Arkansas Religious Freedom Bill Sparks Protest; Interview with State Rep. Robert Ballinger of Arkansas .
CAMEROTA: Lawmakers in Arkansas, defying the public outcry over Indiana's religious freedom bill, just approved a bill that is almost exactly the same as Indiana's, but it has not gotten a lot of attention. If Governor Asa Hutchinson signs it today, Arkansas becomes the 21st state with such a law. Joining us is the lawmaker who proposed the Arkansas bill, Republican State Representative Robert Ballinger. Mr. Ballinger, thanks for being on</s>NEW DAY. ROBERT BALLINGER, ARKANSAS STATE REPRESENTATIVE: Thank you. It's nice -- nice to have the opportunity to be with you.</s>CAMEROTA: Let's talk about your intention in crafting this initiative that you did. Where did you see religious freedom being squelched? Why was a bill like this necessary?</s>BALLINGER: Well, it became necessary, actually, way back in 1990, when the Supreme Court basically reduced the standard from a heightened scrutiny down to intermediate scrutiny. So it's been necessary for a long time. And in fact, everyone at one time kind of agreed that it was necessary. That's why in '93 you get the federal RFRA signed by Bill Clinton, carried (ph) by Chuck Schumer and...</s>CAMEROTA: Well, sure. I mean, I hate to interrupt you, but people say that this law that you proposed actually goes further than that 1993. And let me just put up on the screen so people know what we're talking about. About how different the bill that you proposed is from the federal law. They say that in your bill, rights extend to for-profit corporations. As you know, the 1993 law was about religious minorities that -- say, Native American who wanted to use peyote. They -- No. 2, your bill applies when a person's religious freedom is likely to be burdened. They say that that is much broader than what the federal law does. And No. 3, it extends to proceedings between private parties. So it's not about government overreach. It's about, say, a private proprietor or business owner who wants to refuse service if they're not comfortable. So explain how yours is different.</s>BALLINGER: What I would -- yes, sure. Sure, I'd be happy to. I mean, essentially, just like the Constitution is interpreted by the Supreme Court, so are laws. And with RFRA, very clearly, they said that the federal RFRA does apply to private corporations. That's where you get the Hobby Lobby decision. And so what we've done is just take the RFRA and the additional information that has been collected over the years, and just put that in there. So substantially, it is the same. Substantially, it is a strict scrutiny standard. And that's what's established by this and established by the 21 other states that have state RFRAs, and the federal government. And several other states through their Constitution or through their Supreme Court, has interpreted a strict scrutiny standard. So essentially, the law is the same. There may be little peripheral things that are different. For the most part, it's the same thing.</s>CAMEROTA: When you say RFRA, of course, you mean the Religious Freedom and Reformation Act. There are unintended consequences of your bill. So while you may have felt that you were protecting the rights of people to express their religion freely, there are businesses in Arkansas, in fact the largest employers in Arkansas, Wal-Mart, and Axiom, which is a Little Rock-based technology firm that employs almost 1,800 people. They don't like this bill that you propose. Let me read to you a quote from the CEO of Axiom. He says, "We are not alone in the belief that the bill is a deliberate vehicle for enabling discrimination against the LGBT community, and should not become law, as it effectively reestablishes that shameful period before civil rights, when some used religious beliefs as a thinly- veiled justification for discrimination against our fellow citizens." He's saying it's a deliberate vehicle for discrimination. What's your response?</s>BALLINGER: Yes, that's a pretty -- that's a pretty strong statement for somebody who's not been in my mind or in the mind of many other people. This bill has been around or this type of law has been around since basically '97, when the Supreme Court said if states want a RFRA they'll have to put forth their own RFRAs. And people have been working on this in Arkansas way before actually even I came around. So I think that -- I think he's wrong. But that's</s>OK: People have a right to be wrong. Yet, there's a lot of passion. They don't want to see the bill passed. And so there -- I think that a lot of times people are getting the cart out before the horse. And they just don't really realize what this is. I mean, this is really a relatively minor increase in protection for what a person believes. And for the most part, everyone believes that an individual should be carry able to carry out their beliefs the way they want without government interference, which is what this bill does.</s>CAMEROTA: I mean, beyond philosophy, just on a practical note, it can't be good to alienate your state's biggest employers. Let me tell you what Wal-Mart says. Here's what Wal-Mart feels about your bill: "Today's passage of HB 1228 threatens to undermine the spirit of inclusion present throughout the state of Arkansas and does not reflect the values we proudly uphold. For these reasons we are asking Governor Hutchinson to veto this legislation." Is it possible that your bill goes too far and that, for whatever reason, it's being misinterpreted; and it's actually counterproductive to what you were trying to do?</s>BALLINGER: You have two questions. Whether it goes too far, the answer is no. Is it being misinterpreted? Absolutely it is. But that's -- you know, we have a little bit of kind of a fight going on within our family here in Arkansas that is -- you know, there's a discussion and debate that's going on. And in the end, what happens when the dust settles and people realize that this is the same as the law is in 31 other states, that this is the same as the -- as the law is under the federal RFRA within the federal government. And in the end all this is going to -- people realize that it's not nearly the significant change that they expected it to be. And people will go on and join each other here in Arkansas.</s>CAMEROTA: Well, Governor Hutchinson has to decide today whether or not he's going to sign it. Given all of the blow-back and controversy, what do you think is going to happen?</s>BALLINGER: Well, he said repeatedly that he intends to sign the bill if it came to him in the form that it was, that he's going to sign it. So at this point, I mean, I would have to say that I'm taking him at his word that he's going to sign it. I don't -- I don't have any other indication that he wouldn't.</s>CAMEROTA: State Rep Robert Bollinger, thanks so much for being on and explaining your perspective on the bill.</s>BALLINGER: Well, thank you. Thank you for having me.</s>CAMEROTA: In the next hour we will talk about Indiana's controversial law with state lawmakers from both sides of the aisle, so stick around for that. And please let us know what you think about all this, the Arkansas and Indiana bill. You can tweet us, @NewDay, or go to Facebook.com/NewDay. We try to read all your comments. Let's go to Chris.</s>CUOMO: Of course, this issue is going to bleed into the race for president, in the 2016 hopefuls, who for these religious -- you know, these controversial things are going on. How are they going to deal with it? Are they going to deal with it? Against? For? All these roads to the White House are going to lead through Indiana, and John King will explain why on "Inside Politics."