Indiana has come under intense fire from the Left for passing a law just like one that Bill Clinton signed in 1993, and was supported by conservative Christian groups, the ACLU, and People for the American Way, among other unlikely allies. More interestingly, it was supported in a huge way by Democrats.

That was then, this is now. What happened in the intervening decades? I explain it in this episode, as well as what RFRA really means. (Hint: it is not open season on gays.)

Mentioned links:

Indiana's Religious Freedom Restoration Act, Explained (http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/indianas-religious-freedom-restoration-act-explained_900641.html?page=1)

Remember When Democrats Used To Support Religious Freedom? (http://thefederalist.com/2015/03/26/remember-when-democrats-used-to-support-religious-freedom/)

WHAT YOU SHOULD KNOW ABOUT RELIGIOUS FREEDOM RESTORATION ACTS (http://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/what-you-should-know-about-religious-freedom-restoration-acts)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4YtyUXnBhXU

Show transcript

The state of Indiana has come under fire for passing their version of the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act. RFRA, as it’s called, was passed in response to court cases that eroded First Amendment protections of the exercise of religion. Religious freedom used to be judged on a case-by-case basis, considering whether each law had specific exemptions for religious groups. Charles Schumer, Democratic Senator from New York, introduced a bill in 1993 to set a standard on how religious freedom cases should be considered; using the same standard that another First Amendment protection – freedom of speech – was adjudicated. I’ll get to the details of that standard in a moment. The bill passed the US Senate 97-3, and by acclamation in the House. Bill Clinton signed it on November 16, 1993. Today, that same action at the state level is being called “bigoted” by Democrats.

States have been doing this ever since a Supreme Court decision said that the federal RFRA didn’t apply to the states. Most of the states that have one use language identical to the one Clinton signed. But while religious freedom used to be supported by Democrats, the rise of a particular protected class (and reliable Democratic voting bloc) changed all that; homosexuals. Once again, as we have seen so many times, politics trumps everything else for the Left, even, apparently, the Bill of Rights.

The fear being stoked is that this will allow Christian businesses to turn away gays just for being gay. There are two links in the show notes to lists of frequently asked questions about the Indiana RFRA, and it explains, no, that sort of discrimination is not protected. If a Christian denies service to someone simply because they are gay, on the grounds that it’s a sin according to Christian doctrine, you would have a tough time proving those religious grounds in court. According to Christianity, we are all sinners. None of us are perfect. So that business owner would have to deny service to everyone, including him- or herself.

Participation, one way or another, in a same-sex marriage ceremony has been the typical cause of contention. And all of the examples that I’ve seen that have been taken to court are regarding business owners that would bake cakes, take pictures, or arrange flowers for a gay customer for any purpose other than a same-sex wedding ceremony. This is most definitely not discrimination against gays because they’re gay. It is, however, a religious objection to a ceremony that the business owner does not wish to participate in.

Let’s be clear. The purpose of these laws based on the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act is simple. When you go to court, you can claim freedom of speech in your defense. You might not win, but it is something that you can claim and upon which you can make a case, and it must be taken into consideration.