Indiana Religious Freedom Act

by Meagan Hutte

Indiana senate bill 101

Who, When, Where

The bill was approved by a vote of 40-10. The Governor of Indiana, Mike Pence, signed the approved bill into law three days later, and the law became effective on July 1, 2015.

Lobbyists from the American family association the Indiana family institute, who pushed for a ban on same-sex marriage were some of the guests invited to see the bill signed. Micah Clark, executive director of the American Family Association of Indiana, previously stated that the organization would shift its focus from opposing gay marriages to preventing people from being forced to participate if they oppose them on religious grounds. Conservative Christian lobby group Advance America, which warned of "dire consequences" if same-sex marriage was enacted, stated on their website.

what Indiana senate bill 101( religious freedom act ) states

Prohibits a governmental entity from substantially burdening a person's exercise of religion, even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability, unless the governmental entity can demonstrate that the burden: (1) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and (2) is the least restrictive means of furthering the compelling governmental interest. Provides a procedure for remedying a violation. Specifies that the religious freedom law applies to the implementation or application of a law regardless of whether the state or any other governmental entity or official is a party to a proceeding implementing or applying the law. Prohibits an applicant, employee, or former employee from pursuing certain causes of action against a private employer (

Media perspective

The 1st media perspective, which i think was the one that effected people the most, was how the media made it look like religion VS LGBTQ+. And that is just simply not how it was. All the bill did was make it available to protect religious freedom, not give anyone a free ticket to turn down anyone for anything. You would still end up going to court and end up having to prove that what the issue was and that it was uphold-able by religious freedom laws. many churches were against this bill as well, The Christian Church (Disciples of Christ), or DoC, for example, was one of the first religious groups to speak out against Indiana’s RFRA last week. The group threatened to move its national convention, which was scheduled to bring around 6,000 to Indianapolis in 2017, if the bill was made law. Other Christians groups were also quick to express disapproval with Indiana’s law. Episcopal bishop Catherine Waynick, who oversees the Diocese of Indianapolis, issued a pastoral letter last week saying the state RFRA is “an embarrassment to ‘Hoosier Hospitality’” and noting that other groups — not just LGBT people — could be denied services under the bill. Bishop Gene Robinson, the first openly-gay Episcopal bishop, has also repeatedly denounced the law.


one of the biggest biases i found was source selection. since the RFRA bill was such a controversial topic, you find that people are either really for it or really against it. so each media source changes depending on who wrote it or who they interviewed. My personal opinion is, if you own and run your own independent business then you should be able to deny people under any grounds. its your business. but if you worked at ab big corporation like Kroger or Walmart then you should not be able to because that s is not your own independent business.

media perspective

for it

"the united states constitution prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion , impeding the free exercise of religion, abridging the freedom of speech, infringing on the freedom of the presses, interfering with the right to peacefully assemble or prohibiting the petitioning for the government a redress of grievances. It was adopted on December 15, 1791, as one of the ten amendments that constitute the bill of rights" the people for the religious freedom bill believe that without the bill that they are being denied their 1st amendment right of freedom of religion.

against it

" the united states constitution prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion " the people that are against the bill believe that the bill is " respecting an establishment of religion" and that religion and government should stay separate, so they say that the bill is unconstitutional.

criticism #1

cultural criticism plays a huge part of peoples bias against this because people some that are for it and people are against it also are religious. people that are for it and religious believe that there 1st amendment needs to be protected and people that are against it and religious look at luke 6:31 "Give to everyone who asks of you, and whoever takes away what is yours, do not demand it back. 31"Treat others the same way you want them to treat you. 32"If you love those who love you, what credit is that to you? For even sinners love those who love them" they believe that it is not there place to turn down and judge people, and that you should treat everyone equally.

criticism #2

historic critcism plays a role in this as well, on November 16, 1993, codified at 42 votes also known as RFRA, is a 1993 United States law that "ensures that interests in religious freedom are protected."The bill was introduced by Congressman Chuck Schumer on March 11, 1993. A companion bill was introduced in the Senate by Ted Kennedy the same day. A unanimous U.S house and a nearly unanimous U.S senate—three senators voted against passage—passed the bill, and President Bill Clinton signed it into law. so this had already been happening, it was already protected. The Indiana religious freedom bill just acts on that.
Indiana Gov. Mike Pence Says Religious Freedom Law 'Absolutely Not' a Mistake
The Religious Freedom Debate Explained in 90 Seconds