New York Should religious owners of flower shops or wedding photographers or cakemakers have the right to refuse their services to gay couples? Can a religious anesthesiologist refuse to participate if a woman is about to undergo an abortion? <\/p>\n
For many religious conservatives, the answer to these questions should be yes. And many are hoping new religious freedom restoration acts, loosely modeled on a federal law passed in 1993, can help carve out space in which they do not have to participate in matters against their religious consciences. <\/p>\n
On Monday, Indiana became the latest state to pass such legislation. Indianas Republican-dominated House overwhelmingly passed the bill 63 to 31, mostly along party lines, following the states Senate approval of a slightly different version last month. Republican Gov. Mike Pence has promised to sign the bill into law. <\/p>\n
Such legislation has engendered much controversy. Indeed, its one of the latest skirmishes in an expanding cultural and legal battle that often pits religious conservatives against the advocates of gay and lesbian rights and same-sex marriage, now the law in at least 36 states and the District of Columbia. <\/p>\n
Over a decade ago, many liberal states, including Connecticut, Illinois, and Rhode Island, passed their own versions of the 22-year-old federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act. Overall, at least 19 states have passed similar bills, since the federal law does not apply to the states, the US Supreme Court ruled in 1997. <\/p>\n
But since last year, the Supreme Courts Hobby Lobby decision has changed the bipartisan tenor of the law. The nations highest court used the federal religious freedom statute to rule that closely held corporations with religious objections to contraceptives were exempt from the Obamacare provision requiring their coverage. Since then, conservatives have seen state religious freedom laws as a means to combat the expanding definition of marriage, as well as other hot-button social issues. <\/p>\n
If we truly are doing things unto the Lord, our business can be ... a church or sanctuary, argued Indiana Republican Rep. Bruce Borders on the House floor Monday, bringing up the question of the anesthesiologist. People deserve protection in their businesses as well, not just on Sunday morning. <\/p>\n
The Indiana bill, like existing state and federal laws, allows individual religious freedom to trump other laws if they impose a substantial burden on the free exercise of religion. Unless the government can demonstrate a compelling state interest and prove that a laws religious burdens were the least restrictive means of furthering that interest, religious freedom would prevail. <\/p>\n
So far, state courts, including one in New Mexico, have rejected the religious conscience arguments for businesses refusing to serve gays and lesbians for religious reasons, ruling that nondiscrimination should hold sway in the public sphere. In 2013, the New Mexico Supreme Court said a photographer that refused to provide service for a gay couple violated the states human rights law, which included sexual orientation. <\/p>\n
New Mexico, however, also has a Religious Freedom Restoration law on its books. But the states highest court ruled this statute did not apply in the case, since the government was not involved in the civil dispute. <\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Originally posted here: <\/p>\n
Indiana religious freedom act: Does it protect faithful or legalize prejudice? (+video)<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" New York Should religious owners of flower shops or wedding photographers or cakemakers have the right to refuse their services to gay couples? Continue reading