no there are not 19 other states with laws such as Indiana's

[dsc]

There are two kinds of religious liberty. There is religious liberty which prevents the state from encroaching on individual liberty and that which prevents the government from prohibiting discrimination. The original RFRA came from a case that was clearly the first kind of religious freedom. The case at hand was a person who smoked peyote as part of a native American religious ritual and lost his state job as a result. The decision was so broad that churches that used wine in dry counties could have been raided and have had no recourse. The standard the SCOTUS used was that any generally applicable law could be enforced against any individual with no consideration as to the religious implications. That standard was clearly a problem which is why the federal government and 19 states passed RFRA laws. Fast forward to Hobby Lobby. The Hobby Lobby case is clearly a case of the second form of religious liberty. This wasn't about an individual on his or her own time doing his or her own thing, this was about the owner of a corporation deciding that he should not have to follow a law designed to end discrimination (in this case in employee benefits). Where the first case is a shield protecting believers from an all powerful, Gladys Kravits, government the second case gives a sword to the Gladys Kravits of the world to go on witch hunts. It is the second kind of law that Indiana willfully chose to pass. Yes, the other states laws can now be read to mean that the second kind of religious liberty is now protected but Indiana willfully chose to have a law which meant that. That is the difference.

[frazzled]

1. No, just all the states with "conscience clauses" that discriminate against women

Remember all the rallies and the great hue and cry when states—not so long ago—allowed pharmacists to refuse to fill prescriptions for contraceptives if it was against their religious principles? I mean really, when they made it so that companies like Target and CVS could legally allow pharmacists to refuse to fill women's prescriptions for birth control pills?

Oh, right. There weren't really any.

Remember the old saw about "First they came for ... "? Well, it started with women, who have been (and continue to be) discriminated against for reasons of so-called religious belief or conscience. And since nobody stopped it, it has now started to be legislated with respect to the LGBT community.

Perhaps now people might get what Patricia Arquette was driving at in her post-Oscar statement. All of us need to support each other. Because if we don't ... you might be the next to experience discrimination.

I guess discrimination against women really doesn't count in this discussion.

[dsc]

2. actually gay groups had major problems with those laws

not for entirely disinterested reasons (AIDS drugs). But you correct about the lack of general interest.

[PeaceNikki]

6. Thank you for this.

[Humanist_Activist]

3. Why should religious implications be considered when generally applying a law, RFRA is bullshit...

end religious privilege, don't argue for it.

[dsc]

4. because while I don't favor either alcohol or drug prohibition

I think it is orders of magnitudes worse when we prevent the exercise of religious freedom by doing so. I don't think some town in some right wing state should be able to use pretextual generally applicable laws to target say Jews and Muslims or Native Americans.

[Humanist_Activist]

5. Why is it worse? What makes religious people entitled to more protections...

than non-religious people?

We aren't talking about laws that are written or used to discriminate against some specific sect here, but generally applicable laws that would apply to everyone, except the religious due to something like the RFRA. You would have to justify why religious people are superior or entitled to more protections.

ON EDIT: I'm talking about both religious people and organizations.

[dsc]

7. because the Constitution gives it those protections

Clearly the founders felt that religious beliefs were special and entitled to protections. SCOTUS completely eviscerated those protections and they needed restoration. The shield is something the founders deeply believed in and meant for people to have, the sword not so much.

[Humanist_Activist]

8. That just illustrates the founding fathers were wrong, now, come up with a justification...

for treating non-religious beliefs, organizations and people differently, and affording them less rights, than the religious.