I predict that there will be no 'fix' changing this law; the only adequate 'fix' is repeal.
No Republican candidate, many of whom are embracing the Pence legislation, will ever be elected.
Denver station 7 hits PRECISELY on why this legislation differs from either the federal legislation that Pence keeps referring to, and differs substantially from the other 19 states with the legislation he refers to as well.
First of all, the claim that this was not intended to be discriminatory is not credible.
From abc 7:
No Republican candidate, many of whom are embracing the Pence legislation, will ever be elected.
Denver station 7 hits PRECISELY on why this legislation differs from either the federal legislation that Pence keeps referring to, and differs substantially from the other 19 states with the legislation he refers to as well.
First of all, the claim that this was not intended to be discriminatory is not credible.
From abc 7:
Indiana ‘religious freedom' law is different – and here's why
Hobby Lobby paved the way, not Clinton-era law
WASHINGTON, D.C. - The backlash to Indiana’s new Religious Freedom Restoration law is growing but the bill’s opponents are blaming the wrong Hoosier. Indiana-born Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts’ role is far more important than Governor Mike Pence’s, even though Pence signed the law.Here’s why:You probably have heard that 19 states besides Indiana already have “a” Religious Freedom Restoration law and that all those laws “are based” on the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) passed by Congress and signed by President Bill Clinton in 1993. That is true only loosely, only if the words above are in quotes.Indiana’s RFRA law has new and different language than the other statutes and the federal law. And it has different legislative intent.States began passing their own RFRA laws only after 1997, when the Supreme Court ruled that the 1993 federal law did not govern state laws. States wanted to “protect” religious liberty just as the feds had (more on that later).But all of that came before Chief Justice Roberts ruled last summer in Hobby Lobby v. Burwell. That was the famous case that ruled that a business, Hobby Lobby, was being burdened in its free expression of religion by a provision of the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare to its foes) requiring coverage for contraception. This was a revolution in defining religious freedom in this country.The Indiana law is the first state RFRA to pass after Hobby Lobby, and it actually codifies its jurisprudence in two ways.First, it explicitly states that for-profit businesses – and not just individuals – have a right to the free exercise of religion. As The Atlantic points out, the federal law has no such language, nor do 17 of the 19 existing state RFRA statues. In fact, Louisiana and Pennsylvania exclude businesses from being protected by RFRA.Second, the Indiana law makes explicit that for-profit business’ free exercise of religion is a defense against discrimination claims made not just by the government but also by private parties, something that is murky in the federal law.So the claim that Indiana’s new law is just the same as a bunch of existing laws is off base.That claim is also disingenuous and phony in a much simpler way, and so is the claim that that RFRA laws are not being used to try to justify discrimination.