CT Gov. bans state-funded travel to Indiana over RFRA

Forgets CT has a more expansive version of same law:

http://thefederalist.com/2015/03/30/connecticuts-governor-doesnt-understand-his-own-states-rfra/

Both the Indiana law and the federal law declare that the respective governments may not “substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion[.]” In other words, the laws require the courts to analyze cases brought under these laws using the strict scrutiny standard. Under the Indiana and federal religious liberty laws, government can burden religious exercise, but it cannot substantially burden it. That’s a key distinction.

Connecticut’s law, however, is far more restrictive of government action and far more protective of religious freedoms. How? Because the Connecticut RFRA law states that government shall not “burden a person’s exercise of religion[.]” Note that the word “substantially” is not included in Connecticut’s law.

The effect of the absence of that single word is enormous. It states that Connecticut government may not burden the free exercise of religion in any way. That makes it far more protective of religious liberty than the Indiana law that has so outraged Connecticut’s governor.

camcgee®

All-In [28802]

TigerPulse: 100%

Posts: 58393

Joined: 11/14/03

My guess is that it has to do with timing

Mar 30, 2015, 3:45 PM [ in reply to 19 other states and the federal govt have enacted RFRA. ]

Those laws would've been controversial if people tried to pass them now, mostly because all people seem able to equate religious freedom with now is having a problem with gay people.

Some people have argued that Indiana's law is different than some of those RFRA's because it protects people in private lawsuits and because it explicitly applies to businesses, but Hobby Lobby clarified that the federal RFRA applied to businesses and four Courts of Appeals with jurisdiction over nearly half the states have determined that RFRA applies as a defense in a private case against enforcement of federal law.

So I think the main reason why RFRA is being treated so differently now is that the social left figured out that religious freedom might not always accord with their agenda in Hobby Lobby case, and is now suspicious of a regressive social agenda hiding behind "religious freedom." Many of the same people upset by Hobby Lobby are also active in the gay rights movement (feminist "intersectionality"), and they raised the alarm. The press irresponsibly reported the talking points from advocates- CNN actually called the law "anti-gay" in a headline, while many only say anything about the bill being about "religious freedom" with scare quotes included- while not including any of the context for the bill. This led to something like a hysteria among people for whom being on the right side of gay rights issues means being a part of something like the civil rights movement of the 60s. The business community sensed that the law was getting bad press and thought they might lose money or have to deal with difficult questions from employees, so it stands in opposition (The Indiana Chamber of commerce basically says "no comment" on the content or the intent of the law, but says that it opposes it anyway because Indiana legislators should've known it would result in bad press).