Image 01 Image 03

CT Governor Bans State Paid Travel To Indiana, Ignores CT’s RFRA

CT Governor Bans State Paid Travel To Indiana, Ignores CT’s RFRA

Governor-on-Governor violence

On March 26th, Indiana Governor Mike Pence signed the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.

The uproar would lead one to think such a law was brand new and have never been codified in law before. That would be wrong of course, 19 other states and the federal government have their own versions of the RFRA. The federal version was in fact, signed by President Clinton in 1993 after it passed the Senate on a vote of 97-3.

The moment it became law, activists, talking heads and journalists, without discussing the actual text of the law, began pontificating how gays could now be “discriminated against” in the state of Indiana. The histrionics hit a fever pitch, when Justin Nelson of the National Gay And Lesbian Chamber of Congress said businesses in Indiana would be allowed to put “Straights Only” signs up in their windows.

Gabriel Malor wrote an in depth analysis for the law and had this to say:

Is Indiana’s RFRA Like the Other RFRAS?

Yes and no. Indiana’s RFRA applies the same standard as in the other RFRAs that is described above: substantial burden versus compelling interest and least restrictive means. Indiana’s RFRA is a defense not just for individuals, but also companies and corporations. This is similar to the federal RFRA after Hobby Lobby, which also applies to individuals, companies, and closely-held corporations. But not all state RFRAs include companies and corporations. So that’s different in some states.

Indiana’s RFRA also protects individuals both in lawsuits or administrative actions brought by the government and in lawsuits brought by private parties. Some states, like New Mexico, do not allow RFRA to be used as a defense in litigation where the government isn’t a party. Also, the federal circuit courts are split about whether the federal RFRA can be used to defend against private lawsuits where the government isn’t a party. So that’s also different in some states and in some federal circuits.

Otherwise, it’s the same law.

You Didn’t Say Anything About The Gay Stuff.

That’s because the words “gay,” “lesbian,” and “sexual orientation” don’t appear in any of the RFRAs. Until now, the most controversial RFRA case was last year’s Hobby Lobby v. Burwell, which was about whether the federal government has a compelling interest in forcing religious business owners to pay for abortifacents. (It doesn’t.)

This big gay freak-out is purely notional. No RFRA has ever been used successfully to defend anti-gay discrimination, not in twenty years of RFRAs nationwide.

Despite the law being similar to legislation that has existed for over 20 years, it didn’t stop a bunch of misinformed “activists” from going into knee-jerk mode, demanding boycotts of the state. Apple CEO Tim Cook, in the pages of the Washington Post, writing an op-ed completely devoid of any facts and instead relying on emotional rhetoric about the Indiana law, that again, is not all that different from other laws in 19 other states and the federal law.

Law professor Josh Blackman lays out specifically what the law says:

This brings us back to the Hoosier State. Section 9 of Indiana’s RFRA provides that “A person whose exercise of religion has been substantially burdened, or is likely to be substantially burdened, by a violation of this chapter may assert the violation or impending violation as a claim or defense in a judicial or administrative proceeding, regardless of whether the state or any other governmental entity is a party to the proceeding.” In the wake of Elane Photography, Indiana made explicit for its own law what the four federal courts of appeals and the Obama Justice Department had already recognized about the federal counterpart. Indiana’s RFRA does no more than codify that the private enforcement of public laws — such as discrimination claims — can be defended if there is a substantial burden on free exercise of religion. That’s it. And again, until recently, this provision was not particularly controversial.

University of Virginia law professor Douglas Laycock:

“The hysteria over this law is so unjustified. It’s not about discriminating against gays in general or across the board. It’s about not being involved in a ceremony that you believe is inherently religious.”

So knowing this, why would Connecticut Governor Dan Malloy sign an executive order banning state paid travel to the state of Indiana?

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.”

He, like so many others are falsely claiming the law allows for religion to be a basis for discrimination when it does no such thing. But it’s the excuse he had to go with when he was reminded the state of Connecticut has its own version of the RFRA – one that is in fact more strongly worded than the bill Mike Pence signed.

So what is Malloy’s angle here? Clearly it has nothing to do with principles and everything to do with politics. Specifically:

1. He’s angling for 2016. A Presidential run? Highly unlikely. Malloy doesn’t have the donor contacts others do and nobody really knows who he is. That said, it’s not hard to see him putting himself out there in the hopes of landing a role in the executive branch within the cabinet, should a Democrat win.

2. Helping to keep attention off Hillary – For the entire weekend and into today, the media has fallen over itself to cover this story. Meanwhile, we also learned during this same time frame, that Hillary’s emails and her server — which were both under subpoena at the time — are gone. The emails have been deleted and the server has been wiped clean.

Dan Malloy understands the game. In the end, this is not going to be an issue that will move people. Liberals would love for this to last into 2016 but this outrage will at some point be replaced by the next outrage and another outrage after that.

Today Pence announced that he has directed the Indiana legislature to “fix” the controversial law—not because of a flaw in the text, but because of the way the law has been perceived by the media and the general public. (This comes after several days of uncertainty over whether or not the governor would support modifications to the bill.)

Changes are in the works, but don’t expect that to stem the flow of criticism. Instead, expect the Democrats to continue to push this issue while Hillary laughs at being able to get away with potential violations of the law and as the Middle East is complete chaos.


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


It’s so funny watching the queerfascists throwing their little snit-fits around this plain-vanilla law. AND the corporate outfits getting all self-righteous in line with the Collectivist tarantella.

NASCAR. Cummins Diesel. Apple. Etc.

I won’t forget.

    Yep. The “queerfascists”, as you call them, are outraged that people and businesses who object to their chosen lifestyle on religious grounds will have their day in court, and the fascists will have to prove not only that discrimination took place, but also (and more importantly) that their outrage trumps others’ First Amendment rights.

    To the fascists I say, “Suck it up, snowflakes. You wanted your cause to be in the big leagues; now you got your wish, and everything that goes with it. Deal with it.”

      Ragspierre in reply to Archer. | March 31, 2015 at 7:44 pm

      But really, this is just a very, very cynical exercise in “outrage d’jour”, with the shot-callers of the Collective thumbing their “jump” buttons on the stupid, emotion-driven, slavish morons who support them.

      It’s essentially an exercise in fund-raising and intimidation. Those are very hard to separate today. Well, and deflection.

      anoNY in reply to Archer. | April 1, 2015 at 8:10 am

      Where’s our First Amendment right to refuse service to Black people, right comrade?

        Ragspierre in reply to anoNY. | April 1, 2015 at 10:03 am

        Black and hispanic church-goers overwhelmingly OPPOSE the concept of a “gay marriage”. (Look it up, stupid.)

        Where do you find justification for compelling them to solemnize any such affront to them?


    Old0311 in reply to Ragspierre. | March 31, 2015 at 11:35 pm

    Is it too late to invest in a panty manufacturer? As often as they get theirs in a wad must cause a lot of wear and tear.

    anoNY in reply to Ragspierre. | April 1, 2015 at 8:09 am

    Never Forget, Rags!

    Seriously, though, your boycott is about is impressive as Connecticut’s…

      Ragspierre in reply to anoNY. | April 1, 2015 at 8:59 am

      Point to where I said “boycott”, lying SOS.

      See, I do, can, and will “discriminate” in the market for or against who I will.

      Ya moron.

Bitterlyclinging | March 31, 2015 at 7:01 pm

Danny Boy is obviously in tune with his special snowflake constituency, but not with the state’s taxpayers. After forcing through the biggest tax increase in the state’s history he saw fit to reward the state’s Communist Party with a $300,000 budgetary appropriation for renovating the Party’s headquarters. Obviously a quid pro quo for that bag of 10,000 ballots that mysteriously turned up 36 hours after the polls closed giving Malloy the governorship

Doug Wright Old Grouchy | March 31, 2015 at 7:56 pm

The fix should consist of a rigorous legal evaluation of Indiana’s version of RFRA and afterwards declare that no such revision is needed as the claims by the Princess Mayor of Minneapolis and the Prince Mayor of St. Paul are without merit; same thing for the claims by the Gov. of CN and the Gov. of OR.

So what? Civil war is coming, anyway.

I know that we all know which party these governors belong to. But shouldn’t it be somewhat obligatory to make it plain in a journalism piece? Shouldn’t that be a part of journalistic ethics that all politicians have their party affiliation when cited in an article?

As in Mike Pence (R-IN), and Dan Malloy (D-CT) ?

This should be standard operating procedure for all articles.

    You are 100% right. But the ram has touched the wall: journalists who might otherwise be expected to be ethical are mere propagandists for the cult they so eagerly joined.

    It’s all over but the fighting.

Uncle Samuel | April 1, 2015 at 6:02 am

This is just Manufactured Distraction to take away from the real Obama, Inc. scandals and crimes, including Hillary’s many thefts and influence peddling schemes.

Missing money (6 Billion State Department and many billions entrusted to Clinton Foundation intended for Haiti Relief)

The Obama administration has been crooked and ruthless even before the first election…and started off on day one using every agency of government to punish (Gibson Guitar) opponents, and enrich cronies.

This is the most brazenly, despicably corrupt administration ever. Obama is 3rd world country level corrupt.

Here is a long list of Obama, Inc. assaults against this nation and our Constitution:

I’m sure some of you could add more.

It would be fascinating to see Indiana file an original jurisdiction Supreme Court case against Connecticut. I am not sure the dormant commerce clause or the comity clause allows one State to boycott another State.

Send him an email asking him is he is going to ban paid travel for CT state employees within his own state since it has the same law as Indiana.

Supporters of this law wanted it enacted in order to protect the ability of Christian businesses to discriminate. I mean, they really did just come out and say it:

“Christian bakers, florists and photographers should not be punished for refusing to participate in a homosexual marriage!”

This article misrepresents the situation in CT. CT has an anti-discrimination statute that covers gays, which means that even though there is a RFRA, it cannot be used to allow discrimination. In Indiana, however, there is no anti-discrimination protection, so the RFRA could be used to allow Christian businesses to refuse service to gay people.

    Ragspierre in reply to anoNY. | April 1, 2015 at 8:48 am

    You are a liar and an idiot. So you represent your Collective well.

    All of…every day…”discriminate”. If you argue with that, I’ll just rhetorically depants you so you can show your ass some more here.

    The RFRA acts are, correctly depicted, TOLERANCE laws.

    They CANNOT be used by ANYBODY (Christian, Muslim, Jew, Hindu) to refuse service in a normal setting based on ANY religious pretext. That is settled law. (See the period, moron?) IF a flaming queer wants a portrait, a doughnut, or a bouquet, or a room for the night NOBODY is allowed to refuse them, and why would they anyhow?

    BUT if queers what someone to service their “wedding” and that person has a religious bar that precludes them, in good faith, from rendering that service, they cannot be COMPELLED to go against their expression of religious belief.

      Midwest Rhino in reply to Ragspierre. | April 1, 2015 at 10:11 am

      Good distinction. The cases I’ve seen have not been where the LGBTs couldn’t find a better venue, but where they wanted to impose on the religious liberty of a business that didn’t comply to their “religion”. Instead of going down the street to a baker happy to comply (and profit), they seek to eliminate with lawfare, those willing to lose money over their religious convictions.

      It seems bakers are now indeed being compelled, or photographers, and losing in courts which have (in my view) gone politically correct as their state religion of choice.

      There was an intermediate step where they could only be compelled if the customer could not find another baker within range, that would fulfill his desires. But even that seems to be getting overruled by the “Gaystapo” and those that bend to the 0.01% that scream loudly, though don’t even represent the majority of gays that have gotten along fine for decades.

      The Christian majority is going to have to be activated, to use the boycott/buycott action in the other direction. If a major company CEO comes out against RFRA, the calls should go out and that company loses 40 million customers in a week, all calling to say they can’t support a company that stands against free exercise of religion in the work place. (or whatever proper phrasing is needed)

        Ragspierre in reply to Midwest Rhino. | April 1, 2015 at 10:25 am

        Let’s not let the Collective define this controversy on their terms.

        Say an Orthodox Jewish OB-GYN has a woman come to him demanding an abortion, or a “sex reassignment” (i.e., medical mutilation). What concept of “rights” permits her to compel the doctor to do what’s demanded?

        A Halal caterer has a group of hog hunters demand that the caterer provide his services to their annual banquet, preparing their kills according to their demands. Why would anyone think they must face the loss of their business if they decline the hunters?

          Midwest Rhino in reply to Ragspierre. | April 1, 2015 at 11:16 am

          I guess you’re saying this is not a law to protect Christians, but religious belief in general, which is a good point. But it does seem the target of the left is Christianity and the constitution it birthed.

          In the divide and conquer world of the left, Christians may need to unite to be sure the law is applied evenly to them, not just against them as a non-special people. But non-Christian examples make for good evidence, to convince the bigoted I suppose. heh Thanks for the input.

          Ragspierre in reply to Ragspierre. | April 1, 2015 at 11:36 am

          Hey, I’ve actually heard and read Collectivist argue that RFRA were ONLY supposed to apply to MINORITIES. NOT majorities like “Christians”.

          In what bizzaro world could THAT crap be true? When someone is making that kind of argument, you know you’re dealing with someone who has lost their FLUCKING mind, along with any sense of tolerance. They are simply prepared to crush anyone who doesn’t agree with them.

The LGBT faction is NOT a racial minority. The practice of homosexuality is not a protected right as is religion in the 1st Amendment.

Civil rights laws should only protect Americans at a basic natural human rights level which covers all human beings and not beyond to cover privileged classes of people.

As I understand it RFRA is meant to prevent impeding the free exercise of religion. Religion involves teents, convictions, and self-imposed boundaries.

I recently had a tweet ‘conversation’ with someone who told me that people are born the way they are born. Therefore, they shouldn’t be discriminated against. I answered that he was thus agreeing with me.

As a homosexual he said he was born with the ‘conviction’ that he is homosexual. I replied that I was born with the conviction that homosexuality is unnatural. Therefore my convictions shouldn’t be discriminated against either.

    spelled ‘tenets”

    Midwest Rhino in reply to jennifer a johnson. | April 1, 2015 at 11:01 am

    Even Megyn Kelly was talking of the need for state law to protect LGBTs, pointing out Indiana doesn’t have one. But then we need a million laws to protect Christians, or little people, and on and on. I ran a sports league at a bar for a decade in New Orleans, with all kinds of people, and never separated out specially protected people. The protected class status itself IS the problem, as it gives them a lawfare hammer to swing freely at the face of liberty.

    And I think the “born this way” is false. I’ve even seen the LGBTs start saying “OK, it’s a choice, so what”. There may be some deep trauma imprinting in early life that makes it a little less choice, or many are “open society” types where there are no rules on anything.

    Therapists get rich unwinding people’s twisted psyche (or id) on many issues. But all claims that they found the gene sequence have been proven false, afaik. But as with AGW they claim the science is settled. Maybe “conviction” traits are hard to track, but of course sex that doesn’t reproduce would be a trait efficiently eliminated from the gene pool.

    Slavery and black treatment up to the 60’s made that a special case I suppose, but the whole “civil rights” thing has taken an ugly turn, toward being a weapon against Christians in general, from every “special class” that is not white Christian. The anti Christian bigotry makes our country weaker, which is probably not coincidental.

Empress Trudy | April 1, 2015 at 10:21 am

The Indiana law is a word for word copy paste of the 1993 Federal law, which was overturned at the state level in 1997. So the court at that time told the states that if they wanted a law they’d have to pass one individually in each state. Which is what 20 something states have done. In Indiana’s case it’s especially arch since it really is a word for word copy of the Federal law sponsored by that famous right wing gay hating zealot, Chuck Schumer, and signed into law by that other far right wing neo Klan extremist, Bill Clinton.

If anyone ever actually bothered to read the law all it really says is that there’s a material threshold that must be reached BEFORE the state can step in to compel someone to act and only if there are no other remedies.

Putting aside for a minute the constitutional issues which are very valid, what happened to the concept of “comity” between states which when broken down to its essence means mind your own business? It is not for CT to judge what IN does inside IN. CT’s governor has imposed a travel ban to IN for CT employees, IN could justly now impose a travel ban for IN employees to CT. See where this leads? Comity was followed for a reason but it seems today government officials don’t respect the limits on their own powers, take stances on matters over which they don’t have jurisdiction, and interfere with other states that take courses different from their own. Finally, people need to start reading laws before passing them or passing on them.

    sequester in reply to Cicero. | April 2, 2015 at 11:49 am

    I made a similar point above. Malloy’s action shows a lack of respect for the founding principles of this Republic. You rightly point out that such a ban is of dubious constitutionality.

    In addition to violating the comity clause, his action likely violates the dormant commerce clause doctrine, and the full faith and credit clause of the Constitution.

    Lawsuits between States must be tried by the Supreme Court. It would be interesting to see the result if Indiana filed suit against Connecticut.