The Religious Freedom Restoration Act is now law in Indiana after the governor signed the bill Thursday.
RFRA has sparked fierce debate both in Indiana and across the nation, with advocates saying it will protect their religious liberties and those against the law arguing it legalizes discrimination, especially against people in the LGBT community.
This week organizers of the nation's largest tabletop gaming convention Gen Con, said they would move out of Indianapolis if the governor signed the bill. That could cost Indiana $50 million in economic impact annually.
The NCAA also said it was concerned about the effects the law could have on its student athletes.
"We will work diligently to assure student-athletes competing in, and visitors attending, next week's Men's Final Four in Indianapolis are not impacted negatively by this bill," NCAA President Mark Emmert said in a statement. "Moving forward, we intend to closely examine the implications of this bill and how it might affect future events as well as our workforce."
And plenty of other businesses, politicians and celebrities also got involved in the debate.
But the governor did sign the bill, and RFRA is set to take effect July 1. So what impact will RFRA actually have?
First, let's break down the law itself. Below is the full text of the law. Click on the highlighted sections to see explanations.
Even with a breakdown of the law, the implications of RFRA can be confusing. So Indiana Newsdesk's Joe Hren spoke with two law professors who testified on the bill. You can watch the video below or read further to see their explanations.
This transcription has been edited for clarity.
Joe Hren: What does requiring the government to have a compelling interest before it infringes on religious liberties mean?
Dan Conkle (IU Maurer School of Law): If health or safety were at issue, for example childcare safety requirements or if there were abuse to a child or a person, clearly the government could trump a religious freedom objection. Likewise in my mind, in the context of the discrimination claims, so far, in the 30 states that have a similar approach as well as at the federal level, there has been no case anywhere that has in fact found a successful religious objection claim in the face of an anti-discrimination law.
Robert Katz (IU McKinney School of Law): [The law] is unnecessary because the existing constitution has a free exercise provision that's very strong, and we have a very receptive state legislature so that if people feel their religious liberties are being burdened, they can go to the legislature and as for an exemption. For example, people who have religious objections to their children being vaccinated, there's a group that went to the legislature, they asked for an accommodation, and they received and exemption from the law.
So the existing system in place makes the law unnecessary, but nonetheless disturbing because it makes a statement that religious freedom is the eminent freedom. It suggests that it trumps other concerns such as freedom from discrimination.
Hren: Is it too late to amend RFRA?
Katz: Absolutely not, and now, given the wake of the statute's enactment and the concerns that weren't' adequately addressed such as discrimination, would be the perfect time for the state legislature to amend RFRA. Professor Conkle, colleagues and I and legislatures could try to hammer out language that does reflect more of our anti-discrimination laws.
Conkle: As a first step, I think Prof. Katz and I might agree, Indiana has no prohibition of discrimination on sexual orientation. That's where the energy should reside to modify the civil rights statute to include sexual orientation. Then, if needed, we could modify RFRA in that context.
Hren: What impact will this have on average Hoosiers?
Conkle: It's hard to say. It might be very minimal. In the 30 states that have RFRA legislation there is very little RFRA lawsuits. It has been well publicized here. Maybe that will generate claims, maybe it won't.
Katz: When you pass legislation, it's supposed to be solution to a problem. Given that I think there wasn't a problem, we might have new problems that weren't anticipated and it's a source of concern.
