Some states are making now controversial religious freedom laws that go beyond the federal religious freedom law that went into effect in 1993. A RFRA law that was enacted in Indiana in March of 2015 has caused a firestorm of protest from people all over the country. What about these type of laws is so controversial, and what can you do if you are concerned about a law that you feel unfairly discriminates against certain groups?
The Focus of these Laws
The federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) came into being over a controversial case in which a native American wanted to smoke peyote as part of a centuries old religious practice. It restored the right for a person engage in religious and cultural ceremonies even if they infringe on a law made for the whole. It forbids the federal government from taking away this right, but it does not include language about businesses or commerce.
The Indiana lawmakers seemed genuinely surprised that the Hoosier law caused such a furor since much of the language of the new state law closely followed the federal law that has been in effect for over two decades. What is different is that this law was inclusive of private businesses and it takes away the right for persons to sue businesses in the case of religious discrimination.
Proponents and Opponents Have Their Say
Opponents of the Hoosier law and others have interpreted it to mean that the law proprietors and business now have the right to refuse to serve or sell to persons who are following lifestyles they object to because of religious beliefs. It is said the law protects the right of anyone to engage in religious discrimination of other groups.
They believe the law was created and worded to allow discrimination against gay and lesbian people. The is some concern that this law was influenced by a case in New Mexico. A photographer was sued for refusing to take wedding photographs for a gay couple. The court ruled in favor of the plaintiff because the business was not a governmental entity and did not come under that state's RFRA at the time. Some critics also believe the law was a conservative backlash because gay and lesbian marriage was recently legalized in Indiana.
There are also some that worry that other religious groups such as Muslims may be unfairly targeted. RFRA laws also have been used in other types of issues like allowing Hobby Lobby to opt of insurance coverage that includes contraception.
Proponents of the law say it was needed and overdue and nineteen other states have enacted similar legislation. Many conservative religious groups are in favor of the wording and provisions. In fact, some small business owners such as florists and bakers who are conservative Christians have lauded the law and say they will not render services for gay people, such as flowers for a gay wedding or baking a wedding cake, etc.
How To Fight Unfair Legislation And Get Results
If you are a business owner, you could threaten to boycott or to take your business out of state, or refuse to start any new business activity there. That is why several major businesses decided not to go ahead with an planned expansion to be located in Indiana. The NCAA also threatened to pull the men's college basketball Final Four out of Indianapolis as well.
As a private citizen you can call or write state lawmakers or you can join a protest movement. When large number of citizens do this, it can be very effective. In Indiana thousands of protestors marched in Indianapolis on March 28, 2015, and called for the Governor's resignation.
This attention has quickly gotten the attention of Indiana lawmakers who have backpedaled and announced that the law has been "fixed" on April 4, 2015 so as to avoid being used to unfairly discriminate against various groups. The fix is said to include these 3 points:
If you are a victim of discrimination, you may need to consult with a civil rights attorney through institutions like Marie A. Mattox, P.A. to see what your rights are in the state you live in. At times, unfair laws have been invalidated or have been changed through court rulings.
Share