Post by millring on Mar 28, 2015 11:25:08 GMT -5
I don't know the source. Prolly easy enough to google up.
Questions in regards to SB 101 the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA)
Passed House: 63-31
Passed Senate: 40-10
What does this law do?
RFRA establishes a judicial standard of review which will provide the courts with clear guidance on how to resolve any matters that come forth surrounding religious freedom.
RFRA protects the rights of everyone, regardless of their religious affiliation or lack thereof, and does not determine the outcome of any case.
Why is it needed?
Indiana is an outlier. Case law in Indiana actually reveals a significant vulnerability in the protection of religious freedom. This will assure that our state courts follow the same reasoning that the federal courts and 30 other states follow when they weigh these issues.
Why now?
The Hobby Lobby case was addressed last year by the U.S Supreme Court and helped shine a light on uncertainties on how these types of cases would be decided in Indiana.
How will it impact Hoosiers?
The bill has been mischaracterized greatly. Hoosiers will likely not notice a difference, unless the government is overstepping its bounds in trying to restrict an individual from practicing their religious beliefs.
Will I notice a difference? Am I going to start seeing businesses turn people away?
Have you seen a difference in the 30 other states that have RFRA? Have you noticed a difference since 1993? In 22 years of this standard being applied at the federal and state level, discrimination has never materialized. (Full list of the 30 states with RFRA protection: Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Connecticut, Florida, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, New Mexico, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, Washington, Wisconsin)
Since the Federal Government passed this already, why is it needed in Indiana?
The Supreme Court has ruled that the federal RFRA does not apply to state and local laws and Indiana’s case law is not clear on these issues.
I was told that this bill will give any business owner the license to discriminate. Is that true?
No, it is definitely not true. This is about tolerance for religious communities. The RFRA can be used only as a defense against government action. When employers enact their own workplace policies, they are not taking government action. The House amended the RFRA bill to explicitly state that the law doesn’t provide a private cause of action by an employee against a private employer. Apart from specific services directly relevant to personally participating in weddings, the specter of religious business owners refusing to serve gays and lesbians is a myth.
Won’t this just clog up the dockets of the courts?
With or without the RFRA, people can file any lawsuit they want claiming they should be exempted from some specific law. The question is whether or not they will win that lawsuit. The RFRA is used by the federal courts and many other states, and it has not led to a flood of frivolous lawsuits. When people have filed frivolous lawsuits claiming legal exemptions under the RFRA, they have lost their cases.
Do you have an example of where there was a need for RFRA or where it has been applied?
Example 1 - A Jehovah’s Witness who lived in Kansas needed a liver transplant; her religion did not allow blood transfusions. A neighboring state had a non-blood transfusion liver transplant; however Kansas denied her request to get the out-of-state procedure. Kansas did not have RFRA. Since there was no state RFRA, they had to litigate because there was no clear legal standard. She died in the process. If Kansas had RFRA, there would have been a clear direction for the state and the courts.
Example 2 - A Muslim prisoner was asked to shave his beard to comply with prison regulations. It was against the prisoner’s religion to shave off his beard. The U.S. Supreme Court used the Federal RFRA to side with the prisoner because the beard posed no security risk.
Example 3 – In a 2012 decision, a court ruled that the Pennsylvania RFRA protected the outreach ministry of a group of Philadelphia churches, ruling that the city could not bar them from feeding homeless individuals.
Example 4 – Obamacare required Hobby Lobby to pay employees’ abortion-inducing drugs. The U. S. Supreme Court concluded that RFRA entitled the owners to an exemption from the regulation because the religious accommodation would not require any of the female employees to do without.
Questions in regards to SB 101 the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA)
Passed House: 63-31
Passed Senate: 40-10
What does this law do?
RFRA establishes a judicial standard of review which will provide the courts with clear guidance on how to resolve any matters that come forth surrounding religious freedom.
RFRA protects the rights of everyone, regardless of their religious affiliation or lack thereof, and does not determine the outcome of any case.
Why is it needed?
Indiana is an outlier. Case law in Indiana actually reveals a significant vulnerability in the protection of religious freedom. This will assure that our state courts follow the same reasoning that the federal courts and 30 other states follow when they weigh these issues.
Why now?
The Hobby Lobby case was addressed last year by the U.S Supreme Court and helped shine a light on uncertainties on how these types of cases would be decided in Indiana.
How will it impact Hoosiers?
The bill has been mischaracterized greatly. Hoosiers will likely not notice a difference, unless the government is overstepping its bounds in trying to restrict an individual from practicing their religious beliefs.
Will I notice a difference? Am I going to start seeing businesses turn people away?
Have you seen a difference in the 30 other states that have RFRA? Have you noticed a difference since 1993? In 22 years of this standard being applied at the federal and state level, discrimination has never materialized. (Full list of the 30 states with RFRA protection: Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Connecticut, Florida, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, New Mexico, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, Washington, Wisconsin)
Since the Federal Government passed this already, why is it needed in Indiana?
The Supreme Court has ruled that the federal RFRA does not apply to state and local laws and Indiana’s case law is not clear on these issues.
I was told that this bill will give any business owner the license to discriminate. Is that true?
No, it is definitely not true. This is about tolerance for religious communities. The RFRA can be used only as a defense against government action. When employers enact their own workplace policies, they are not taking government action. The House amended the RFRA bill to explicitly state that the law doesn’t provide a private cause of action by an employee against a private employer. Apart from specific services directly relevant to personally participating in weddings, the specter of religious business owners refusing to serve gays and lesbians is a myth.
Won’t this just clog up the dockets of the courts?
With or without the RFRA, people can file any lawsuit they want claiming they should be exempted from some specific law. The question is whether or not they will win that lawsuit. The RFRA is used by the federal courts and many other states, and it has not led to a flood of frivolous lawsuits. When people have filed frivolous lawsuits claiming legal exemptions under the RFRA, they have lost their cases.
Do you have an example of where there was a need for RFRA or where it has been applied?
Example 1 - A Jehovah’s Witness who lived in Kansas needed a liver transplant; her religion did not allow blood transfusions. A neighboring state had a non-blood transfusion liver transplant; however Kansas denied her request to get the out-of-state procedure. Kansas did not have RFRA. Since there was no state RFRA, they had to litigate because there was no clear legal standard. She died in the process. If Kansas had RFRA, there would have been a clear direction for the state and the courts.
Example 2 - A Muslim prisoner was asked to shave his beard to comply with prison regulations. It was against the prisoner’s religion to shave off his beard. The U.S. Supreme Court used the Federal RFRA to side with the prisoner because the beard posed no security risk.
Example 3 – In a 2012 decision, a court ruled that the Pennsylvania RFRA protected the outreach ministry of a group of Philadelphia churches, ruling that the city could not bar them from feeding homeless individuals.
Example 4 – Obamacare required Hobby Lobby to pay employees’ abortion-inducing drugs. The U. S. Supreme Court concluded that RFRA entitled the owners to an exemption from the regulation because the religious accommodation would not require any of the female employees to do without.