He took a deep breath before explaining his concern about the Indiana Senate bills that are addressing religious and gay rights in Indiana.
“The most offensive thing about this bill, to me, is the implication that people who are gay or lesbian aren’t ‘religious’ or don’t have religious rights themselves,” Bauder said. “It’s such an archaic, misinformed way of thinking.”
Two new pieces of legislation have been introduced to the Indiana Senate, known as Religious Freedom Restoration Acts. The bills, Senate Bills 101 and 568, were authored with the intent of securing an increased protection for people and their religious beliefs throughout the state of Indiana.
One of the biggest concerns being raised about this legislation is that people and businesses will be able to use this law to discriminate against LGBT individuals by refusing them service based on personally held religious beliefs.
“I think it was in North Carolina where some United Church of Christ pastors felt their religious rights were being violated when they weren’t allowed to officiate at gay weddings,” Bauder said. “One could argue both sides of this. If people are entering into a marriage from some sort of spiritual or religious perspective, as many gays and lesbians do, are their religious rights not being violated if someone is not willing to ?support them in their ?decision?”
He shook his head, thinking about how to address and respond to this issue.
“It’s complicated,” Bauder said. “It really is.”
There is some speculation these laws were drafted in response to last year’s failed attempt to completely ban same-sex unions in the ?Indiana Constitution.
“It’s sort of their last chance to make their values known,” Bauder said, referring to opponents of same-sex marriage. “It’s pandering to a certain group of constituents, and they feel like their rights have been violated, and they’re doing their best to find some way to make their moral values heard because they’re on the losing side at this point.”
SB 568 made its way through the Indiana Senate Committee on Rules and Legislative Procedure and was referred to the Senate Committee on Judiciary.
Four hours of testimonies were heard by the committee Feb. 9, but there has not yet been a vote to send it to the full Senate.
Gov. Mike Pence publicly voiced his support for the legislation at a rally before the committee hearing Feb. 9.
Another concern being raised by opponents is that this is an unnecessary expansion of religious freedom when there is no demonstrated need in Indiana.
The executive director for the American Civil Liberties Union of Indiana, Jane Hanegar, spoke in front of the Senate Committee on Judiciary and voiced her concerns for the bill’s objectives.
“Unfortunately, SB 101 and SB 568 are a solution in search of a problem,” Hanegar said in her testimony. “The bills create a widespread and negative perception of ?Indiana by appearing to invite the use of religion to discriminate, including on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity.”
Hanegar said the legislation is potentially harmful and unnecessary.
“Government in Indiana, in the wake of marriage equality, has not been on a rampage, stomping on ?individuals’ religious ?liberties,” she said.
Nineteen states have ?adopted similar legislation. There are bills pending in six other state legislatures — including Indiana — that aim to introduce the Religious ?Freedom Restoration Act.
States’ RFRAs are modeled after a federal bill of the same name that was signed into law in 1993.
It was intended to protect individuals’ religious rights when federal law impeded ?religious practices.
However, a Supreme Court decision in 1997 held the law only applied to the federal government.
“I guess if people want to discriminate, they’re going to do it,” Bauder said. “But it just seems to me to allow that to happen by law is pretty ?un-American.”
