SNIP:
In Indiana, Hysteria as a Bludgeon
by Rich Lowry April 3, 2015 12:00 AM Hysteria works
. That’s the lesson of the debate, such as it is, over Indiana’s Religious Freedom Restoration Act. Nothing so captured the spirit of the discussion as an exchange Tuesday on MSNBC’s “The Ed Show.”
That is, of course, the eponymous program hosted by Ed Schultz, who is the Edward R. Murrow of poorly informed bombast.
For him, “Shut up, he explained,” is a high-toned argument. Schultz proved it when his guest Ryan Anderson of The Heritage Foundation badly overmatched him by saying knowledgeable things about RFRA, and, unable to handle it, the host had Anderson’s mic cut off. Ah, yes, #debate.
Rarely has one side had so few facts on its side and gotten such results through sheer repetition of the word “discrimination” and through lurid, fantastical denunciations.
Indiana Governor Mike Pence has been on the run. Arkansas Governor Asa Hutchinson has sent an RFRA passed by his state legislature back for amendment.
And future Republican governors may conclude, with former Arizona Governor Jan Brewer, who vetoed an RFRA last year, that preemptive surrender is the best option.
As anyone who has been paying attention should know (but most still don’t), the Indiana law says that the state can’t substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion unless there is a compelling governmental interest at stake and it is pursued by the least restrictive means. In this, it is just like RFRAs at the federal level and in other states. Much is made of the fact that the Indiana law arguably goes beyond the federal version by including private suits to which the government is not party — although a number of circuit courts have interpreted the federal law that way, as well.
RFRAs aren’t often successfully invoked, but sometimes a religious petitioner — say, a Native American who uses eagle feathers in a ceremony — can prevail against a government regulation.
It is possible that RFRA could be used by a baker or florist who objects to providing services to a gay wedding to protect against a fine or a lawsuit, although it hasn’t happened anywhere yet. But let’s not dwell on facts or reality. No one else does.
all of it here:
Read more at:
National Review