The law has businesses and civil rights groups up in arms and threatening -- or in some cases pledging -- to boycott the state. <\/p>\n
What's so controversial about religious freedom? <\/p>\n
It's not so much that religious freedom has suddenly become controversial, but rather critics of the bill assert the law could be used by individuals and businesses to discriminate on the basis of religion -- particularly against the LGBT community of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender individuals. <\/p>\n
That's a claim Pence has thoroughly rejected: \"This bill is not about discrimination. And if I thought it was about discrimination I would have vetoed it.\" <\/p>\n
But civil liberties and gay rights groups assert that the law could be used by businesses to deny service to people based on their sexual orientation and justify that discrimination based on their religious belief. <\/p>\n
The law asserts that the government can't \"substantially burden a person's exercise of religion\" and that individuals who feel like their religious beliefs have been or could be \"substantially burdened\" can lean on this law to fend off lawsuits. <\/p>\n
So what qualifies as a substantial burden? <\/p>\n
Well, that's not entirely clear and would likely have to be litigated in the courts if cases involving this law come up. <\/p>\n
Supporters of these laws bring up the example of a florist who refuses to sell flowers for a gay wedding or a baker who won't make that couple's wedding cake -- and it's clear this law is aimed at fending off lawsuits that florist and that baker might face. <\/p>\n
But what about a restaurant that refuses to serve a gay couple simply wanting to sit down for a meal? <\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
See the article here:<\/p>\n
Indiana's religious freedom law: What it means<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" The law has businesses and civil rights groups up in arms and threatening -- or in some cases pledging -- to boycott the state. Continue reading