Let's find out. The law itself is fairly short, so instead of "amplify[ing] what this bill really is in the legislative process," let's go over the text together and see whether it would "protect . . . a Christian florist who denied service to a gay couple."
The central text of the law is this:
But his answers to other questions were less clear. Mr. Pence did not directly answer whether the law might protect, for example, a Christian florist who denied service to a gay couple. Asserting that the legislation was not about discrimination, he said, “The issue here is, you know, is tolerance a two-way street or not?”
There's been much national ado about a new Indiana law billed as the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which critics say is intended to protect business owners who want to eject gay customers from their shop. Not so! Says Indiana Gov. Mike Pence, who, back when it was more in vogue to openly disdain homosexuality, tried to amend the U.S. Constitution to ban gay marriage. "We're going to continue to explain it to people who don't understand it," said Gov. Pence on Sunday, "and if possible, we will find a way to amplify what this bill really is in the legislative process."
The crack team at ABC's This Week pressed the governor for the law's effect on gay discrimination, and he was, unshockingly, not forthcoming about it. Says the New York Times:
A state action, or an action taken by an individual based on state action, may not substantially burden a person's right to the exercise of religion, even if the burden results from a law or policy of general applicability, unless the state or political subdivision of the state demonstrates that applying the burden to the person's exercise of religion is (1) essential to further a compelling governmental interest and (2) the least restrictive means of furthering the compelling governmental interest.
The law also clarifies some of its mushy wording with these definitions:
"Burden" means an action that directly or indirectly . . . compels a person to take an action that is contrary to the person's exercise of religion.
In other words: no law can force a person to do anything contrary to their religion, no matter how bizarre or anachronistic the belief, unless the law is absolutely the most important possible thing that a government can do and cannot do it in any way less restrictive to religious practice.
Now, obviously trying to apply this law is impossible. There are 19 major world religions with 270 different major subdivisions and tens of thousands of minor subdivisions. No Indiana law can force any adherent of any of them to do anything they personally consider their religion to disfavor unless the law is absolutely of the highest priority and burdening their religious belief is literally the only way to do it. Best of luck to Indiana going forward.
Now the hypothetical: would the bill protect "a Christian florist who denied service to a gay couple?" Yes, obviously it would. Lots of Christians consider having even a transient, arm's-length interaction with a gay person to be absolutely antithetical to their religious belief. The law would absolutely protect them, and would cancel in full any law that tried to force them to do otherwise. But is "tolerance a two-way street" as Gov. Pence argues? Would this law protect a gay florist who denied service to a Christian couple? No. There is, as far as I know, no secret gay religious cabal that discriminates against Christians that would gain protection to do so under this law. Such discrimination would not be a protect religious belief. Discrimination under this law is plainly a one way.
The attorneys of Drewes Law have access to post and edit the blogs. Attorney Bios.