fix that wasn’t: law professor says Indiana legislature demoted religious freedom 2015-04-10T22:20:00+00:00 CNA Daily News

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

South Bend, Ind., Apr 10, 2015 / 04:20 pm (CNA/EWTN News).- A Notre Dame law professor says religious liberty in Indiana was set back by the state legislature’s hasty reaction to strong criticism of a law intended to strengthen religious freedom protections.

“The fix is a substantial, and in my judgment misguided retreat from the original Religious Freedom Restoration Act, and I think it gives away too much of religious liberty,” Professor Gerard V. Bradley said in an April 6 phone conference sponsored by the Federalist Society.

“Those in favor of religious liberty should have opposed the fix, and even have been prepared to repeal the Indiana RFRA if that’s what it took to avoid enacting the fix,” he continued, charging that the amendment “bears all of the signs of a piece of legislation drafted in a hurry, passed in haste, and frankly not very well thought out.”

In Bradley’s view, the amended bill shows that legislators see religious conscience as “secondary in importance and value to the right to be free of discrimination.”

Indiana Gov. Mike Pence on March 26 signed legislation declaring that state and local governments may not substantially burden a person’s right to the exercise of religion, unless they demonstrate a compelling government interest and use the least restrictive means to further that interest.

The law was in large part modeled on the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993, which passed Congress almost unanimously and was signed into law by Bill Clinton. The legislation is intended to restore religious protections which had been eliminated by Supreme Court decisions.

The initial Indiana law did not mention sexual orientation, but it became the subject of intense media coverage which depicted it as “anti-gay.” CEOs, celebrities, major sports events and leaders of some city and state governments threatened boycotts or otherwise criticized the law as discriminatory.

The Indiana legislature amended the law to say that it was not intended to allow discrimination in the provision of services, facilities, public accommodations, employment, or housing to the general public on the basis of several characteristics, including race, religion, disability, sex, sexual orientation and gender identity. Gov. Pence signed that legislation on April 2, saying he wanted the legislature to clarify that the legal standard “would not create a license to discriminate.”

Bradley said the action solved the immediate political problem facing Indiana, but had “alarming features” from the perspective of religious liberty.

The law professor said he agreed with what he believed to be the critics’ concerns that no law should allow the denial of services like restaurant or hotel accommodations to people based on their sexual orientation.

However, he distinguished between orientation and conduct, and said the debate over the initial legislation was “commandeered” by those who said that it would “allow religion to license and privilege discrimination.”

Bradley said the amended law now has a “very, very narrow exemption” that applies religious liberty protections only to churches and non-profit religious organizations.

It offers no protections to closely-held businesses or to non-profit non-religious entities.

The amended Indiana law would offer “no protection” to a Christian bookstore with a handful of employees, a kosher butcher shop, or small psychology counseling firms or family therapy firms that work from a Christian perspective.

“Those persons would have no protection under this law” and would be obliged to hire people who did not share their religious viewpoint, Bradley said.

Unlike standards in other laws and regulations, there is no exemption for small proprietors of boarding houses or businesses composed of five or six employees.

“The fix goes way beyond the problem to which it is supposed to be a solution,” he said.

He added that the amended law, for the first time in Indiana state law, uses phrases like “sexual orientation” and “gender identity,” but does not define them.

Bradley reflected on the need to change the narrative about religious freedom protections.

“The way to really understand what’s going on is to have a different narrative in place,” he said, recommending that religious freedom advocates give “a much greater, fuller account of how religion contributes to diversity.”

For Bradley, the diversity that’s most at risk in the marketplace and in public life is not diversity of sexual orientation but diversity of religious points of view.

“Especially in wedding services, we’re looking at whether there should be an ideological cleansing of certain professions or certain trades so that persons with traditional religious convictions would no longer be able to enter those professions or perform in those trades,” he explained. “I think that’s a great loss of diversity, reduces pluralism, and sends the wrong message to believers.”

What’s at stake, he said, is whether a person of traditional religious convictions “can actually become a wedding photographer or a wedding florist.”

Bradley said a better modification to the Indiana law could have satisfied both sides in the debate by focusing “strictly upon conduct.” The law could have barred requiring a service provider to participate in an activity contrary to their religious beliefs “so long as reasonable alternatives to that service were available.”

Previous Post

April 10, 2015

Paris wax museum unveils statue of Pope Francis

Next Post

April 11, 2015 Is there a light in the dark for Turkey's invisible Christians?

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category Americas Asia - Pacific Europe Middle East - Africa Uncategorized US Vatican

Select a Month November 2017 October 2017 September 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz

According to 2 Timothy, all Scripture is given by inspiration of God and is profitable for what four things?

Select your answer to see how you score.

Teaching, rebuking, correcting, and training in righteousness Prayer, worship, fellowship, and service Salvation, sanctification, justification, and glorification Faith, hope, love, and peace