INDIANAPOLIS — The debate on whether Indiana should adopt a proposal aimed at protecting Hoosiers with sincerely held religious beliefs goes before an Indiana House committee Monday.
Groups on both sides of the "religious freedom" bill spent last week drawing the battle lines on the proposal. Freedom Indiana, which successfully fought last year's proposed constitutional same-sex marriage amendment, also hopes to strike down this measure. The Indiana Family Institute, a conservative organization, was drumming up support for the bill ahead of the hearing in the House Judiciary Committee.
State Rep. Thomas Washburne, an Evansville Republican, serves on the committee.
Opponents have argued the proposal is broadly written and could have unintended consequence, especially for the LGBT community, and could place in jeopardy local ordinances, such as the city of Evansville's which offers protections based on sexual orientation and gender identity in matters of education, employment, access to public accommodations and housing.
Supporters say it offers a state-level protection, akin to the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which asserts people's rights to practice their religion without substantial burden by government. Both groups plan to rally Monday at the Statehouse.
"I think some of it is being overanalyzed and overhyped," Washburne said.
The state's constitution already says no law can control the free exercise of religious opinions or interfere with the rights of conscience, Washburne said.
"Given that's already our constitutional position, I didn't see this bill doing much more than providing a framework on how to analyze that provision," he said.
However, the Indiana Chamber of Commerce has come out in opposition against the bill because of the potential affect it could have on employers.
"From the employer perspective, the greatest concern is the potential for lawsuits. It puts employers in the difficult position of determining the legitimacy of an employee's religious belief claims. That's not something employers want or should have to do because it would subject them to unwarranted, costly and time-consuming litigation," said Kevin Brinegar in February when the Senate weighed "religious freedom" legislation.
Freedom Indiana released a legal analysis last week stating the legislation could shift "legal burden to third parties, including businesses…"
"Yet, rather than advancing reasonable concerns about religious freedom, the proposed Religious Freedom Restoration Act is more a solution in search of a problem, or worse, if passed will create confusion, conflict, and a wave of litigation that will threaten the clarity of religious liberty rights in Indiana while undermining the state's ability to enforce other compelling interests," according to letter sent by a group of 30 law professors.
However, supporters of the bill have maintained it deals with the relationship between people and their government, and not private groups.
One of the bill's sponsors, state Rep. Tim Wesco (R-Osceola), said the legislation sets the standard that government must have a compelling interest to burden someone's religious beliefs.
"I think the bill is very clear that it allows for a defense against any party but only a claim with allowable relief against a government entity," Wesco said. "I think there's going to be a lot of discussion surrounding that."