Tuesday, March 19, AD 2024 12:03am

GenCon and the Indiana Religious Freedom Restoration Act

Religious Freedom Restoration Act

 

Recently Indiana passed and the Governor signed the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.  By doing so Indiana joined a majority of states which have such protections for religious freedom. There is also a federal version of the act which was passed overwhelmingly by Congress in 1993 and signed into law by President Clinton.  Here are the operative sections of both the Federal and State Acts:

 

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.

And here is the text of Indiana’s RFRA:

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.

Go here for the complete text of the Act.  States enacted their own version of the statute because the Supreme Court in 1997 ruled rightfully that the federal act was not applicable to state laws or local ordinances.

What does this have to do with GenCon, the gaming convention held in Indianapolis that I and my bride have been attending since 1986?

Well, homosexual activists have been busily portraying this statute as a license to discriminate against gays, and the head of GenCon decided to get on this band wagon.  Go here to read the letter by Adrian Swartout.

The ignorance contained in the letter is simply stunning.   Swartout is apparently bone ignorant as to the federal version of the act and how many states have similar acts.  Swartout also is apparently  ignorant of the fact that the Act could only be used if a government seeks to discriminate against an individual or business on the basis of their religion.  The only possible applicability to homosexuals would be if a government sought to take action against a business that discriminated against gays.  The only businesses where such a contention would survive judicial analysis would be those where the owners could demonstrate that their religious beliefs forbid providing a service, such as baking a cake for a gay wedding.   The idea that this statute would have any impact on services provided to convention attendees in downtown Indie is simply farcial.  Of course all the hoopla about the Act has nothing to do with the law or facts, but everything to do with the flexing of political muscles by gay activists.  This tempest also demonstrates that religious freedom is simply not going to be tolerated by those who shriek loudest for tolerance.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
24 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Nate Winchester
Nate Winchester
Monday, March 30, AD 2015 6:39am

What does this have to do with GenCon, the gaming convention held in Indianapolis that I and my bride have been attending since 1986?

Really??? It’s always been my dream to attend GenCon someday…

(plots to suck up to Don for lodging)

T. Shaw
T. Shaw
Monday, March 30, AD 2015 6:56am

I have three brief responses to hype and hysteria being flung by the gay gestapo and its lying, liberal (I repeat myself again) acolytes, “democracy” ; “The Bill Of Rights”; and “37-year-old Adam Smith is living on food stamps because he criticized Chick-fil-A in a video he posted on YouTube.”

WK Aiken
WK Aiken
Monday, March 30, AD 2015 7:03am

As a citizen of the Hoosier State, I have seen lots of contention and hollering but little in the way of intelligent discourse, for reasons that are probably obvious. This, of course, does very little to further my understanding of the situation. I am not blessed with a strong sense of abstract, and am in need of examples, much like learning from parables and acts.
.
It is worth noting that this contention is occurring at Easter, when we remember another mob that was led to hysteria by a self-serving core of power-mongers. I pray the conclusion of this contention stops short of that one’s.

trackback
Monday, March 30, AD 2015 7:05am

[…] via GenCon and the Indiana Religious Freedom Restoration Act | The American Catholic. […]

Foxfier
Admin
Monday, March 30, AD 2015 7:06am

Find it kind of notable that you’re the first person I’ve seen quote the act. Everyone else just screams about how it’s going to do this or that…..

Ernst Schreiber
Ernst Schreiber
Monday, March 30, AD 2015 7:21am

You mean it’s not a compelling state interest to see to it that very special snowflakes are serviced by the vendor(s) of their choosing, regardless of the desire of the vendor(s) to serve very special snowflakes in the first place?

I ask you, what’s the point of being a very special snowflake if you can’t always get your way by using the state to bully others?

Ernst Schreiber
Ernst Schreiber
Monday, March 30, AD 2015 7:37am

I caught a bit of Stephanopoulos’s interview with Mike Pence on the evening news yesterday, and it occured to me that “tolerance” (“acceptance” by another name) for homosexuality is rapidly become the modern-day equivalent to the pinch of incense offered to Caesar’s genius.

Foxfier
Admin
Monday, March 30, AD 2015 8:20am

I’d have said “active support,” myself….

Michael Paterson-Seymour
Michael Paterson-Seymour
Monday, March 30, AD 2015 8:41am

I can see such legislation having far-reaching consequences.

I wonder how this legislation would apply to (say) the prohibition of shechita, halal and other methods of ritual slaughter of unstunned animals, or to the importation of the products of animals so slaughtered.

Would it invalidate a ban on the ritual circumcision of minors, or female genital mutilation?

Would it prevent a ban on the wearing of the hijab or the kippa in public schools or the wearing of the burka in public places?

Ernst Schreiber
Ernst Schreiber
Monday, March 30, AD 2015 8:42am

I did give “approval” some thought. You’re certainly correct that the distinctions between “tolerance,” “acceptance,” “approval,” and “support” are collapsing.
.
I wonder what word will appear in the Newspeak Dictionary?

Ernst Schreiber
Ernst Schreiber
Monday, March 30, AD 2015 8:50am

I wonder how this legislation would apply….

It all depends on how compelling the state’s interest in prohibiting those activities in the examples you gave is.

Ernst Schreiber
Ernst Schreiber
Monday, March 30, AD 2015 8:58am

Wow. Just stumbled across a news report that touches alot of hot button issues around here.

trackback
Monday, March 30, AD 2015 10:00am

[…] GenCon and the Indiana Religious Freedom Restoration Act […]

Mary De Voe
Monday, March 30, AD 2015 12:10pm

Over at the Catholic League, Dr. Donohue reminds us that The Supreme Court in 1997, gave its approval of the RFRA. Probably to undo some of the ill effects of the Court having tried atheism under the penumbra of Freedom of Religion, obliterating and eradicating “or prohibit the free exercise thereof.” of the First Constitutional Amendment. What part of “the free exercise thereof” can atheism or anti-theists as they are beginning to call themselves constitutionally remove without three quarters of the states ratifying any change they impose?
.
Atheism is unconstitutional because it is completely opposed to every free person’s, every sovereign person’s choice of “the free exercise thereof.”
.
As unconstitutional as atheism is, the anti-theist must be tolerated and the First Amendment must be defended and understood as the freedom extended to all persons who are citizens, or taxation without representation is imposed, which is what is happening now with the Person of God evicted and rendered “persona non-grata” in the public square. Not the state, nor the Constitution gives sovereign personhood. Only God gives sovereign personhood. The state is constituted by sovereign persons to defend and protect the sovereign person.

Mary De Voe
Monday, March 30, AD 2015 12:15pm

Man and his freedom are created by” their Creator”. Man is PROCREATED by man. The state is constituted by the sovereign personhood endowed by “their Creator.”
.
So, what can atheism give to mankind? I mean besides totalitarianism, unequal Justice, enslavement of man’s freedom and the obliteration of the people?

CAM
CAM
Monday, March 30, AD 2015 1:15pm

Thank you, Don McClarey, for this excellent post.

Mary De Voe
Monday, March 30, AD 2015 8:17pm

Love thy neighbor as thyself. and the free exercise of religion will have the effect of : You are born, so the unborn must be born. You are circumcised as a male, you wear a burka, so you must allow others the same freedom. You are an atheist, so you must allow others to be theists. FREEDOM

Elaine Krewer
Admin
Monday, March 30, AD 2015 9:38pm

I agree that the hysteria surrounding this act is way over the top, but I am curious about an issue raised by some of its opponents, who claim that the Indiana RFRA is NOT quite the same as the federal RFRA or other states’ versions. They claim that the other acts only apply to governmental entities while the Indiana act applies also to private entities. Is there any truth to this assertion?

CAM
CAM
Tuesday, March 31, AD 2015 11:28am

When there’s are so many states with similar with RFRAs and a Federal one, I have to wonder why single Indiana out? Could it be that this brouhaha is about politically destroying a conservative Republican governor? So that Mike Pence will never be a contender on a national Republican ticket? How better to do it than applying economic pressure on his state which in turns puts pressure on him. Standard Democratic M.O. to pull the race card or rainbow card. In this case it’s the latter.

Ernst Schreiber
Ernst Schreiber
Tuesday, March 31, AD 2015 2:28pm

When there’s are so many states with similar with RFRAs and a Federal one, I have to wonder why single Indiana out?

Because that was then and this is now. Because Democrats need to do something to gin up hatred fear and paranoia in order to keep their donors donating and their voters voting. Because “gay marriage” is in front of the Supreme Court. Any number of reasons.

Mary De Voe
Tuesday, March 31, AD 2015 3:36pm

The Constitutional First Amendment: “or prohibit the free exercise thereof.” What part of “or prohibit the free exercise thereof” do these loudmouthed, dumber than doorknobs not read?

CAM
CAM
Tuesday, March 31, AD 2015 5:53pm

“Because Democrats need to do something to gin up hatred fear and paranoia in order to keep their donors donating and their voters voting. Because “gay marriage” is in front of the Supreme Court. Any number of reasons.”

So true. The constitutionality of same-sex marriage is before the US Supreme Court in late April. The decision should be handed down in June. The PR campaign for gay marriages has started with lies, hysteria, paranoia and boycotts.

Discover more from The American Catholic

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading

Scroll to Top