# The Notorious Indiana Bill Just Signed Into Law--Other States Have It? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [March 27, 2015, 1:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-notorious-indiana-bill-just-signed-into-law-other-states-have-it/716109 "2015-03-27T13:24:09Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![buddy431](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/6a8cbe/32.png) [@buddy431](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/buddy431)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2015, 3:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-notorious-indiana-bill-just-signed-into-law-other-states-have-it/716109/21 "2015-03-28T03:11:06Z")
> [@Saint\_Cad](#): > > What if I want to use the law to bar women from my office or store during their period as unclean? Would anything trump my application of the law? There was one case where a man had to work 24 hour shifts with a single bedroom with a female coworker, against his religious beliefs. The court said that offering to allow shift swaps was a reasonable accommodation. Customers or coworker preference for employees of a particular sex or religion is generally not seen as enough to justify discrimination. The law (and other laws and principles) around religious exemptions isn’t always applied in the same way, but facial discrimination based on a protected class is pretty universally frowned upon. > **[a100](https://www2.law.ucla.edu/volokh/intermed.htm)** > > =h1Intermediate Questions of Religious Exemptions--A Research Agenda with Test Suites@ ---
**Author:** ![buddy431](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/6a8cbe/32.png) [@buddy431](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/buddy431)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2015, 4:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-notorious-indiana-bill-just-signed-into-law-other-states-have-it/716109/22 "2015-03-28T04:08:44Z")
> [@Exapno\_Mapcase](#): > > Is there somebody here from Indiana who can explain why this particular 20th or 22nd passage of seemingly identical bills has been the one to blow up into a national news frenzy? > > Or is it just one of those things that is suddenly seized upon by (social) media for no identifiable reason? > > The rational part of me prefers the former, but the latter appeals to the part of me that is fascinated by why some things garner attention when others don’t, a phenomenon that goes back in news as far as I can trace it. As near as I can tell, this is the first one that has been passed since the _Hobby Lobby_ decision. I imagine that got a lot of people talking about it. Federal: 1993 -Ruled unconstitutional as applied to states in 1997 Alabama (constitutional amendment): 1998 Arizona: 2012 Connecticut: 1998(?) Florida: 1998 Idaho: 2000 Illinois: 1998 Indiana: 2015 Kansas: 2013 Kentucky: 2013 Louisiana: 2010 Mississippi: 2014 Missouri: 2003 New Mexico: 2000 Oklahoma: 2000 Pennsylvania: 2002 Rhode Island: 1998(?) South Carolina: 1999 Tennessee: 2000 Texas: 1999 Virginia: 2007 ---
**Author:** ![MrAtoz](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@MrAtoz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrAtoz)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2015, 1:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-notorious-indiana-bill-just-signed-into-law-other-states-have-it/716109/23 "2015-03-28T13:42:36Z")
> [@Exapno\_Mapcase](#): > > Is there somebody here from Indiana who can explain why this particular 20th or 22nd passage of seemingly identical bills has been the one to blow up into a national news frenzy? > > Or is it just one of those things that is suddenly seized upon by (social) media for no identifiable reason? > > The rational part of me prefers the former, but the latter appeals to the part of me that is fascinated by why some things garner attention when others don’t, a phenomenon that goes back in news as far as I can trace it. I may not be the best person to explain the legal aspects, as I’m not a lawyer nor even particularly well versed in the law, beyond what I’ve learned from Jack McCoy. But I am in Indiana, and I can tell you that most discussions here have centered around the circumstances in which the bill was passed. Last year there was an unsuccessful attempt to amend the state constitution to ban same-sex marriage. When that failed, and federal court rulings legalized same-sex marriage in Indiana, several legislators began to push for the passage of a “religious freedom restoration act,” which we had somehow muddled through without for years. So the timing does seem more than a little suspect. While it’s true that the text of the law doesn’t mention same-sex marriage specifically, the timing and the people supporting it make it highly likely that that is one of the primary motivations behind it. Governor Pence signed the bill in private, without the press in attendance, and only about 80 invited guests present. Among those guests were some of the lobbyists who had pushed hardest for passage of the same-sex marriage ban–Micah Clark of the American Family Association of Indiana, Curt Smith of the Indiana Family Institute, and Eric Miller of Advance Indiana. That’s from yesterday’s _Indianapolis Star_ article on the bill signing. Eric Miller is quoted as saying that the law will “protect churches, Christian business and individuals from those who want to punish them because of their Biblical beliefs.” We might also note that several Democratic legislators attempted to amend the bill with language that would specifically exempt discrimination against same-sex marriage from the bill’s provisions. Those amendments were rejected. This actually isn’t the first time a similar law has blown up to national attention. Remember the controversy from Arizona about a year ago, when the Arizona state legislature passed a similar law? It got quite a bit of attention, for the same reasons, and was ultimately vetoed by Gov. Jan Brewer. A lot of similar things happened there, too. Businesses urging veto, threatening to leave if the bill passed, etc. I think our bill is getting this much attention because it’s the first one since the Hobby Lobby case that has actually passed and become law. Hope that helps some. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2015, 6:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-notorious-indiana-bill-just-signed-into-law-other-states-have-it/716109/24 "2015-03-28T18:16:37Z")
> [@Exapno\_Mapcase](#): > > Is there somebody here from Indiana who can explain why this particular 20th or 22nd passage of seemingly identical bills has been the one to blow up into a national news frenzy? > > Or is it just one of those things that is suddenly seized upon by (social) media for no identifiable reason? > > The rational part of me prefers the former, but the latter appeals to the part of me that is fascinated by why some things garner attention when others don’t, a phenomenon that goes back in news as far as I can trace it. As I noted above, the initial wave of state RFRAs were passed for other reasons, at least ostensibly. Mostly the intent (like that of the federal RFRA) was to protect things like Native American religious practice. The more recent wave, probably starting with Louisiana in 2010, has mostly been aimed at homosexuals and people that don’t want to serve them. There appears to have been a lot of impetus from cases like _Elane Photography v. Willock_ (the New Mexico gay wedding photography one.) In the specific case of Indiana, Indianapolis is one of the country’s largest convention cities and hosts lots of nationally prominent sporting events. Conventioneers, the NCAA and large businesses located there have [made a lot of public noise](http://www.thenewcivilrightsmovement.com/davidbadash/_50_million_convention_threatens_to_leave_indiana_if_governor_signs_religious_freedom_bill) about leaning on Mike Pence not to sign it, and some are talking about leaving now that he has. A lot of people who oppose the law are surprised to discover there is similar legislation in other states (presumably like the OP.) ---
**Author:** ![Tim\_T-Bonham.net](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/46a35a/32.png) [@Tim\_T-Bonham.net](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tim_T-Bonham.net)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2015, 11:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-notorious-indiana-bill-just-signed-into-law-other-states-have-it/716109/25 "2015-03-28T23:03:23Z")
> [@Saint\_Cad](#): > > What if I want to use the law to bar women from my office or store during their period as unclean? Would anything trump my application of the law? Or someone claiming that his religious belief in “spare the rod, spoil the child” trumps the laws against abusive child punishment? ---
**Author:** ![Saint\_Cad](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/saint_cad/32/18907_2.png) [@Saint\_Cad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Saint_Cad)\ **Post date:** [March 29, 2015, 1:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-notorious-indiana-bill-just-signed-into-law-other-states-have-it/716109/26 "2015-03-29T01:04:02Z")
> [@t-bonham@scc.net](#): > > Or someone claiming that his religious belief in “spare the rod, spoil the child” trumps the laws against abusive child punishment? Mine is explicitly based on Leviticus 15:19-23 > [@](#): > > 19 " 'When a woman has her regular flow of blood, the impurity of her monthly period will last seven days, and anyone who touches her will be unclean till evening. > 20 " 'Anything she lies on during her period will be unclean, and anything she sits on will be unclean. > 21 Whoever touches her bed must wash his clothes and bathe with water, and he will be unclean till evening. > 22 Whoever touches anything she sits on must wash his clothes and bathe with water, and he will be unclean till evening. > 23 Whether it is the bed or anything she was sitting on, when anyone touches it, he will be unclean till evening. So I would contend this law allows me to practice a religious belief that women on their period in my building. ---
**Author:** ![Lord\_Feldon](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lord_feldon/32/341_2.png) [@Lord\_Feldon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lord_Feldon)\ **Post date:** [March 29, 2015, 1:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-notorious-indiana-bill-just-signed-into-law-other-states-have-it/716109/27 "2015-03-29T01:48:31Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > There appears to have been a lot of impetus from cases like _Elane Photography v. Willock_ (the New Mexico gay wedding photography one.) Do the more recent RFRAs differ substantially from the one which New Mexico enacted in 2000, before the photography case happened? ---
**Author:** ![buddy431](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/6a8cbe/32.png) [@buddy431](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/buddy431)\ **Post date:** [March 29, 2015, 4:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-notorious-indiana-bill-just-signed-into-law-other-states-have-it/716109/28 "2015-03-29T16:28:29Z")
> [@Lord\_Feldon](#): > > Do the more recent RFRAs differ substantially from the one which New Mexico enacted in 2000, before the photography case happened? Some of the RFRA’s (including Indiana’s, but not New Mexico’s, and not the federal law) specify that it can be applied in cases where the government is not a party, e.g. in a private discrimination suit. When it is not specified (as in the Federal law, and some of the state laws), different courts have ruled differently whether it may even be used as a defense in disputes between individuals. This was the case in New Mexico: the New Mexico Supreme Court, interpreting New Mexico’s RFRA, ruled that it only applies when the government (whether state or local) is one of the parties. The photography case never even got to use the RFRA as a defense (and so the court did not have to interpret what it would mean if it could be used as a defense). So if the photography case happened in Indiana, the Indiana RFRA could be used as a defense. It remains to be seen under what circumstances it would win the case. ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [March 29, 2015, 9:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-notorious-indiana-bill-just-signed-into-law-other-states-have-it/716109/29 "2015-03-29T21:34:57Z")
Most of the stories I’ve heard about the law boils down to: “OMG, businesses will now be able to discriminate against gays and lesbians!” Isn’t this typically already the case? The feds have not made sexual orientation part of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, nor have many/most states provided this protection. It seems like this law only permits what was already permissible. ---
**Author:** ![Ambrosio\_Spinola](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/9de0a6/32.png) [@Ambrosio\_Spinola](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ambrosio_Spinola)\ **Post date:** [March 29, 2015, 10:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-notorious-indiana-bill-just-signed-into-law-other-states-have-it/716109/30 "2015-03-29T22:40:24Z")
> [@jtgain](#): > > Most of the stories I’ve heard about the law boils down to: “OMG, businesses will now be able to discriminate against gays and lesbians!” > > Isn’t this typically already the case? The feds have not made sexual orientation part of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, nor have many/most states provided this protection. It seems like this law only permits what was already permissible. In many states, I understand that is true. However, many local jurisdictions within states may have ordinances protecting LGBT people from discrimination (e.g., Texas does not recognize any LGBT protections on a state level, but many of the major cities such as Dallas, San Antonio, Austin, etc. have local rules about it.) There has been a push lately in certain states to override these sorts of local statutes and prevent municipalities from offering additional non-discrimination protection to anyone not so recognized under state or federal law. It’s not entirely clear to me that Indiana’s law specifically accomplishes this, but it may have been the intent of at least some of the supporters. I also understand that the Indiana law specifically includes for-profit private businesses as within its aegis, which I guess is how the federal law is interpreted post-_Hobby Lobby_ but wasn’t part of standard drafting before. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [March 29, 2015, 11:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-notorious-indiana-bill-just-signed-into-law-other-states-have-it/716109/31 "2015-03-29T23:17:01Z")
> [@Saint\_Cad](#): > > What if I want to use the law to bar women from my office or store during their period as unclean? Would anything trump my application of the law? > [@Saint\_Cad](#): > > Mine is explicitly based on Leviticus 15:19-23 > So I would contend this law allows me to practice a religious belief that women on their period in my building. Can you quote the part of the law that you think allows you to do that? ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2015, 1:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-notorious-indiana-bill-just-signed-into-law-other-states-have-it/716109/32 "2015-03-30T13:28:54Z")
> [@jtgain](#): > > Most of the stories I’ve heard about the law boils down to: “OMG, businesses will now be able to discriminate against gays and lesbians!” > > Isn’t this typically already the case? The feds have not made sexual orientation part of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, nor have many/most states provided this protection. It seems like this law only permits what was already permissible. [Most states](http://www.hrc.org/state_maps) _have_ provided that protection (though the number is slightly less than half if you take out the ones that only protect public employees, which includes Indiana.) The real issue is that this legislation may override that protection when enacted on a local level. ---
**Author:** ![JRDelirious](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jrdelirious/32/9531_2.png) [@JRDelirious](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JRDelirious)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2015, 3:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-notorious-indiana-bill-just-signed-into-law-other-states-have-it/716109/33 "2015-03-30T15:10:17Z")
> [@Ambrosio\_Spinola](#): > > In many states, I understand that is true. However, many local jurisdictions within states may have ordinances protecting LGBT people from discrimination (e.g., Texas does not recognize any LGBT protections on a state level, but many of the major cities such as Dallas, San Antonio, Austin, etc. have local rules about it.) > > There has been a push lately in certain states to override these sorts of local statutes and prevent municipalities from offering additional non-discrimination protection to anyone not so recognized under state or federal law. Right. This has been the key element in the more recent wave of “religious freedom” laws, essentially having the state protect the private parties from actions under the aegis of \*any \*public authority if they can raise a defense of being based on religious belief. ---
**Author:** ![bup](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/6bbea6/32.png) [@bup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bup)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2015, 3:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-notorious-indiana-bill-just-signed-into-law-other-states-have-it/716109/34 "2015-03-30T15:13:54Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > Can you quote the part of the law that you think allows you to do that? Maybe this is getting more into GD, but I think the digest of the law does that: > [@the law](#): > > Prohibits a governmental entity from substantially burdening a person’s exercise of religion, even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability, unless the governmental entity can demonstrate that the burden: (1) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and (2) is the least restrictive means of furthering the compelling governmental interest. So, a business owner could exercise their religion by preventing women from being on the property at certain times, unless the government decides there’s a compelling governmental interest. Clause 2, it strikes me, is written backward, but maybe I’m misreading. Boiled down, I think clause two reads thus: Prohibits a governmental entity from substantially burdening a person’s exercise of religion,unless the governmental entity can demonstrate that the burden is the least restrictive means of furthering the compelling governmental interest. That makes no sense to me. Anyway, I think it’s simple capitalism and market forces that would prevent **St. Cad’s** scenario, not the law. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2015, 3:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-notorious-indiana-bill-just-signed-into-law-other-states-have-it/716109/35 "2015-03-30T15:21:41Z")
It’s boilerplate language from Sherbert v. Yoder, the SCOTUS case which established the test for free exercise violations until 1990. ---
**Author:** ![bup](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/6bbea6/32.png) [@bup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bup)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2015, 3:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-notorious-indiana-bill-just-signed-into-law-other-states-have-it/716109/36 "2015-03-30T15:26:58Z")
Thanks. Coffee’s kicking in, now. ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2015, 3:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-notorious-indiana-bill-just-signed-into-law-other-states-have-it/716109/37 "2015-03-30T15:34:51Z")
To summarize, the Indiana law became a firestorm unlike other RFRA laws because: (1) It expressly protects corporate practices, unlike most other RFRA laws which protect individuals and churches; (2) It was pushed using arguments about the ability to discriminate against gay people, unlike other RFRAs; (3) Everyone understands now, post-Hobby Lobby and post-Elane Photography that RFRA laws can be a potential threat to anti-discrimination efforts. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2015, 3:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-notorious-indiana-bill-just-signed-into-law-other-states-have-it/716109/38 "2015-03-30T15:43:42Z")
> [@Saint\_Cad](#): > > Mine is explicitly based on Leviticus 15:19-23 > So I would contend this law allows me to practice a religious belief that women on their period in my building. Is this belief of yours sincere? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2015, 3:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-notorious-indiana-bill-just-signed-into-law-other-states-have-it/716109/39 "2015-03-30T15:57:29Z")
> [@Richard\_Parker](#): > > To summarize, the Indiana law became a firestorm unlike other RFRA laws because: > > (1) It expressly protects corporate practices, unlike most other RFRA laws which protect individuals and churches; Er… I agree that “expressly” is a difference, but the federal law protects corporate practices too, via the Dictionary Act. I haven’t tallied case law in the states – is it really the situation that most other state RFRA laws do not protect corporations? ---
**Author:** ![bup](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/6bbea6/32.png) [@bup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bup)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2015, 4:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-notorious-indiana-bill-just-signed-into-law-other-states-have-it/716109/40 "2015-03-30T16:14:35Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Is this belief of yours sincere? For some very orthodox Jew, it probably is. Although he (we can be certain it’s a he) just as probably has cheerfully ignored discrimination law and never hired a woman in the first place. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-notorious-indiana-bill-just-signed-into-law-other-states-have-it/716109.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-notorious-indiana-bill-just-signed-into-law-other-states-have-it/716109.md?page=3)