"Connecticut does not permit religion to be a basis of discriminating against its citizens."
Gov. Dannel Malloy
Governor Dannel Malloy signed an executive order Monday, banning all state sponsored travel to Indiana.
"If you're a citizen of Connecticut, you have the protection of the quality of laws and the enforcement of those laws," Malloy said at a press conference on Monday. "I think you deserve the same treatment in other states as well. Somebody's got to stand up to this kind of bigotry, and I'm prepared to do it."
"Connecticut does not permit religion to be a basis of discriminating against its citizens," Malloy said. "Right now, a particular state is touting that."
On WNPR's The Colin McEnroe Show, Yeshiva University law professor Marci Hamilton explained how Indiana's law goes beyond other RFRAs like Connecticut's. Listen below:
Colin McEnroe wrote on his Hartford Courant blog, To Wit, that Connecticut's law dates back to 1993, making it "relatively old." From the post:
The law is restricted to interactions between the government and a person, and it says that the government can’t burden the person’s “exercise of religion” except in furtherance of a compelling government interest and even then only when the burden is the least restrictive means of furthering that interest. That’s the whole law. You could say it screams out for court cases that will define terms like “exercise of religion” and “compelling government interest.” You could not say that it goes out of its way to define those terms on one side’s behalf. I was halfway into writing this post when Dan Klau, an actual lawyer, published his own take on it. He gives you some of the 1993 history here.
Tucker Ives and Heather Brandon contributed to this report.
