Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:Please someone explain to me how this isn't about discrimination?
Because it's about the first amendment.
BZZZ. But thank you for playing.
In the first place, if it were a 1st Amendment issue then the law would not be necessary, because the 1st Amendment would already protect the activity from government intrusion. So, the 1st Amendment argument fails right there. What's more, knowing how conservatives dislike excessive and redundant regulation, that would mean that you were supporting enacting legislation that is by definition, unnecessary.
So, let's assume the 1st Amendment doesn't protect whatever activity the RFRA is intended to protect. The original Federal RFRA and most of the other state-level ones applied only to government action and created a defense to government enforcement.
The difference between those laws and the Indiana RFRA, as many commentators have noted, is that it also creates a defense for private causes of action. So when an individual who has been discriminated against files a tort suit against a business owner, the business owner can argue the defense created by the Indiana RFRA. That has nothing to do with government action against the business owner.
And this goes further than the poster child wedding photographer / baker. What happens when Chick-fil-A in Indiana decides not to cater events that are contrary to the religious beliefs of its CEO? What happens when Hobby Lobby, now that they are a corporation with religious beliefs, decides to discriminate in Indiana against those who don't share their religion? The Indiana law does not distinguish based on the size of the business involved.
Claiming this is a 1st Amendment issue means that you either don't understand Constitutional law or you don't understand the Indiana RFRA.