Indiana faith leaders, who say they are increasingly worried about government overreach, hope proposed legislation known as the Religious Freedom Restoration Act will help protect their religious liberty.
Opponents, on the other hand, say it will lead to unintended consequences, frivolous lawsuits, and even discrimination.
Legislative leaders heard both arguments during a Senate committee hearing Monday.
The bill "prohibits a governmental entity from substantially burdening a person's exercise of religion." The governmental entity can get around that requirement by 1) demonstrating a compelling governmental interest and 2) showing the steps it has taken are the "least restrictive means" of furthering that interest.
In opening remarks, Senator Scott Schneider, R-Indianapolis, one of the bill's authors, says a primary reason behind the measure was a story out of Houston last year, in which city government subpoenaed several churches, seeking access to things such as sermons and communications between church leaders and the congregation.
Supporters of the measure testified that stories like that have members of religious communities scared about scenarios that include being forced to involve the church in same-sex weddings.
"There are people that want to say that if I am going to open my services to the population at large that I shouldn't, quote unquote, ‘discriminate,'" Indiana Baptist pastor Tim Overton said. "I think everybody in this room would think that is not right for the government to compel me to lend my speech to support someone else's speech."
The federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act has been around for more than 20 years, and 19 states have passed similar laws.
The version of the law being considered in Indiana is substantially similar.
ACLU-Indiana Executive Director Jane Henegar says her organization originally supported the concept when it was passed at the federal level, but two decades of seeing in practice around the country has changed opinions.
"Pharmacists in several states have used religious freedom as a defense for refusing to dispense contraception," she testified. "In Michigan, a school guidance counselor refused to help a gay student because of the counselor's religious beliefs."
The Indiana Chamber of Commerce is also opposing the bill, saying it could lead to costly lawsuits for businesses.
The committee did not take a vote on the measure Monday.
