LETTER FROM DAVID LASKA OF THE NYGOP
This is not an April Fool’s Day gag: The controversial new law in Indiana was modeled after a 1993 law signed by Bill Clinton and sponsored by New York’s own Chuck Schumer.
Schumer took to Facebook Tuesday (there must not have been any cameras around) to argue against the comparison. As a recent piece in today’s Daily News describes, Schumer’s argument is laughably weak.
Schumer made two points: first, that the 1993 law differs from the Indiana law because it contains language “to maximize the religious freedom of individuals, provided there’s no compelling government interest against it.”
There’s one problem with that: both bills contain identical – not similar, identical – language giving deference to a “compelling government interest” that can override the measure.
Schumer’s second point was that the 1993 law protects individuals, whereas Indiana’s law protects individuals and corporations. The problem with that? Federal law already defines a “person” to include corporations.