Or is is simply a law to help courts make proper rulings.

Religious Freedom Restoration Act: What You Need to Know
BY ERIN MCCLAM

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/indiana-religious-freedom-law-what-you-need-know-n332491


Here's what you need to know:

BASICS

The law is known as Senate Bill 101. Pence signed it into law last week. It takes effect July 1. You can read the full bill here.

(Senate Bill 101: https://iga.in.gov/legislative/2015/bills/senate/101#digest-heading)


The text says that the state cannot "substantially burden a person's exercise of religion" unless it is furthering a "compelling government interest" and acting in the least restrictive way possible.

HISTORY

Nineteen states have so-called religious freedom laws. They are modeled after a federal law, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, signed by President Bill Clinton in 1993.

It passed the House without objection and cleared the Senate by a vote of 97-3. Clinton said at the time that the law subjects the federal government to "a very high level of proof before it interferes with someone's free exercise of religion."

Some legal experts have said that Indiana's law differs from the federal law, and most other similar state laws, in ways that could allow businesses a wider berth to discriminate.

CONTEXT

Gay marriage has been legal in Indiana since last October, when the Supreme Court declined to take up a challenge to a federal appeals court ruling. Indiana does not have a state law specifically protecting gay people from discrimination.

As The Washington Post pointed out over the weekend, the other 19 states that passed so-called religious freedom laws did so before gay marriage became legal in most of the country.

Last February, then-Gov. Jan Brewer of Arizona vetoed a similar law. "I sincerely believe that Senate Bill 1062 has the potential to create more problems than it purports to solve," she said at the time.

The backlash against the proposed law in Arizona was severe, and mirrors what is happening in Indiana. The NFL was even said to be considering moving the Super Bowl out of the state.

DEFENSE

Social conservatives say that the law would stop the government from compelling people to do things they object to on religious grounds, like catering or providing flowers for a gay wedding.

Daniel O. Conkle, an Indiana University law professor who supports both the law and gay marriage, offered a defense in an essay for The Indianapolis Star. (Read Here: http://www.indystar.com/story/opinion/readers/2015/03/07/indiana-needs-religious-freedom-legislation/24477303/)



Applying this test, a unanimous U.S. Supreme Court recently ruled that a Muslim prisoner was free to practice his faith by wearing a half-inch beard that posed no risk to prison security. Likewise, in a 2012 decision, a court ruled that the Pennsylvania RFRA protected the outreach ministry of a group of Philadelphia churches, ruling that the city could not bar them from feeding homeless individuals in the city parks.

Indiana Right to Life and the anti-abortion group Susan B. Anthony List have also come out in support of the law.

Monday, Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas, a Republican presidential candidate, said in a Senate floor speech that Pence was "giving voice to millions of courageous conservatives across this country who are deeply concerned about the ongoing attacks upon our personal liberties."

Pence told The Indianapolis Star on Saturday that he was in talks with legislators and that a clarification could come this week. On Sunday, he gave a lengthy interview to ABC's "This Week" and defended the bill.

He said it was a "red herring" to suggest that the law is a license to discriminate. "This isn't about disputes between individuals; it's about government overreach," he said. "And I'm proud that Indiana stepped forward."

But he sidestepped direct questions on whether the law sanctions discrimination. George Stephanopoulos, the anchor, then asked him: "Yes or no, should it be legal to discriminate against gays and lesbians?"

Pence answered:

George, you're — you're following the mantra of the last week online, and you're trying to make this issue about something else. What I am for is protecting, with the highest standards in our courts, the religious liberty of Hoosiers. I signed the bill. We're going to continue to explain it to people that don't understand it. And in — and if possible, we will find a way to amplify what this bill really is in a legislative process. But I stand by this law.





.
.
.
"And the Lord’s servant must not be quarrelsome but must be kind to everyone, able to teach, not resentful." ~ 2 Tim 2:4

but exposes the State of Indiana as a bigoted bully (if corporations are persons w/religious beliefs then a state government can be an illogical bigot and an unreasonable bully).


>DEFENSE
>
>Social conservatives say that the law would stop the
>government from compelling people to do things they object to
>on religious grounds, like catering or providing flowers for a
>gay wedding.

this is stupid b/c private businesses like florists and caterers already had the 'right' to deny service to any customer for any reason. certain private businesses that provide public accomodations are prohibited from discriminating against customers from certain protected classes like racial minorities. in Indiana gays are not a protected class under the state's anti-discrimination statute. so as far as i know a florist could deny providing service for a gay wedding already w/o this law.

>< Article Excerpt "In any event, most religious freedom[br />>claims have nothing to do with same-sex marriage or
>discrimination. The proposed Indiana RFRA would provide
>valuable guidance to Indiana courts, directing them to balance
>religious freedom against competing interests under the same
>legal standard that applies throughout most of the land. It is
>anything but a "license to discriminate," and it should not be
>mischaracterized or dismissed on that basis.]

duh. the US Constitution already handled that.

let's be for real - the law was passed b/c some anti-gays went to the state legislature whining and crying and the legislature handed them this pacifier to assuage their hurt feewings b/c the gays can get marriage licenses and waaaah waaaah waaaaah.

it's stupid.

and now the state has shot itself in the foot and created all of this drama for no good reason, really. but maybe it won't end up hurting the bottom line - $. a few entities have made some noise about leaving or refusing to do future biz in the state due to this statute. maybe that storm will pass and things will be just fine for Indiana w/this statute on the books.

>but exposes the State of Indiana as a bigoted bully (if
>corporations are persons w/religious beliefs then a state
>government can be an illogical bigot and an unreasonable
>bully).
>
>
>>DEFENSE
>>
>>Social conservatives say that the law would stop the
>>government from compelling people to do things they object
>to
>>on religious grounds, like catering or providing flowers for
>a
>>gay wedding.
>
>this is stupid b/c private businesses like florists and
>caterers already had the 'right' to deny service to any
>customer for any reason. certain private businesses that
>provide public accomodations are prohibited from
>discriminating against customers from certain protected
>classes like racial minorities. in Indiana gays are not a
>protected class under the state's anti-discrimination statute.
> so as far as i know a florist could deny providing service
>for a gay wedding already w/o this law.
>
>>< Article Excerpt "In any event, most religious freedom[br />>>claims have nothing to do with same-sex marriage or
>>discrimination. The proposed Indiana RFRA would provide
>>valuable guidance to Indiana courts, directing them to
>balance
>>religious freedom against competing interests under the same
>>legal standard that applies throughout most of the land. It
>is
>>anything but a "license to discriminate," and it should not
>be
>>mischaracterized or dismissed on that basis.]
>
>duh. the US Constitution already handled that.
>
>let's be for real - the law was passed b/c some anti-gays went
>to the state legislature whining and crying and the
>legislature handed them this pacifier to assuage their hurt
>feewings b/c the gays can get marriage licenses and waaaah
>waaaah waaaaah.
>
>it's stupid.
>
>and now the state has shot itself in the foot and created all
>of this drama for no good reason, really. but maybe it won't
>end up hurting the bottom line - $. a few entities have made
>some noise about leaving or refusing to do future biz in the
>state due to this statute. maybe that storm will pass and
>things will be just fine for Indiana w/this statute on the
>books.


^^^^End post^^^^^

They even had republican colleagues going "what the fuck are you DOING?!"

This is the perfect example of NGCCOT

The best way I can analogize RFRA, generally, and specifically as it applies to Indiana is to think of RFRA as a tool.

So if you have a hammer and some saws, you could do something productive, like build a house, if thats what your intent is. Or you could wield it to do something unproductive and mean-spirited, say to injure people.

The First edition of RFRA in 1993 was to actually protect religious freedom of Native Americans to use peyote. Later the supreme court held that federal RFRA doesnt apply to states, so a bunch of other states (many in the pre-gay marriage era) enacted state RFRA laws so that there are state protections for folks to exercise religious freedom and practice without government interference.

The real problem with Indiana's RFRA isn't the law itself, (remember its just a hammer or some saws), but the problem is the intent with which it was passed, and the fact that Indiana doesn't have state law that considers LGBT people as a protected class for discrimination purposes.

So given that the Mike Pence and the Indiana legislature tried to enact RFRA on the hush hush, that he's gone on the Sunday talk shows and made clear that there is no intent to protect LGBT folks with other legislation means that its pretty clear the Indiana RFRA is meant to be discriminatory toward gay people. There's just no other way around it.

The only fix is for Indiana to enact a specific anti-discrimination law that covers LGBT people. The damage is done in regards to the fact that Indiana republicans just outed themselves as bigots (as if there was any doubt), but theres still time to fix things.

and add sexual orientation and gender identity to Indiana's anti-discrimination statute if the gov and the legislature are not actually interested in offering protection to entities who seek to unfairly discriminate against gays and transfolks.

the fix is very simple. the fact that the gov isn't interested in pursuing it speaks volumes. and he can get on TV and pout and shout about us not getting it as much as he wants. but we see through the b/s and can decipher the double speak. we know what's going on w/this statute - we're not brand new.

>and add sexual orientation and gender identity to Indiana's
>anti-discrimination statute if the gov and the legislature are
>not actually interested in offering protection to entities who
>seek to unfairly discriminate against gays and transfolks.
>
>the fix is very simple. the fact that the gov isn't
>interested in pursuing it speaks volumes. and he can get on
>TV and pout and shout about us not getting it as much as he
>wants. but we see through the b/s and can decipher the double
>speak. we know what's going on w/this statute - we're not
>brand new.


Indeed.....18 of the 20 states that have similar religious protection laws are not as two-fisted as Indiana's. The law that B. Clinton and Obama backed years ago contain written protections for minority groups (even Texas, a Right-Wing paradise, made sure to implement such wording...)....

That's why Indiana is getting such mammoth blow back....

The funny shit is Pence showed his hand by A) signing the bill behind closed doors and B) by the company that surrounded him at the time of the signing. Three of the cats in back him have been quite upfront about how the threat of gay marriage and gay rights is infringing on the religious rights of the public...This law was a way to appease that conservative, bigoted contingent....

Nigga ain't stupid...But now he trying to play the nut role....lol...All of those businesses and corporations threatening to bolt Indy is spooking Republicans...Money talks and u know the rest...

we will see what's up w/this 'clarification' the gov says is coming soon.

exempt for the LGBT exemption we have all mentioned. thats what makes this so hilarious to me. that sound you hear is mike pence's presidential aspirations going down the drain.

lol

>exempt for the LGBT exemption we have all mentioned. thats
>what makes this so hilarious to me. that sound you hear is
>mike pence's presidential aspirations going down the drain.


That fool is flopping at his press conference...lol

He's talking about how people were "smearing" the state of Indiana and the law. We don't believe you, you need more people....

Changing a few words around won't help him. And yeah. U right. He can forget about running for Prez...

>exempt for the LGBT exemption we have all mentioned. thats
>what makes this so hilarious to me. that sound you hear is
>mike pence's presidential aspirations going down the drain.

That's the thing though; did he really think he was going to sneak one past the goalie? Id have more respect for him if he was going to push the whole 'family values' nonsense and position himself as the anti-gay marriage candidate to try to shore up the Repub Primary yahoo votes. This was on some 'cake and eat it too' nonsense, and it pretty much killed his presidential career.

It's right up in front and it's clear about the purpose. I wouldn't call it sneaky unless there's a different kind.


.
.
.
"And the Lord’s servant must not be quarrelsome but must be kind to everyone, able to teach, not resentful." ~ 2 Tim 2:4

>it's clear about the purpose.

*Passes Bill thats oddly popular with anti-gay conservative types*

*Afterward clarifies that its not anti-gay, but not to anyones satisfaction. When asked directly, hems and haws*

If you gotta pass a whole other bill, like he plans to do, to offset the possible clusterfuck the bill introduces...i don't know if you can call it clear of purpose, lol

Folks point to the Federal Law and all the other state laws to legitimize Indiana's law. Very different in two important ways as described in this article:

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/03/what-makes-indianas-religious-freedom-law-different/388997/


**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson


"One of the most important things in life is what Judge Learned Hand described as 'that ever-gnawing inner doubt as to whether you're

I would much rather read an unbiased opinion like the one link in the OP

.
.
.
"And the Lord’s servant must not be quarrelsome but must be kind to everyone, able to teach, not resentful." ~ 2 Tim 2:4

>I would much rather read an unbiased opinion like the one
>link in the OP
>
>.
>.
>.
>"And the Lord’s servant must not be quarrelsome but must be
>kind to everyone, able to teach, not resentful." ~ 2 Tim 2:4

U don't have to like the messenger, homie. This ain't high school. The article lays it out there LEGALLY in terms of the differences.

Even FOX NEWS is detailing the differences between Indy's law and other states that have religious protections laws...

It's a new world brother Case....

.
.
.
"And the Lord’s servant must not be quarrelsome but must be kind to everyone, able to teach, not resentful." ~ 2 Tim 2:4

No LOL about it. FOX was all on board the anti-gay, anti gay marriage train. In fact they were driving the train....

Now the home of the conservative right wing is even calling bullshit with Pence...

That's why it matters....

rights. It's a stupid stupid idea.

**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson


"One of the most important things in life is what Judge Learned Hand described as 'that ever-gnawing inner doubt as to whether you're

I understand your sentiment, it's like saying the corporations are people too, but I'd like to hear more of your stance that goes beyond calling something stupid.



.
.
.
"And the Lord’s servant must not be quarrelsome but must be kind to everyone, able to teach, not resentful." ~ 2 Tim 2:4

http://channel.nationalgeographic.com/drugs-inc/videos/the-church-of-cannabis/
.
.
.
"And the Lord’s servant must not be quarrelsome but must be kind to everyone, able to teach, not resentful." ~ 2 Tim 2:4

http://chicagoist.com/2015/03/31/rfra.php

The church may use the RFRA to challenge Indiana's prohibition on weed consumption for its members. I think the original federal legislation was created to protect followers of a religion that called for use of peyote from government interference so this makes perfect sense.

what problem does this solve?

every definition, debate, explaination has sounded like discrimination to me

and when you consider today's climate

it may not explicitly make the case for discrimination

but defenders are extremely naive if they don't think that is how it will be utilized

head wrap, long beard, foreign name with too many syllables = refuse service.

but let's keep pretending this is about writing congratulations on a cake for a gay wedding...c'mon

Case - it actually reminds me of a lot of your posts where you don't
plainly speak about your opposition to gay marriage and civil rights
for LGBT people, and instead approach it obtusely instead of directly.

Gay marriage *is* an issue of basic civil rights. We have a deep tradition
of negative rights within our Constitution (the right to be left alone) - and
an LGBT person has the unfettered right to pursue basic civil rights (marriage, freedom
of association, right to not be denied basic services because of discrimination
of immutable characteristics (sexuality, race, gender) --- this is all within
the purview of *civil* rights and we should never lose focus of that as politicians
try to draft up laws and ordinances aimed to usurp these rights.

What this is really about is the cowardice of "religious/conservative value" people
to not just (wo)man up and be clear about their views on the issue of gay marriage:
They are against it, but this is a way for them to not have to plainly state it - they
want to say 'well this is about religious rights' --- no it's not, it's about civil rights
and the right of a protected class to be left alone from those who seek to merge
church & state under the guise of "religious expression."

Be an adult and just say what you are against and stop hiding. But of course, the
reason why they are hiding and manipulating local laws is because they know they
are on the wrong side of history, but are stubbornly holding on to a dying viewpoint
that has no place in a progressive, tolerant, and inclusive society.

-->

>Case - it actually reminds me of a lot of your posts where
>you don't
>plainly speak about your opposition to gay marriage and civil
>rights
>for LGBT people, and instead approach it obtusely instead of
>directly.
>
>Gay marriage *is* an issue of basic civil rights. We have a
>deep tradition
>of negative rights within our Constitution (the right to be
>left alone) - and
>an LGBT person has the unfettered right to pursue basic civil
>rights (marriage, freedom
>of association, right to not be denied basic services because
>of discrimination
>of immutable characteristics (sexuality, race, gender) ---
>this is all within
>the purview of *civil* rights and we should never lose focus
>of that as politicians
>try to draft up laws and ordinances aimed to usurp these
>rights.
>
>What this is really about is the cowardice of
>"religious/conservative value" people
>to not just (wo)man up and be clear about their views on the
>issue of gay marriage:
>They are against it, but this is a way for them to not have to
>plainly state it - they
>want to say 'well this is about religious rights' --- no it's
>not, it's about civil rights
>and the right of a protected class to be left alone from those
>who seek to merge
>church & state under the guise of "religious expression."
>
>Be an adult and just say what you are against and stop hiding.
> But of course, the
>reason why they are hiding and manipulating local laws is
>because they know they
>are on the wrong side of history, but are stubbornly holding
>on to a dying viewpoint
>that has no place in a progressive, tolerant, and inclusive
>society.


Yeah! (c) Brolic dude from Trading Places

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2015/03/31/396666331/despite-criticism-arkansas-passes-religious-freedom-bill

Despite criticism and protests, Arkansas legislators passed a religious freedom bill on Tuesday that is similar to the one passed by Indiana.

NBC News reports:

"Protesters gathered outside the governor's mansion in Little Rock on Tuesday morning. A final vote in the state House could come later in the day.

"The Indiana law, enacted last week, and the proposed Arkansas law were presented as ways to keep government from infringing on religion. But opponents say they could be used as cover for discrimination, allowing businesses to refuse to serve gay and lesbian customers."

The Arkansas Times reports that Gov. Asa Hutchinson had previously vowed to sign the bill into law, but all the controversy in Indiana may affect his decision.

Citing unnamed state Capitol sources, the paper reports that "particularly with the increasing volume of media coverage and corporate backlash around the similar law in Indiana, the governor has real concerns about the law's impact on economic development, sources say."

As we reported, as criticism and threats of boycotts of the state mounted, Indiana Gov. Mike Pence stuck by the law but said legislators would clarify the legislation.

"We'll fix this and we'll move forward," Pence said at a press conference.

The New York Times reports that attempts to bar discrimination against gays and lesbians in the Arkansas bill failed. The Times reports:

" 'If you start shaving out exemptions in laws, next thing you know, you'll gut the law because everyone will want an exemption,' said State Senator Bart Hester, an Arkansas Republican and one of the bill's lead supporters.

"The attention turns to Governor Hutchinson, a moderate Republican who ran on a jobs platform and managed to extend a tailored form of Medicaid expansion in this Republican-controlled state."

Update at 7:10 p.m. ET. Walmart Asks Governor To Veto Bill:

In a statement, Walmart CEO Doug McMillon asked Gov. Hutchinson to veto the religious freedom bill passed today.

"Every day in our stores, we see firsthand the benefits diversity and inclusion have on our associates, customers and communities we serve," he said. "It all starts with our core basic belief of respect for the individual. Today's passage of HB1228 threatens to undermine the spirit of inclusion present throughout the state of Arkansas and does not reflect the values we proudly uphold."

Same exact shit they tried to pull with miscegenation laws.

Same shit around civil rights for blacks.

Same shit they did with voting laws for women.

Fuck them.

That good pressure. When Walmart says jump...u say HOW HIGH MUFUCKA???

Case, these yo folk....

----
Arkansas Governor Asks Lawmakers to Recall Religious Freedom Bill

By CAMPBELL ROBERTSON and RICHARD PÉREZ-PEÑAAPRIL 1, 2015
Inside


LAINK: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/02/us/arkansas-indiana-religious-freedom-hutchinson-pence.html


LITTLE ROCK, Ark. — Facing a backlash from businesses and gay rights advocates, Gov. Asa Hutchinson of Arkansas on Wednesday called on state lawmakers to either recall or amend legislation billed as a religious freedom measure so that it mirrored a federal law approved in 1993.

Mr. Hutchinson, a Republican, said he understood the divide in Arkansas and across the nation over the question of same-sex marriage and its impact on people’s religious beliefs. His own son, Seth, he said, had asked him to veto the bill, which critics say could allow individuals and businesses to discriminate against gay men and lesbians.

To ensure that the state is “a place of tolerance,” Mr. Hutchinson said, he was considering using an executive order that would seek to balance the “competing constitutional obligations” if the legislature declined to make changes to the bill.

“What is important from an Arkansas standpoint is one, we get the right balance,” he said, “and secondly, we make sure that we communicate we’re not going to be a state that fails to recognize the diversity of our workplace, our economy and our future.”

“This is a bill that in ordinary times would not be controversial,” Mr. Hutchinson said. “But these are not ordinary times.”

Two state legislative leaders — Senator Jonathan Dismang, president pro tem of the Senate, and Jeremy Gillam, speaker of the House — who appeared with Mr. Hutchinson at a news conference Wednesday, said they agreed that the bill should be changed, but that they could not guarantee that outcome.

The legislation, which easily cleared the state House by lopsided margins, has created a political rift in the state, with Mark Stodola, the mayor of Little Rock, sending a letter to Mr. Hutchinson this week urging him to veto the bill, saying it would have “a negative impact on our state’s image.”

Several businesses and tech companies, including the state’s largest employer, Walmart, as well as the Little Rock Chamber of Commerce, the Arkansas Municipal League and other civic groups have spoken out against the legislation.

20 states have “religious freedom” laws. Indiana’s law, written more expansively than other states, has caused a national uproar. Critics say it could be used by businesses to deny services to gay and lesbian couples.

12 states introduced legislation this year. Despite opposition to Indiana’s law, Arkansas’s legislature passed a similar bill on Tuesday. Similar bills have stalled in Georgia and North Carolina.

20 states have “Religious Freedom” laws. Indiana’s law, written more expansively than other states, andcaused a national uproar. Critics say it could be used by businesses to deny services to gay and lesbian couples.

12 states introduced legislation this year. Despite opposition to Indiana’s law, Arkansas’s legislature passed a similar bill on Tuesday. Similar bills have stalled in Georgia and North Carolina.
Note: The Arkansas bill was passed by the state legislature on Tuesday and now goes to the governor.
Sources: Human Rights Campaign; National Conference of State Legislatures; American Civil Liberties Union

Mr. Hutchinson’s announcement came a day after his counterpart in Indiana, Mike Pence, found himself in a tenuous political predicament as he sought to satisfy both the business interests that have threatened to punish the state for its new religious freedom law and local conservatives who fought for the measure and do not want to see it diluted.

In Indianapolis on Wednesday, lawmakers were weighing language they intend to add to the state’s law as part of what Mr. Pence has described as “a clarification” and also “a fix.” Precise wording was still being hashed out, officials said, but Mr. Pence has said that the intent will be to clarify that the state’s law does not give businesses the right to deny services to anyone, including gay men and lesbians

With the N.C.A.A. Final Four tournament in Indianapolis this weekend and mounting pressure from business leaders, Indiana lawmakers were racing to draft new language, then hurry the revised measure through both chambers of the state legislature for Mr. Pence’s signature before week’s end.

To expedite the process, aides said legislators were expected to use an unrelated, but almost-approved Senate bill as a vehicle for the new language. That would allow them to reach agreement on language during a committee meeting of selected lawmakers, then move the measure through both chambers immediately.

Still, Democrats, who hold the minority, have said they intend to push for a repeal, and it remained uncertain whether all Republicans would l support what some conservatives in the state view as a watered-down measure.

The bill in Arkansas is similar to the Indiana law, but both diverge 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. The federal 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 marriages.

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.

“It has way too broad an application,” said John DiPippa, a law professor at the University of Arkansas at Little Rock, who had spoken before the legislature in 2011 on behalf of a narrower and ultimately unsuccessful version of the bill. “I never anticipated or supported applying it to for-profit companies and certainly never anticipated it applying to actions outside of government.”

The future of similar measures elsewhere remained unclear. In Georgia, where the legislature will adjourn for the year on Thursday, opponents of a pending proposal rallied Tuesday outside the State Capitol. Although the bill’s path has been turbulent — a Monday committee hearing about the measure was canceled — supporters and critics alike said it could be approved in the session’s final hours. North Carolina is far earlier in its debate. Religious freedom proposals surfaced last week in both the House and the Senate, and neither has faced a vote at even the committee level.