scrutiny test in overturning these bans. if the court accepts that argument, they can t uphold the law. every decision that is considered strict scrutiny requires a compelling government interest and what we know here is there is no government interest in upholding these bans. they hurt the community, they hurt the children in these relationships, and they deprive these citizens of dig any tity. the children are at the heart of one of the complaints one of the families that are the faces of this latest fight, they have children and they are concerned about their children s future if they are not recognized as a same-sex couple and marriage legal. correct. and i think also what we think about is the next generation. these lgbt youth who are growing up and going to see that their relationships are just as valuable as anybody else s in our society. so it affects children within a same-sex couple now and the children that they are bringing up, but it also affects the next
public accommodations laws are designed to be a compelling government interest and that is to say that we have given up on race discrimination as a culture and gender discrimination. but we haven t given up on discrimination against gay the gay and lesbian community. if someone wants to pass a law that this is what the government believes is right it trumps the claims of someone who will not cater pizza to a wedng. religious liberty is the ability to search for the truth and follow once conscience. it should be free of government coercion. it should not be coerced by governments or anyone else at the famously homophobic westboro baptist church. they should not be forced to participate in a same-sex wedding. this idea of participating in a wedding, i did several
towards. it s quite emotional to have that language and be recognizable because the people in indiana have been subjected to hostility coming out of the capitol. paige, let s face it the law was instituted because opponents didn t like same-sex marriages. so you re saying this is a complete cave but this won t make those kinds of conservatives happy. so what does this law really do? why is it necessary at all? well that s what i think is interesting here. if you back up to the whole intent of this law, it was never to allow discrimination. i mean the law simply allowed someone who raises a defense if they were forced to do something that went against their religious beliefs, but in almost every case since these laws have been around we ve had them on the books now for more than 20 years, courts have said that fighting discrimination is a compelling government interest. and doing it by a law that
we were talking about history that comes into play, the intent, the timeline you put that all together and the controversy is heating up even more. here s what you need to know. technically this is what s it s called, senate bill 101. indiana governor mike pence signed it into law last week and takes effect july 1st of this year. this weekend, governor pence dodged his edd this repeated question. yes or no should it be legal to discriminate against bian lesbians? george you re following the mantra of the last week online and trying to make this issue about something else. no yes, or no no. let s take a look at what the law says. a governmental entity may not substantially burden a person s exercise of religion unless it s further in a compelling government interest and acting in the least restrictive way possible. to put it in perspective here 20 states total have religious freedom restoration acts and
government edict the family says in in conflict with their religious convictions. for more than a year and a half, green family, the founders and owners of the hobby lobby croft store chain is fighting this mandate stemming from the hk law. a federal regulation that would force them to provide employees cost free access to 20 different forms of contraception, including four methods, the green family believe can trig area borgs, something they refuse to do. but that refusal could result in fines in the range of $475 million a year. justice samuel alito said this, we hold that regulations that impose this obligation violate rifra which prohibits the federal government from taking any action that substantially burdens the exercise of religion unless it is the least restricting means of government interest. today the co-founder barbara green said her family was overjoyed. the court s decision is a victory for our family business