Talk:State Religious Freedom Restoration Acts

United States: Government Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. Government (assessed as Low-importance).

Law Low‑importance

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Indiana

Can someone smarter than me update the map to show the Indiana's is now a law? Thanks 155.213.224.59 (talk) 15:12, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The map is totally out of date. Here is an up to date map. The governor of Utah is about to sign a RFRA into law.

https://www.becketlaw.org/research-central/rfra-info-central/map/ Toverton28 (talk) 06:07, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Map

Hobby Lobby has changed the issue - see CNN map (CNN) and the map from Daily Beast. -- Aronzak (talk) 22:03, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The map from The Washington Post is different than that one and the map from the National Conference of State Legislatures actually cites the statutes where the states have them in the law. --PiMaster3 ^talk 12:47, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Indiana's law is special, according to reports

Let's update the article to reflect the fact that Indiana's RFRA-style law has new components that aren't found anywhere else. The following links explain: [1] [2] — Athelwulf ^[T]/_[C] 22:10, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Map does not match article

The list of states with RFRA's does not match the map. The map shows Georgia, Utah and Wyoming as having an RFRA, but are not listed in the text (and most similar graphics in news articles do not show these states as having RFRA's [3][4][5]) I did find this map [6] from the Human Rights Commission that lists these states, however this map is proposed legislation in the current session, not legislation in force. Is the map in error, or am I missing something? Dave (talk) 07:02, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I had created a map based on the NCLS data, but another user changed it to one based on a CNN map that provided no data. --PiMaster3 ^talk 12:57, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Georgia, Utah and Wyoming have proposed introductions. 20 Existing laws:

Alabama Arizona Connecticut Florida Idaho Illinois Indiana Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Mississippi Missouri New Mexico Oklahoma Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina Tennessee Texas Virginia

16 Proposed laws

Sixteen states have introduced legislation this year regarding the creation of, or alteration to, a state religious freedom law. Currently, 20 states have Religious Freedom Restoration Acts (RFRAs). Oklahoma, South Carolina and Texas currently have a RFRA, but have introduced legislation this year to amend or supplement their law. Arkansas, Colorado, Georgia, Hawaii, Indiana, Michigan, Montana, Nevada, North Carolina, South Dakota, Utah, West Virginia and Wyoming are looking to add a RFRA or similar law to their state's laws. Indiana has enacted legislation on this topic in 2015, and Mississippi passed legislation in 2014.

The Indy Star map on the topic lists Georgia, Utah and Wyoming as having proposed laws, though the daily beast article from November last year only has Georgia and Utah. The CNN map didn't include Montana or South Dakota. -- Aronzak (talk) 20:14, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Aronzak, that means the caption is misleading. The caption says, these states HAVE such laws, not these states are PROPOSING such laws. Furthermore, that makes the map speculative, especially given in the next few weeks these bills could meet any number of fates (die in committee, fail in vote, pass, vetoed, etc.) I think this is a strong case for reverting to the map PiMaster refers to. Dave (talk) 20:40, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Moabdave: Politifact rates it as "half true" to say that the proposal in Indiana is the same as Illinois - meaning it's deceptive to present them all as the same law, when they have the same names but important differences (EG between individuals and businesses). The Indy Star adds map information from the ACLU on anti-discrimination ordinances, I have only included this on states that have both - the Indy Star ref makes this information DUE. -- Aronzak (talk) 22:46, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think the current iteration of the map is an improvement, and don't object to it. I will state, however, that I don't think it is a good ideal to list proposed legislation, for a couple of reasons. First, tons of laws are proposed during this time of the year that legislatures are in session, most never even make it to a vote. Second, most states have the legislature in session now, but the session will be over in a few weeks. Why not just wait until the sessions are over and then list what states have passed laws? With the sessions open, any map will be out of date as the situation changes. In fact, this map already is, as Utah passed an anti-discrimination law last week, that is not reflected here (or in most of the sources used, for that matter) and if I remember correctly Colorado's bills were killed and are no longer considered an active proposal. Dave (talk) 00:14, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed, per HRC the bills in Colorado were killed in committee, and never even made it to a the main body for a vote [7]. Also per HRC, Utah's anti-discrimination bill passed, the RFRA similarly died in committee, one anti-LGBT bill did make it out of committee, but is on a topic unrelated to this article. [8] Dave (talk) 00:28, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I've added a sentence at the end that will need updates with sources for states that have had vetoes. The sources need to be included with the exact dates, especially if they are still listed on the NCSL website and used by journalists like the Indy Star map. If journalists are confused then other Wikipedia editors will keep re-adding content that's out of date. -- Aronzak (talk) 01:11, 3 April 2015 (UTC) [reply]

but the session will be over in a few weeks. Why not just wait until the sessions are over and then list what states have passed laws?

Because there's merit in discussing how many states have all pushed simultaneously for these laws following Hobby Lobby and same-sex marriage decisions. And because Republican politicians are stating that the bills they are introducing are identical to the Federal law, which sources show is not the case, and a map with one color would suggest all the bills are identical. -- Aronzak (talk) 01:13, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also note, some sources here Arizona SB 1062#Similar legislation in other states -- Aronzak (talk) 01:19, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with your point that there are subtle and not-so-subtle differences between federal law and the various state laws and proposals, and that some are more restrictive than others. However, I'll point out that this very much the norm in the USA. That same statement applies to everything from Gross Vehicle Weight limits to the definition of (and punishment for) murder. My point is that at this exact moment in time all of this is flux, and in a month it will be stable. In a month, all of these proposals will be law, or footnotes in the state's history. I will fully agree Wikipedia should explain the differences in state laws for LBGT individuals. However, that is the state laws as they are, not how they were once proposed, or might be someday.

If our mission was to report news, or organize activists, I'd agree, we must stay on top of this. But that's not our mission. Our mission is to be a more longer term reference for notable things. Some failed legislative proposals are notable, but that's usually because they are perennial (Jefferson (proposed Pacific state) comes to mind) or resulted in protests/violence/boycotts/sanctions/war during debate or upon failure (as is the case with the law in Arizona). However, I contend that 5 years from now nobody will likely know or care that Colorado once had a bill in committee that was sorta kinda like Indiana's RFRA, but it died in committee before even being presented to the legislature for a debate. Dave (talk) 02:39, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The first test case in Indiana will probably create a lot of interest in how the laws end up working. I think 5 years from now people will be interested to know why certain amendments, that, say change the emphasis of specific words or exclusions will apply or not apply, if they end up in cases that have coverage like the Hobby Lobby case. -- Aronzak (talk) 03:40, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well if you're going to take this on, here's another update. [9] This article lists 6 states where the proposed RFRA legislation has failed for one reason or another, all are listed on the in the map in this article as still proposed. Dave (talk) 18:50, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Arkansas now has RFRA, Indiana has regular RFRA now.

http://www.nwaonline.com/news/2015/apr/03/hutchinson-signs-belief-bill-20150403/

http://www.indystar.com/story/news/politics/2015/04/01/indiana-rfra-deal-sets-limited-protections-for-lgbt/70766920/

The map needs updating. 65.35.213.144 (talk) 07:21, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

article bias

The bias in this article is pretty embarrassing. The post-hobby lobby section, from beginning to end, is a discussion of criticisms of the hobby lobby decision. Balance? It's so biased the writing is poor. There no introduction to the actual holding, or the majority's reasoning--just jump straight to contrary (lower!) court opinions and secondary sources like law profs (so long as they're contrary to the holding). Surely there is a more knowledgeable "be bold" editor who can correct this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.12.245.132 (talk) 18:56, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Updating Article

Sources are largely from 2015/16, and should be reupdated to modern conditions if possible. MysticStrider73 (talk) 22:21, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]