Religious Freedom Restoration Act (Indiana)
Indiana Senate Bill 101, titled the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA),[1] is a law in the U.S. state of Indiana, which allows individuals and companies to assert as a defense in legal proceedings that their exercise of religion has been, or is likely to be, substantially burdened.[2][3]
Religious Freedom Restoration Act (Indiana)
Religious Freedom Restoration Act
January 6, 2015
March 23, 2015
February 24, 2015
March 26, 2015
Timothy Wesco, Jud McMillin, Donald Lehe, Milo E. Smith, Bruce Borders, Dale DeVon, Tim Harman, Bob Heaton, Christopher Judy, Eric Koch, Robert Morris, Alan Morrison, Mike Speedy, Jeffrey Thompson, Thomas Washburne, Matt Lehman, David Frizzell, Randy Frye, Richard Hamm, Curt Nisly, Woody Burton, Anthony Cook, Doug Miller, Jim Lucas, Rhonda Rhoads
SB 101
The bill was approved by a vote of 40–10[4] and on March 26, 2015, Indiana Governor Mike Pence signed SB 101 into law.[5] The bill is similar to the Arizona SB 1062 vetoed by Governor Jan Brewer in 2014, which would have expanded Arizona's existing RFRA to include corporations.[6][7]
The law's signing was met with criticism by such organizations as the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA), Tim Cook (CEO of Apple Inc.), Subaru of America, the gamer convention Gen Con, and the Disciples of Christ. Technology company Salesforce.com said it would halt its plans to expand in the state,[8] as did Angie's List.[9] Opponents of the law claim that it is targeted against LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender) people and other groups. Proponents of the law claim that it protects free exercise of religion and freedom of conscience.[10][11]
Thousands protested against the policy,[12][13] in part because of Indiana's reputation for "Hoosier hospitality".[14][15] Greg Ballard, the Republican mayor of Indianapolis, called on the legislature to repeal the law, or add explicit protections for sexual orientation and gender identity.[16] Mike Pence and Republican leadership in Indiana have defended the bill, stating that it is not about discrimination.[10][17][18]
[edit]
Content[edit]
As signed into law, Indiana SB 101 stipulates that "a governmental entity may not substantially burden a person's exercise of religion... [unless it] (1) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and (2) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest." The bill defines a "person" to include any individual, organization, or "a partnership, a limited liability company, a corporation, a company, a firm, a society, a joint-stock company, an unincorporated association", or another entity driven by religious belief that can sue and be sued, "regardless of whether the entity is organized and operated for profit or nonprofit purposes."[21] A "person," as defined by the bill, would be permitted to cite violation of this law as a defense in legal proceedings.[43] While the bill explicitly states that no government entity need be involved in the legal proceeding to invoke such a defense, it also states that "the governmental entity has an unconditional right to intervene in order to respond to the person's invocation of this chapter."[44][45]
Signing[edit]
The bill was approved by a vote of 40–10. The Governor signed the approved bill into law three days later, and the law became effective on July 1, 2015.[46]
Lobbyists from the American Family Association and the Indiana Family Institute, who pushed for a ban on same-sex marriage in Indiana, were among the guests invited to the bill's private signing.[47][48] Micah Clark, executive director of the American Family Association of Indiana, previously stated that the organization would shift its focus from opposing gay marriages to preventing people from being forced to participate if they oppose them on religious grounds.[49] Conservative Christian lobby group Advance America,[50][51] which warned of "dire consequences" if same-sex marriage was enacted,[52] stated on their website that the law means "Christian bakers, florists and photographers should not be punished for refusing to participate in a homosexual marriage!"[53]
Governor Mike Pence has repeatedly stated the bill does not cause discrimination, stating in a release that the bill is about "respecting and reassuring" citizens that their "religious freedoms are intact."[54]
Differences to the Religious Freedom Restoration Act other State Religious Freedom Restoration Acts[edit]
The bill differs in two ways from the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) and other State Religious Freedom Restoration Acts. First: Religious protection is provided to more businesses than under the federal statute,[55][43] because the federal statute and its state counterparts except that of South Carolina have no language granting any for-profit business the right to “the free exercise of religion”.[43] Louisiana and Pennsylvania explicitly exclude for-profit businesses from the protection of their RFRAs.[43] Second: A defense in actions between private parties is explicitly provided for a wide range of suits including discrimination suits.[55] This due the following language in the statute: “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."[43] (Emphasis added in source) This language isn't in other state Religious Freedom Restoration Acts except that from Texas.[43] According to Law professor Garrett Epps this means "first, that the Indiana statute explicitly recognizes that a for-profit corporation has “free exercise” rights matching those of individuals or churches."[43] It also means secondly that a business’s “free exercise” right is not simply a defense against actions brought by government, but more importantly a defense against a private lawsuit by another person.[43][21] Taken together these two difference reveal that contrary to the federal RFRA and its state counter parts Indiana Senate Bill 101 was "carefully written to make clear that 1) businesses can use it against 2) civil-rights suits brought by individuals."[43]
A bill intended to provide protections for LGBT customers, employees, and tenants was proposed by Senate President David C. Long and House Speaker Brian Bosma on April 2, 2015 and was subsequently passed by the legislature and signed by Governor Pence.[116] Indiana Senate Bill 50 of 2015[117][118] was this follow up legislation specifying that Indiana Senate Bill 101 does not authorize discrimination and became effective July 1, 2015.[119] This follow legislation amended Indiana Senate Bill 101 in several ways:
The Indiana Chamber of Commerce, Indiana University, the NCAA, and Eli Lilly and Co expressed a positive reaction to the changes made by Indiana Senate Bill 50 of 2015.[120] Greg Ballard endorsed the changes, and suggested on CNN that Christian lobby groups like Advance America and the American Family Association are "on the wrong side of history in this."[121]
Bill Oesterle, the CEO of Angie's List, stated that he wanted the state to implement a stronger, statewide, non-discrimination ordinance, calling the changes "insufficient".[122]
Christian Right lobbyists, who fought for the bill after the legalization of same-sex marriage,[123] said that the changes "destroy" the bill by preventing Christian bakers and florists from refusing service to same-sex weddings.[124]