GenCon threatens to leave Indiana

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Dreadclaw69**

d-usa wrote:
The video was located on a Think Progress webpage, so I wouldn't be surprised if people saw the link and ignored it.

But here is the video:

https://youtu.be/gvMq1zeYIB0

Sorry I am only getting to reply to this now. What does the opinion of a Senator from Georgia have to do with the passage of a law in Indiana?

**edit**
I see I was ninja'ed

**Frazzled**

Again, is the Indiana law reflective of federal law? If, so whats the big deal?
I saw the Texas version, that effectively just codifies the First Amendment related to religion.

**Dreadclaw69**

Frazzled wrote:
Again, is the Indiana law reflective of federal law? If, so whats the big deal?

The 1993 Federal law;
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/2000bb

(a) Findings
The Congress finds that—
(1) the framers of the Constitution, recognizing free exercise of religion as an unalienable right, secured its protection in the First Amendment to the Constitution;
(2) laws “neutral” toward religion may burden religious exercise as surely as laws intended to interfere with religious exercise;
(3) governments should not substantially burden religious exercise without compelling justification;
(4) in Employment Division v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872 (1990) the Supreme Court virtually eliminated the requirement that the government justify burdens on religious exercise imposed by laws neutral toward religion; and
(5) the compelling interest test as set forth in prior Federal court rulings is a workable test for striking sensible balances between religious liberty and competing prior governmental interests.

The Indiana law;
https://iga.in.gov/legislative/2015/bills/senate/568#document-f6915f8f

Religious freedom restoration act. Provides that a state or local government action may not substantially burden a person's right to the exercise of religion unless it is demonstrated that applying the burden to the person's exercise of religion is: (1) essential to further a compelling governmental interest; and (2) the least restrictive means of furthering the compelling governmental interest. Provides that a person whose exercise of religion has been substantially burdened, or is likely to be substantially burdened, by a state or local government action may assert the burden as a claim or defense in a judicial proceeding, regardless of whether the state or a political subdivision of the state is a party to the judicial proceeding.

So the Indiana law, like the many other state laws detailed above, is very similar to the 1993 federal law.

**Frazzled**

So...whats the issue? This is a law protecting against The State, which is exactly what the First Amendment was about.
At the same time federal courts have determined that the State may not mandate religious teachings or activities even if The State is a local group.

So the State can't have a cresh. The state can't mandate a directed prayer at a meeting or graduation. The religious views of religious persons cannot be violated without a high standard for doing so. In general pleading religion doesn't work for various EEOC and VRA legislation as its itself tied to US Constitutional Amendments.

What exactly is the problem?

**Laemos**

Everyone wants to be a social justice warrior.

**whembly**

Laemos wrote:
Everyone wants to be a social justice warrior.

^that, in a nutshell, is the issue these days.

**Bookwrack**

whembly wrote:
Laemos wrote:
Everyone wants to be a social justice warrior.

^that, in a nutshell, is the issue these days.

But, fortunately, has nothing to do with this.

Frazzled wrote:

What exactly is the problem?

If you take the time to actually read all of it, the Indiana law explicitly allows any for-profit business to assert a right to “the free exercise of religion.” The federal RFRA doesn’t say anything like that and only South Carolina has something similar. Fun fact, Louisiana and Pennsylvania, explicitly exclude for-profit businesses the RFRA protection.

**Frazzled**

If you take the time to actually read all of it, the Indiana law explicitly allows any for-profit business to assert a right to “the free exercise of religion.” The federal RFRA doesn’t say anything like that and only South Carolina has something similar. Fun fact, Louisiana and Pennsylvania, explicitly exclude for-profit businesses the RFRA protection.

And? This is a question not a criticism.

**Dreadclaw69**

Bookwrack wrote:
If you take the time to actually read all of it, the Indiana law explicitly allows any for-profit business to assert a right to “the free exercise of religion.” The federal RFRA doesn’t say anything like that and only South Carolina has something similar. Fun fact, Louisiana and Pennsylvania, explicitly exclude for-profit businesses the RFRA protection.

Is this not covered by the precedent set in the Hobby Lobby case? The concept of legal and natural persons are not new.
Fun fact, all the other RFRAs do not seem to define person, including the federal Bill. The argument could be made that by noit limiting the scope explicitly to natural persons that the intention was always there to allow protections to legal persons.

**whembly**

Critics of Indiana's RFRA law need to read this:

Your Questions On Indiana’s Religious Freedom Bill, Answered

This past week, journalistic abuse has exploded into controversy over an innocuous religious freedom law in Indiana. This law, known as a Religious Freedom Restoration Act or RFRA (pronounced “riff-ra”), tracks the language of the 1993 federal RFRA signed into law by President Clinton after a 97-3 vote in the Senate. But you would not necessarily know how innocuous it is from news media coverage. According to what you might hear in the news, this is an anti-gay law that is “almost universally loathed,” and which a White House official suggested would “legitimize discrimination.”

Indiana’s RFRA has none of these characteristics.

There is in works of fiction a concept called the informed attribute. An informed attribute is an abuse of storytelling that occurs when the author gets lazy and, instead of demonstrating that a character has a certain characteristic, simply informs the audience that they do. So, for example, think of the way Daniel Defoe characterized Friday in “Robinson Crusoe”: savage, cannibal—except that Friday never does anything savage or cannibal throughout the novel. Indeed, “my man Friday” is now a euphemism for an incorruptible subordinate. Or, to use a more recent example, consider that in the Twilight novels, we are told that Bella is a loner who is older than her years—except she is always surrounded by friends whom she can’t seem to get enough of, and she has a teenager-like obsession with a certain boyish vampire who she wants to bone. These are informed attributes. The indispensable TV Tropes explains the informed attribute arises through a “violation of Show, Don’t Tell when fleshing out a fictional tangible.”

Lately, there has been a depressing tendency for the informed attribute to migrate from fiction to journalism. It has popped up when journalists cover President Obama—so heroic!, despite the fact he has never done anything particularly heroic. It is inescapable in news media coverage of the Tea Party—racists! villains!, even though the Tea Party is neither. Even Gov. Chris Christie has taken licks for it—gauche nouveau riche!. Despite there being no evidence for these attributes, journalists will simply repeat them as if they were true and hope that incurious, unsuspecting readers assume it.

Fortunately for the news consumer, if not consumers of fiction, an informed attribute in journalism can be overcome with the application of a little knowledge. Here is everything you need to know to push back against the laziness or maliciousness in the news about RFRAs.

What Is a RFRA?
This legislation sets the same minimum standard for burdening the exercise of religion. Under the various RFRAs, a state or the federal government—by law or other action—may not substantially burden an individual’s exercise of religion unless the burden is in furtherance of a compelling government interest and is the least restrictive means of furthering that interest. Twenty states, including Indiana, and the federal government have RFRAs.

What? Government Interest?
Yeah. It’s a lot more nuanced than the news media has allowed. It’s a balancing test for litigation. It puts exercise of religion on one side of the scale and then government interest on the other. If the government’s interest is not important enough—literally compelling—it cannot outweigh an individual’s right to practice his religion as he sees fit.

So RFRAs Don’t License Discrimination?
No. RFRA is a shield, not a sword. It can be used to defend oneself against lawsuits or administrative action. It can’t be used affirmatively to try and deprive others of the protections of law.

So How Does This Really Work?
For example, back in 2006 the Supreme Court considered a case (PDF) involving a psychotropic tea that believers of a New Mexico church imbibed as part of their religious ceremonies. Customs inspectors had seized the tea as a violation of the federal Controlled Substances Act. The high court applied the balancing test described above. First, no one disputed that depriving the believers of their tea would be a substantial burden on their exercise of religion. That’s the religion side of the scale. Second, the federal government in claimed it was just applying the Controlled Substances Act to everyone equally. But that is precisely why the government lost at the Supreme Court—unanimously. The government could not explain why it could not give an exemption to this little group of believers that wasn’t harming anyone with its tea. And so the government’s interest in uniform application of the Controlled Substance Act was outweighed by the interests of the believers in practicing their religion in peace.

If There’s a Federal RFRA, Why Do States Have to Have Them, Too?
That’s a different Supreme Court case. In 1997, the high court held that the federal government lacked the authority to impose RFRA on the states (hurray, government of limited power!). If the states want to have RFRAs, they have to adopt them on their own. Since then, 20 states have enacted RFRAs.

Is Indiana’s RFRA Like the Other RFRAS?
Yes and no. Indiana’s RFRA applies the same standard as in the other RFRAs that is described above: substantial burden versus compelling interest and least restrictive means. Indiana’s RFRA is a defense not just for individuals, but also companies and corporations. This is similar to the federal RFRA after Hobby Lobby, which also applies to individuals, companies, and closely-held corporations. But not all state RFRAs include companies and corporations. So that’s different in some states.

Indiana’s RFRA also protects individuals both in lawsuits or administrative actions brought by the government and in lawsuits brought by private parties. Some states, like New Mexico, do not allow RFRA to be used as a defense in litigation where the government isn’t a party. Also, the federal circuit courts are split about whether the federal RFRA can be used to defend against private lawsuits where the government isn’t a party. So that’s also different in some states and in some federal circuits.

Otherwise, it’s the same law.

You Didn’t Say Anything about the Gay Stuff.
That’s because the words “gay,” “lesbian,” and “sexual orientation” don’t appear in any of the RFRAs. Until now, the most controversial RFRA case was last year’s Hobby Lobby v. Burwell, which was about whether the federal government has a compelling interest in forcing religious business owners to pay for abortifacents. (It doesn’t.)

This big gay freak-out is purely notional. No RFRA has ever been used successfully to defend anti-gay discrimination, not in twenty years of RFRAs nationwide.

Why Is Everyone So Mad about Indiana’s RFRA, Then?
The fear is that it could be used to deny service to gay people in places of public accommodation like businesses and restaurants. But, as discussed above, no RFRA has ever been used that way before. Also, Indiana does not have a public accommodation law that protects against anti-gay discrimination, meaning there’s no state law in Indiana preventing anti-gay discrimination in businesses even before the state RFRA was enacted. Notably, despite the lack of such a law, nobody can point to any Indiana businesses that were discriminating against gays.

That’s what makes this an informed attribute. Gay marriage is on many people’s minds lately, for obvious reasons. In truth, though, Indiana is merely catching-up to states that have had RFRAs for decades—like Illinois, for example, which got its RFRA with the help of a young state senator named Barack Obama. Unfortunately, Indiana is now caught in the cultural cross-fire.

Do Religious Freedom Protections Hurt Gays?
It is entirely consistent to favor broad religious freedom protections and also favor gay rights. Many gays are religious, and so themselves benefit from religious freedom protections like RFRA. But even where gay Americans and religious Americans find themselves in conflict, there is ample room in communities to peaceably coexist. That’s the point of a RFRA. No side gets an automatic-victory card. The interests of all sides gets weighed.

What Do We Do Now?
If you’ve made it this far, you know more about RFRAs and the Indiana situation than the average news consumer. Share your knowledge. It’s the only way to beat the swarms of aggrieved news consumers who don’t know any better than what they’ve seen in the papers.

The only way to push back against the informed attribute in this instance is to point to the actual attributes of the law. Before Indiana, RFRAs existed for over 20 years in 19 states and the federal government. There has been no parade of horribles. They are a shield, not a sword. And their object is religious freedom, not anti-gay discrimination.

Indeed.

I think much the objection started with after that Hobby Lobby case winning the SC case by using RFRA.

**Dreadclaw69**

So the RFRAs across the country have not once defended a person discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation. That is quite interesting.

**Prestor Jon**

Dreadclaw69 wrote:
So the RFRAs across the country have not once defended a person discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation. That is quite interesting.

I think a big reason why that's the case is because like Whembly's post explains, the law is a shield not a sword. The RFRA laws protect religious freedom from unjust impositions and it's hard to impose actual homosexuality on somebody against their objections.

In the Hobby Lobby case, SCOTUS ruled that since it's a closely held corporation the owners' religious beliefs matter and that the ACA forcing those owners to pay for health insurance plans that included what they considered abortificants under the threat of crippling federal fines was an unjust imposition on the owners forcing them to participate in what they viewed to be abortions and that the federal govt could find other easiersolutions to making sure that Hobby Lobby employees received health insurance coverage for those drugs without burdening Hobby Lobby ownership with paying for it against their will.

Engaging in commerce with members of the LGBT community really doesn't impose a burden on anyone because no business that provides goods/services is going to have to engage in nonheterosexual behavior. The actual act that the aggreived party is being compelled to do needs to create a substantial burden on that party's religious beliefs and that's a really tough thing to prove if the dispute is based on generic standard commercial transactions.

**TheMeanDM**

Interesting picture, I thought....

**daedalus**

TheMeanDM wrote:
Interesting picture, I thought....

Thing is, it MIGHT actually be something that can be changed with drugs. I just draw the line at "and this means we should be donkey-caves to these people."

It's worth some effort putting time into looking at it. There's probably a lot more we could stand to learn about the brain. Doesn't mean I think we should force that on anyone though.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
Overall they really sound like class acts though, if true.

**Dreadclaw69**

So who are the other ten people in the photo?
How many people helped write the Bill? What influence did one person have over the final draft?
What specific part of the Indiana legislation is "anti-gay"?
How is the Indiana legislation different in scope from other states with similar legislation?
Is the federal law that these other RFRAs based off anti-gay?
No RFRA has ever been used successfully to defend anti-gay discrimination, not in twenty years of RFRAs nationwide. How would Indiana's law change this?

**squidhills**

Dreadclaw69 wrote:

No RFRA has ever been used successfully to defend anti-gay discrimination, not in twenty years of RFRAs nationwide.

Is it that the attempts to use these laws to legitimize antigay discrimination have failed, or is it that there have not been any attempts made at all? I'd be interested in knowing, because there is a difference between "I've never been attacked by a tiger while sitting in my back yard because tigers aren't dangerous" and "I've never been attacked by a tiger while sitting in my back yard because tigers aren't indiginous to suburban Maryland."

**Dreadclaw69**

squidhills wrote:
Is it that the attempts to use these laws to legitimize antigay discrimination have failed, or is it that there have not been any attempts made at all? I'd be interested in knowing, because there is a difference between "I've never been attacked by a tiger while sitting in my back yard because tigers aren't dangerous" and "I've never been attacked by a tiger while sitting in my back yard because tigers aren't indiginous to suburban Maryland."

Given that the article said "successfully defend" that would lead me to believe that an attempt, or attempts, were made to rely on the provisions. In any event I believe that it is safe to say that with a twenty year history at the state level, and a shorter time at the federal level, the fact that these laws have not enabled discrimination against people based on sexual orientation should not be overlooked or downplayed.

From the article above;

No. RFRA is a shield, not a sword. It can be used to defend oneself against lawsuits or administrative action. It can’t be used affirmatively to try and deprive others of the protections of law.

Indiana (like many other states, and even the federal government) does not have specific legislation to protect people based on their sexual identity. In short, if people wanted to discriminate against homosexuals then this act was not needed.

**squidhills**

Dreadclaw69 wrote:

Given that the article said "successfully defend" that would lead me to believe that an attempt, or attempts, were made to rely on the provisions.

Fair enough.

**CaulynDarr**

Is Indiana’s RFRA Like the Other RFRAS?
Yes and no. Indiana’s RFRA applies the same standard as in the other RFRAs that is described above: substantial burden versus compelling interest and least restrictive means. Indiana’s RFRA is a defense not just for individuals, but also companies and corporations. This is similar to the federal RFRA after Hobby Lobby, which also applies to individuals, companies, and closely-held corporations. But not all state RFRAs include companies and corporations. So that’s different in some states.

Indiana’s RFRA also protects individuals both in lawsuits or administrative actions brought by the government and in lawsuits brought by private parties. Some states, like New Mexico, do not allow RFRA to be used as a defense in litigation where the government isn’t a party. Also, the federal circuit courts are split about whether the federal RFRA can be used to defend against private lawsuits where the government isn’t a party. So that’s also different in some states and in some federal circuits.

Having read the full text of the laws, that is the difference, and it's a big freaking difference. Federal laws and existing state laws only apply to individuals and to closely held companies(thanks to Hobby Lobby). The Indiana law applies to everyone.

The other big issue is that you can cite the law as a defense in any legal proceedings even when the government is not a party. This is the crux of all complaints against the law, and what makes it a big deal while the others are mostly harmless. This is what allows this law to be used as a law to shield discrimination while others can not. Under the Federal law, or ones like Illinois has, I can only site religious as a defense if the Government comes after me directly. The Supreme court refused to take a case from New Mexico when someone tried to use in in a private discrimination suit, leaving the prevailing ruling that it can only be used against the government intact. The Indiana law allows the religious defense in all lawsuits. So If I sue my neighbor because his tree fell in my lawn, he can site his religious belife that trees should not be trimmed as a defense.

That doesn't mean that the argument would win, but it's another hoop you as the plaintiff need to jump through. It's going to be a hard thing to fight based on how individual peoples' religious beliefs are. No two people are going to be burdened the same way when it comes to their beliefs. You're adding the complicated matter of belief to the already complicated matter of law. And if you loose against it, the Indiana law says you have to cover the other guy's attorney fees.

As far as shields go it's a 2++ re-rollable.

**Dreadclaw69**

CaulynDarr wrote:
The other big issue is that you can cite the law as a defense in any legal proceedings even when the government is not a party. This is the crux of all complaints against the law, and what makes it a big deal while the others are mostly harmless. This is what allows this law to be used as a law to shield discrimination while others can not. Under the Federal law, or ones like Illinois has, I can only site religious as a defense if the Government comes after me directly. The Supreme court refused to take a case from New Mexico when someone tried to use in in a private discrimination suit, leaving the prevailing ruling that it can only be used against the government intact. The Indiana law allows the religious defense in all lawsuits. So If I sue my neighbor because his tree fell in my law, he can site his religious belife that trees should not be trimmed as a defense.

Re the underlined; can you please provide the text of the legislation that permits this. I have been unable to locate this provision in the legislation which would enable this legislation to be used in "all lawsuits" as you claim (https://iga.in.gov/legislative/2015/bills/senate/568#document-f6915f8f)

CaulynDarr wrote:
And if you loose against it, the Indiana law says you have to cover the other guy's attorney fees.

Are you aware that being responsible for the other party's legal fees if you lose a case is not unique to this law? Also it is not automatic, and requires that the judge rule in your favour to claim this relief.

**Frazzled**

Its also never happens. At most usually its filing fees.

**Prestor Jon**

Chapter 9. Religious Freedom Restoration Act
Sec. 1. (a) As used in this chapter, "burden" means an action that directly or indirectly:
(1) constrains, inhibits, curtails, or denies the exercise of religion by a person; or
(2) compels a person to take an action that is contrary to the person's exercise of religion.

I don't see how any business owner successfully argues in court that engaging in commerce with a member of the LGBT community meets that definition of "burden."

**CaulynDarr**

Dreadclaw69 wrote:

Re the underlined; can you please provide the text of the legislation that permits this. I have been unable to locate this provision in the legislation which would enable this legislation to be used in "all lawsuits" as you claim (https://iga.in.gov/legislative/2015/bills/senate/568#document-f6915f8f)
.

Sec. 7. (a) A person whose exercise of religion:
33
(1) has been substantially burdened; or
34
(2) is likely to be substantially burdened;
35
by a violation of section 6 of this chapter may assert the violation,
36
or impending violation, as a claim or defense in a judicial
37
proceeding, regardless of whether the state or a political
38
subdivision of the state is a party to the judicial proceeding.

**Dreadclaw69**

CaulynDarr wrote:
Sec. 7. (a) A person whose exercise of religion:
33
(1) has been substantially burdened; or
34
(2) is likely to be substantially burdened;
35
by a violation of section 6 of this chapter may assert the violation,
36
or impending violation, as a claim or defense in a judicial
37
proceeding, regardless of whether the state or a political
38
subdivision of the state is a party to the judicial proceeding.

You have to read Scetion 7 in light of the preceding sections;

Sec. 5. As used in this chapter, "state action" means:
(1) the implementation or application of a state or local law or
policy; or
(2) the taking of any other action; by the state or a political subdivision of the state

Sec. 6. A state action, or an action taken by an individual based on state action, may not substantially burden a person's right to the exercise of religion, even if the burden results from a law or policy of general applicability, unless the state or political subdivision of the state demonstrates that applying the burden to the person's exercise of religion is:
(1) essential to further a compelling governmental interest;
and
(2) the least restrictive means of furthering the compelling governmental interest.

So there must be state action, or an action taken by an individual based on state action. Given this provision it seems very unlikely that the state would not be a party to any proceedings, especially as the burden is on the "state or political subdivision" to prove their claim under points (1) and (2). This law can only be used as a defense against the acts of the state or a political sub-division. It is not intended for use between two private individuals.

**Ahtman**

Frazzled wrote:
Its also never happens. At most usually its filing fees.

The last word is the magic word. Mmmmmmmmm fees.

**Dreadclaw69**

Connecticut Governor Malloy has signed an executive order Monday blocking state-funded travel to Indiana and other states that permit discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity.(http://money.cnn.com/2015/03/30/news/indiana-religious-freedom-law/)

Connecticut was the first state to enact their own RFRA after the federal government's 1993 legislation; http://www.cga.ct.gov/current/pub/chap_925.htm#sec_52-571b

Sec. 52-571b. Action or defense authorized when state or political subdivision burdens a person’s exercise of religion. (a) The state or any political subdivision of the state shall not burden a person’s exercise of religion under section 3 of article first of the Constitution of the state even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability, except as provided in subsection (b) of this section.
(b) The state or any political subdivision of the state may burden a person’s exercise of religion only if it demonstrates that application of the burden to the person (1) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest, and (2) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.
(c) A person whose exercise of religion has been burdened in violation of the provisions of this section may assert that violation as a claim or defense in a judicial proceeding and obtain appropriate relief against the state or any political subdivision of the state.
(d) Nothing in this section shall be construed to authorize the state or any political subdivision of the state to burden any religious belief.
(e) Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect, interpret or in any way address that portion of article seventh of the Constitution of the state that prohibits any law giving a preference to any religious society or denomination in the state. The granting of government funding, benefits or exemptions, to the extent permissible under the Constitution of the state, shall not constitute a violation of this section. As used in this subsection, the term “granting” does not include the denial of government funding, benefits or exemptions.
(f) For the purposes of this section, “state or any political subdivision of the state” includes any agency, board, commission, department, officer or employee of the state or any political subdivision of the state, and “demonstrates” means meets the burdens of going forward with the evidence and of persuasion.

How does that compare to Indiana? Pretty closely;https://iga.in.gov/legislative/2015/bills/senate/568#document-f6915f8f

There is one big difference though, "substantive burden" v "burden", as explained better here

In case you needed more proof that the recent backlash against religious freedom laws is grounded in pure ignorance, look no further than Connecticut Gov. Dan Malloy. Malloy, a Democrat, just announced on Twitter that he plans to sign an executive order banning state travel to Indiana due to the midwestern state’s recently enacted Religious Freedom Restoration Act.

I don’t know how many staffers, lawyers, and advisers currently work for Malloy, but it’s a real shame that not a single one of them told the governor that Connecticut has had an expansive RFRA on the books for over two decades. That’s right: Connecticut passed its own RFRA law on June 29, 1993. You can read the law for yourself here. The inanity of Malloy’s move doesn’t stop there, though. What makes his grandstanding particularly absurd is the fact that Connecticut’s RFRA provides far greater religious liberty protections than Indiana’s or even the federal government’s.

If you dislike Indiana’s RFRA, then you should loathe Connecticut’s. The difference comes down to a single phrase: “substantially burden.”

Both the Indiana law and the federal law declare that the respective governments may not “substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion[.]” In other words, the laws require the courts to analyze cases brought under these laws using the strict scrutiny standard. Under the Indiana and federal religious liberty laws, government can burden religious exercise, but it cannot substantially burden it. That’s a key distinction.

Connecticut’s law, however, is far more restrictive of government action and far more protective of religious freedoms. How? Because the Connecticut RFRA law states that government shall not “burden a person’s exercise of religion[.]” Note that the word “substantially” is not included in Connecticut’s law.

The effect of the absence of that single word is enormous. It states that Connecticut government may not burden the free exercise of religion in any way. That makes it far more protective of religious liberty than the Indiana law that has so outraged Connecticut’s governor.

If Connecticut Gov. Dan Malloy wants to blatantly discriminate against states with religious liberty laws on the books, that’s his prerogative. But if he doesn’t want to look like a completely ignorant hypocrite who has no idea what he’s talking about, he should probably examine his own state’s laws first.

UPDATE: A number of commentators have suggested that none of this matters because Connecticut has laws banning discrimination based on sexual preference, while Indiana doesn’t. Unfortunately, these commentators do not have the mental wherewithal to grasp that that argument doesn’t undermine my point. It actually strengthens it.

For the sake of argument, let’s assume that the “Indiana doesn’t ban discrimination” claim is true and that this distinction is what makes Indiana’s RFRA terrible and Connecticut’s RFRA perfectly acceptable. If that’s the case, then it’s literally impossible for Indiana’s new RFRA law to legalize discrimination based on sexual preference. Why? Because it’s allegedly already legal in Indiana. Furthermore, if anti-gay discrimination is what is truly animating those voicing opposition to RFRA, why on earth are they focusing on Indiana’s RFRA and not on enacting the anti-discrimination bans that are in force in states like Connecticut?

If I didn’t know better, I’d be left to assume that the voices agitating to repeal a 20-year-old legal framework that was not even remotely controversial until last week were more interested in outlawing religious liberty than they were in preventing discrimination.

**Ahtman**

Dreadclaw69 wrote:
Connecticut Governor Malloy has signed an executive order Monday blocking state-funded travel to Indiana and other states that permit discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity.

Connecticut was the first state to enact their own RFRA

One might think their RFRA is not quite the same as the Indiana one.

**Dreadclaw69**

Ahtman wrote:
One might think their RFRA is not quite the same as the Indiana one.

You seem somewhat fixated on this point in spite of my continued efforts to point out that I have said the laws are similar, not the same. What part of this is still unclear to you, and in what way could I make this clearer for you so we may progress this discussion?

**Ahtman**

Dreadclaw69 wrote:
Ahtman wrote:
One might think their RFRA is not quite the same as the Indiana one.

You seem somewhat fixated on this point

If you stop giving the appearance of conflating things then perhaps people will stop seeing you as doing such, until then I don't imagine crying wolf whenever you do that will make a big difference.

**Dreadclaw69**

Ahtman wrote:
If you stop giving the appearance of conflating things then perhaps people will stop seeing you as doing such, until then I don't imagine crying wolf whenever you do that will make a big difference.

I have pointed out numerous times that I have said the laws are similar. I have at no point said that the laws were the same. In fact I even posted details of the laws for those states that have RFRA on the statute books so people may see the differences. In the post you quoted above, albeit with the relevant portion edited out, I even pointed out a key difference between the Indiana and Connecticut laws. There is no attempt to conflate them on my part. I would like to consider this point resolved. If you wish to keep repeating your claim of conflating against all evidence to the contrary that is your prerogative to do so, I will not be responding to it any further as at best retreading the same ground is a distraction from the actual discussion.