Remember the Religious Freedom Restoration Act? Remember how contentious it was? Well, now there is this tourism group, Visit Indy, that claims passage of that law cost the state at least $60 million in lost hotel profits, tax revenue and other economic benefits. This because of how backward Indiana looked after passage of that law. But was it really the law that made us look backward or was it the way some folks portrayed the law? The fight over RFRA-type laws dates to 1990, when the Supreme Court ruled against a guy from Oregon named Al Smith. He was one-quarter American Indian. He used peyote – an illegal cactus-based hallucinogen – in a Native American Church ritual, which got him fired from his job. He argued in court that his actions should be protected by the First Amendment’s freedom of religion. He lost. That ruling made it easier for the government to place restrictions on activities that could be argued as religious freedoms. The ruling was troubling to a lot of state and federal officials, and in 1993, President Bill Clinton signed the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act into law to restore the First Amendment religious protection standard. At the signing ceremony outside the White House, Vice President Al Gore said, “Those whose religion forbids autopsies have been subjected to mandatory autopsies.” He said the law was something “all Americans” could support, and most of them did, across the political spectrum. Time.com explains: The law demanded that the government have a “compelling interest” before infringing on religious freedom and that the government must use the “least restrictive” means of doing so. If, for example, a state law required that all vehicles have electric lights, the government might have a compelling interest in making sure Amish buggies were as visible as cars on the highway. But the least restrictive means of compelling them to follow the law could be to make sure they used reflective silver tape, rather than force them to embrace technology. Sound familiar? A couple of states, Connecticut and Rhode Island, passed their own RFRA laws in 1993 and 1996, respectively. Then, in 1997, the Supreme Court ruled that the federal law applied only to the federal government so a bunch more states passed their own RFRAs. By 2015, when Indiana, decided to pass one, it became the 21st state to do so. RFRAs are pending in six other states. Frankly, it was a completely mundane legislative exercise. Unfortunately, it wasn’t portrayed that way and the misrepresentations got way out of hand. As the political context got strained, RFRA was labeled as a way for people of faith to avoid having to provide services to the gay community. Now, proponents of the law brought a good deal of this on themselves by making bogus claims of their own regarding the scope of the law. Eric Miller, leader of the conservative Advance America in Indiana posted this under a “VICTORY AT THE STATEHOUSE!” headline: Churches, Christian businesses and individuals deserve protection from those who support homosexual marriages and those who support government recognition and approval of gender identity (men who dress as women). SB 101 will help provide the protection! Even though that interpretation is overbaked and completely bogus, opponents of the law took it and ran with it – hard. Next thing you know, Indiana is a backward, gay-hating place where nobody wants to do business. Never mind that Indiana’s law wasn’t substantially different than the laws passed by 20 other states or the federal government, for that matter. Never mind that there was no evidence of RFRAs in other states being used as a defense against anti-gay discrimination. Opponents of the law did their best to make Indiana look as bad as possible and they were really good at it. Media in the state even managed to rename the law. When the law was passed amid little fanfare – other than an ill-advised private signing ceremony hosted by the governor – Associated Press and other media outlets around the state accurately referred to it as the “religious freedom law.” After the controversy erupted – and continuing to this day – media began referring to it as the “religious objections law.” Careful readers of the Times-Union might notice that I search and replace the word “objections” for the word “freedom” in AP stories on the topic. Comes now the Visit Indy group who says the law cost Indiana all this money. From the AP: In the group's surveys, Indianapolis tourism officials asked the conventions why they chose to locate in other states, without specifically mentioning the controversial law. All 12 cited the law — and the backlash it provoked — as one reason for choosing another city, said Chris Gahl, vice president of marketing and communications for Visit Indy. "We'd say, 'Why didn't you select Indy?' and they proactively cited (the law) as a reason they did not select Indianapolis," Gahl said when asked about the document. "That is not news you want to hear when you are in the business of marketing a city." Maybe they’re right. Maybe Indiana did lose money. Maybe. But why? Was it because Indiana passed the same law that was passed by 20 other states and the federal government over the past 20 years? Was it the result of rampant anti-gay discrimination going on in all those states because of RFRA laws? Or was it because a very vocal group of opponents worked very hard to make Indiana look bad? Be honest. You know the answer.
