29 March 2015

Tell me the difference between these two statutes; this is important for the future of Indiana and America

Below, I have copied and pasted the operative paragraphs of two separate statutes. Please review and tell me which one is anti-gay, so that I know who to boycott:

Statute #1
Sec. 8. (a) Except as provided in subsection (b), a governmental entity may not substantially burden a person's exercise of religion, even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability.
             (b) A governmental entity may substantially burden a person's exercise of religion only if the governmental entity 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. 

Sec. 9. 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. If the relevant governmental entity is not a party to the proceeding, the governmental entity has an unconditional right to intervene in order to respond to the person's invocation of this chapter.

Statute #2
(a) In general. Government shall not substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability, except as provided in subsection (b) of this section. 
(b) Exception Government may substantially 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) Judicial relief. A person whose religious exercise has been burdened in violation of this section may assert that violation as a claim or defense in a judicial proceeding and obtain appropriate relief against a government. Standing to assert a claim or defense under this section shall be governed by the general rules of standing under article III of the Constitution.

One of these is Indiana's new "anti-gay" law. The other is the 22-year-old Federal RFRA, introduced by Chuck Schumer to protect peyote smoking for religious purposes.

Please let me know as soon as possible, because with all the #BoycottIndiana stuff I've been reading, I am certain that people will be getting sent off to the camps soon in that state. Since none of the predicted dire consequences ever came to pass in the 22 years that the Federal law has been in place, I really need to know exactly what Indiana added or removed to make that state law so uniquely terrible. I didn't want to make this post too long, or I would have included the other 19 state laws for comparison, too.

Hurry! I need to know who to boycott!

2 comments:

Rob McMillin said...

Here's the magic words:

regardless of whether the state or any other governmental entity is a party to the proceeding.

Which basically makes for a get-out-of-jail-free card for, not only refusing to sell to homosexuals, but refusing admittance to, say, Jews or Catholics to private clubs and the like on religious grounds.

Brown Folder Blog said...

You're correct, that is a difference between the two laws. I'm not certain why you'd think it creates such a loophole.

That difference only means that this legal test applies whether the business is sued by the government or by an individual. It says nothing about who wins such a case, it only sets ground rules for how cases get decided.

"I don't want to serve such-and-such" is not a valid argument under the law, nor would it be sufficient, even if it were valid. The law simply does not say that.

Thanks for commenting.