Indiana State Law Still Allows Businesses to Refuse Service Based on Sexuality

[FatAndFaithless]

I'm really confused about this religious rights bill.

I don't think they thought it through at all. Fucking morons can't differentiate between "religion" and "mah reelijun".

The federal RFRA was intended to give people some defense against the government encroaching on their religious freedom by "substantially burdening" their ability to free exercise. The proponents of the Indiana state law wanted to expand that ability even to situations where the government isn't involved.

So business owners could refuse to provide service to X person/party or refuse to perform Y action and use the state-RFRA as a defense in court because serving X person/party or performing Y action would be a "substantial burden" on their ability to free exercise.

The state anti-discrimination laws, on the other hand, establish protected classes that cannot be the basis for discrimination (refusal of service, housing, employment, etc), regardless of reasoning. Race, for example, cannot be used to deny someone employment under these laws, even if a business tried to use their religion to justify it.

Without the Indiana RFRA that's been in the news, businesses and employers and housing could already reject people based on being gay, because sexuality isn't a protected class under the state non-discrimination laws. The RFRA didn't give the businesses that right, as they already had that ability.