religious.jpg

Thousands of opponents of Indiana Senate Bill 101, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, gathered on the lawn of the Indiana State House to rally against that legislation Saturday, March 28, 2015. Republican Gov. Mike Pence signed a bill Thursday prohibiting state laws that "substantially burden" a person's ability to follow his or her religious beliefs. (AP Photo/Doug McSchooler)

While Pennsylvania's 2002 Religious Freedom Protection Act seems similar to the controversial law passed by the Indiana General Assembly, one component makes them completely different.

Indiana Gov. Mike Pence recently signed into law the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which prohibits state laws that "substantially burden" a person's ability to follow his or her religious beliefs.

Pence is now working to change the law after after people and businesses have protested it amid claims that it could permit discrimination against gay people.

The most substantial difference between Pennsylvania and Indiana's religious freedom laws is who they apply to.

Pennsylvania's law only applies to individuals, churches and tax-exempt organizations. Those entities are allowed to challenge any state or local law if it "substantially burdens" their religious belief.

Indiana's law, however, also applies to for-profit businesses.

Religious freedoms laws have traditionally been used to keep governments from violating people's religious beliefs, according to Mary Catherine Roper, deputy legal director for the American Civil Liberties Union of Pennsylvania.

Those laws have never been created so that entities could have permission from the government to discriminate, she said.

"They weren't created to be a way around nondiscrimination laws," Roper said.

"In this country, we think that people should be treated without discrimination and we have laws to reflect that... Everybody deserves protection from discrimination the same way."

Critics to Pennsylvania's law in 2002

When Gov. Mark Schweiker signed the Religious Freedom Protection Act into law, there were a number of critics. But the concerns they raised were not centered around discrimination against the LGBT community.

The Center for Advocacy for the Rights and Interests of the Elderly, or CARIE, opposed the law out of concern of the seniors who lived in personal care boarding homes run by religious organizations.

"We have concerns that the Religious Freedom Protection Act will be used to fight government policies that provide important protections to the quality of life to the population we serve," said CARIE Executive Director Diane Menio in a 2003 opinion letter.

Larry Frankel, legislative director for the ACLU of PA in 2003, said the organization opposed the law because "it is significantly flawed."

Frankel raised several concerns about giving extra protections to religious organizations. The ACLU feared consequences for victims who file suits arising out of clergy sexual abuse and were concerned that the law could adversely impact health care access.

"It did not include language to prevent the act from being used to justify violations of civil rights," Frankel wrote.

Former Senate Pro Tempore Robert Jubelirer

Supporters of Pennsylvania's religious freedom law

Former Senate Pro Tempore Robert Jubelirer was the prime sponsor of the 2002 bill in the Pennsylvania General Assembly.

Jubelirer defended the bill in a December 2002 opinion letter to The Sunday Patriot-News and offered examples of infringement on religious freedoms.

The letter was a response to an opinion column from Menio where she asked where religious freedom was being denied in Pennsylvania and questioned if the law was even necessary.

"She needs only look to where communities and neighborhoods seek to block the location or expansion of religious facilities, treating them as locally unwanted land uses," Jubelirer wrote in 2002.

"It can be seen where local officials are aggressively acting to restrict church activities or prevent them from offering significant services."

Members of the religious community also came out to support the law.

Joel Weisberg, the former executive director Pennsylvania Jewish Coalition, said in 2002 that contended that law was constitutional.

"The Religious Freedom Protection Act only requires that a court protect an alleged religious practice from unnecessary interference by the state," Weisberg said in a 2002 opinion letter.

"The legislation does not compel a result. It only provides a test to be used in reaching a well-reasoned conclusion."

Former Rep. Gordon Denlinger, R-Lancaster

Attempted updates to Pennsylvania's law

In 2014, former Rep. Gordon Denlinger, R-Lancaster, tried to make it so that religious protections would also be applied to private businesses.

Denlinger proposed amending the Pennsylvania Constitution to "prohibit government from punishing an individual or entity if the individual or entity makes hiring or other employment decisions, or provide services, accommodations (including housing accommodations), advantages, facilities, goods or privileges based on sincerely held beliefs," Denlinger wrote in a Jan. 8 memorandum to his House colleagues.

Under Denlinger's proposed amendment, "an individual or entity may not be found to have discriminated in making employment related decisions or providing services, accommodations, advantages, facilities, goods or privileges if the action was based on the sincerely held beliefs of the individual or entity," he wrote.

Denlinger's idea eventually died after concerns that the amendment would cause discrimination. Denlinger lost his primary Senate bid in 2014 and did not seek reelection in the House.