The IndyStar is getting irritable about the Indiana legislature:
Update! Washington State governor Jay Inslee bans taxpayer funded travel to Indiana:
“I find Indiana’s new law disturbing, particularly at a time when more and more states and people in America are embracing civil rights for everyone. Washington will join other states and cities in opposing this law and I will impose an administration-wide ban on state funded travel to Indiana.
“Indiana’s law appears to legalize private discrimination. Washington state fought against this very thing in a case Attorney General Bob Ferguson brought against a florist.
“We in Washington stand for equality. I applaud those companies and organizations that have spoken out against the law and said they would not locate or expand operations in Indiana. I want to invite all those organizations, and anyone interested in a state that promotes equality and opportunity, to come visit Washington. We are open for business, and open to all people.”
(h/t Sydney Sweitzer)
Update! Connecticut may have beaten Washington to the punch!
Connecticut Gov. Dannel Malloy signed an executive order on Monday barring state spending on travel to Indiana and any other state enacting legislation that protects religious freedoms but ultimately discriminates against gays and others groups.
Malloy, the incoming chairman of the Democratic Governors Association, called Indiana’s new religious objections law “disturbing, disgraceful and outright discriminatory.”
REASON’s Robby Soave suggests the travel boycott may be hypocritical:
Malloy is speaking, of course, about Indiana Gov. Mike Pence’s decision to sign the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which critics believe would provide cover to Christian businesses that wish to discriminate against gay people. I wrote last week that most boycotts are hypocritical (since the boycotters inevitably fail to sanction all immoral actors), but this one is especially hypocritical: Connecticut also has an RFRA in place, albeit one with some meaningful differences.
I pointed out this hypocrisy to Malloy’s office and asked for clarification on the extent of the travel ban. I received an email from one of the governor’s press people informing me only that “We will have more information this afternoon.”
If Connecticut is going to prohibit government-subsidized travel to RFRA states, perhaps they should respond in kind and prohibit travel to Connecticut? (A libertarian can dream, I suppose.)
And it’s not hypocritical to criticize Connecticut without analyzing all the relevant information? That strikes me as an intellectual error. But he’s saved – he thinks – when another blogger suggests Connecticut is even worse:
The Federalist‘s Sean Davis argues that Connecticut’s RFRA is actually more expansive than Indiana’s. The Indiana law prohibits the government from substantially burdening religion; Connecticut’s law does not inclue [sic] the word “substantially,” meaning that all government-enacted burdens on religion are illegal—in theory, at least.
I’m not a legal theorist or practicioner, so I’ll not pretend I can tell the difference between the two statutes. However, I do wonder if Connecticut’s RFRA was passed during the current session, or if it’s the responsibility of some other Connecticut legislature – and governor. Treating a grouping of people – a state – as a single entity, of a single mind, does not have the heft of a trustworthy argument. Perhaps Connecticut will repeal their RFRA tomorrow and thank Indiana – or Robby – for pointing out their flawed law, if indeed it is.
(Updated 7/27/2015 – added missing link to previous entries in the thread)
