LITTLE
ROCK, Ark. — The Arkansas legislature on Tuesday passed its version of
a bill described by proponents as a religious freedom law, even as
Indiana’s political leaders struggled to gain control over a growing
backlash that has led to calls to boycott the state because of criticism
that its law could be a vehicle for discrimination against gay couples.
The
Arkansas bill now goes to the state’s Republican governor, Asa
Hutchinson, who expressed reservations about an earlier version but more
recently said he would sign the measure if it “reaches my desk in
similar form as to what has been passed in 20 other states.” But the
bill already faces a significant corporate backlash, including from Doug
McMillon, the chief executive of Walmart, the state’s largest
corporation, who said Tuesday afternoon that Mr. Hutchinson should veto
it.
In Indiana, Gov. Mike Pence was in a difficult spot trying to satisfy both the business interests that have threatened to punish the state for its law as well as the conservatives who fought for the measure and do not want to see it diluted.
Mr.
Pence has said he wants to modify the law, but he has not indicated how
he could do so without undermining it. He rejected claims that it would
allow private businesses to deny service to gay men and lesbians and
said the criticism was based on a “perception problem” that additional
legislation could fix.
“I’ve
come to the conclusion that it would be helpful to move legislation
this week that makes it clear that this law does not give businesses the
right to discriminate against anyone,” Mr. Pence, a Republican, said at
a news conference in Indianapolis.
He
acknowledged that the law had become a threat to the state’s reputation
and economy, with companies and organizations signaling that they would
avoid Indiana in response. Mr. Pence said he had been on the phone with
business leaders from around the country, adding, “We want to make it
clear that Indiana’s open for business.”
The
bill in Arkansas is similar to the Indiana law, with both diverging in
certain respects from the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act.
That act was passed in 1993 and signed into law by President Bill
Clinton, Arkansas’s most famous political son.
But
the political context has changed widely since then. The law was
spurred by an effort to protect Native Americans in danger of losing
their jobs because of religious ceremonies that involved an illegal
drug, peyote. Now the backdrop is often perceived to be the cultural
division over same-sex marriage.
Both
states’ laws allow for larger corporations, if they are substantially
owned by members with strong religious convictions, to claim that a
ruling or mandate violates their religious faith, something reserved for
individuals or family businesses in other versions of the law. Both
allow religious parties to go to court to head off a “likely” state
action that they fear will impinge on their beliefs, even if it has not
yet happened.
The
Arkansas act contains another difference in wording, several legal
experts said, that could make it harder for the government to override a
claim of religious exemption. The state, according to the Arkansas
bill, must show that a law or requirement that someone is challenging is
“essential” to the furtherance of a compelling governmental interest, a
word that is absent from the federal law and those in other states,
including Indiana.
0 comments :
Post a Comment