House rejects Democratic changes to 'religious freedom' proposal

Senate Bill 101, which could get a final House vote Monday, exempts individuals, including businesses, from state laws and local ordinances if a person claims the law violates his or her religious beliefs -- unless the government can show the burden is the least restrictive way to further a legitimate state interest.

Responding to fears the measure is intended to permit business owners to discriminate against homosexuals, state Rep. Ed Delaney, D-Indianapolis, proposed adding a sentence declaring the protection of civil rights and prevention of discrimination is a compelling government interest.

"If we pass this bill as it is now, we will have said one interest, one compelling interest, trumps all others, and that's religion," Delaney said. "I'm trying to make it clear that ... this body believes in civil rights and equality as it believes in religious freedom."

His amendment was defeated 60-31, with just three Republicans -- none from Northwest Indiana -- joining all Democrats in voting to add the nondiscrimination clause.

A second Delaney proposal barring religious freedom from being used as a defense in crimes involving domestic violence or the sexual abuse of children, or to deny the provision of health care, was rejected 61-30.

Also getting outvoted were state Rep. Gail Riecken, D-Evansville, who sought to declare laws and regulations protecting the health, safety or welfare of children superseded religious liberty claims, and state Rep. John Bartlett, D-Indianapolis, who wanted businesses intending to discriminate based on religion required to post notice on their doors and websites.

Supporters of the measure, including the sponsor, state Rep. Tim Wesco, R-Osceola, and House Republican Leader Jud McMillin, R-Brookston, repeatedly insisted it is not a license to discriminate and has not been used that way at the federal level or in any of the states that have adopted similar laws, including Illinois.

"The courts have ruled on several occasions that preventing racial discrimination, and other forms of discrimination, is a compelling state interest," Wesco said. "So (these) amendments are not necessary and certainly not based upon what this bill actually does."

House Democratic Leader Scott Pelath, D-Michigan City, said rejection of their proposals to improve a "confusing bill" that will be "a lawyer's dream," leaves many Hoosiers uncertain of how they will be treated should it becomes law.

"Look, if this bill does not allow anybody to discriminate -- prove it," Pelath said.