National RFRA vs. Indiana RFRA
As outrage has grown over the passage and and, now, signing of Indiana's "Religious Freedom Restoration Act" (RFRA), its proponents now seem to be promulgating the dubious argument that there is little or no difference between Indiana's RFRA and the federal law that President Clinton signed into law during his Presidency and, therefore, there should be nothing for us to be all upset about, right? My knowledge of the national RFRA is, admittedly, a little rusty, however, for some reason, this comparison seems to ring false. My understanding is that the national federal law essentially required the government to apply stricter scrutiny towards passing laws and rules against various forms of individual religious expression. If memory serves, the national RFRA stemmed from a negative SCOTUS ruling against the use of Peyote during certain Native American religious ceremonies. Indiana's law was passed, curiously enough, on the heels of an affirmative ruling for marriage equality here in Indiana and has been largely framed as giving businesses greater leverage in refusing services towards certain individuals based on the religious beliefs of its owners, as well as superseding anti-discrimination measures already on the books. The ultimate effect of this law appears mainly aimed at allowing more protection for businesses to discriminate against LGBT individuals, something that I'm not familiar with the national RFRA doing. Has anybody else seen these arguments popping up? Is my reading of the differences between the two laws correct?
