What LGBT bills would — and would not — do

This session, state lawmakers are grappling with the controversial issue of whether and how to extend civil rights protections to gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender Hoosiers. Also at question: how to balance LGBT rights with the rights of religious believers.

The debate in the Indiana General Assembly has prompted other discussions, too, on preserving fundamental rights and legislating which bathrooms transgender people can use.

Lawmakers have proposed four plans to add sexual orientation or gender identity to state civil rights laws. Here’s a breakdown of how they differ:

Senate Bill 2

What it proposes:This plan from the Senate Democrats would add sexual orientation and gender identity as protected classes. It does not introduce religious exemptions beyond what already exists in civil rights law for religious leaders and religious organizations.

Why it’s liked: Democrats and LGBT rights advocates such as Freedom Indiana say they want nothing short of “full protections” for LGBT people. To do so, they say adding “four words and a comma” — “sexual orientation, gender identity” — to state civil rights law is the simplest solution.

Why it’s criticized: Conservative groups, such as the Indiana Family Institute, American Family Association of Indiana and Indiana Pastors Alliance, say any expansion of civil rights to protect sexual orientation and gender identity would constitute “special rights” for people’s sexuality. By creating protected classes for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people, they say the law will force people to violate their religious beliefs when operating their businesses.

Where it stands: Because the Democrats hold a minority in both chambers, they would need support from some Republicans in order to move this proposal forward. Many in the business community — which proved to be very influential in the RFRA debate — have been supporting the idea of full protections.

Indiana Democrats draft anti-discrimination bill

Senate Bill 100

What it proposes:This plan from the Senate Republicans would add sexual orientation and gender identity as protected classes, with certain new religious exemptions. Notably, it includes an exemption for businesses with fewer than four employees to refuse wedding services to same-sex couples. It also sidesteps the debate on transgender access to public restrooms by allowing schools, employers and others to determine their own restroom policies. The bill would prevent local governments from having stricter nondiscrimination ordinances, and it would institute a $1,000 fine for people who file “frivolous” discrimination claims. Senate Bill 100 also would require transgender people to live as the gender they identify with for a year or receive a medical opinion to be covered by the protections.

Why it’s liked: Sen. Travis Holdman, the Republican from Markle who proposed the bill, said a resolution is needed but it’s likely to require a balancing act. This proposal extends certain benefits to both LGBT people and religious people, while asking for some areas of compromise.

Why it’s criticized: Both LGBT advocates and religious conservatives have criticized this proposal, with each side saying it doesn’t go far enough. LGBT rights advocates say its exemptions outweigh its protections, still leaving people vulnerable to discrimination. Religious conservatives say the proposal gives short shrift to people’s religious beliefs in favor of protecting sexuality. Even though the proposal does not create a uniform policy for bathrooms, conservative groups also oppose it under the argument that it could allow transgender people to use restrooms according to the gender with which they identify.

Where it stands: With support from the Senate Republican leadership, this proposal is likely to garner serious discussion and be amended throughout the process.

Republicans� LGBT protections bill draws criticism on both sides

Senate Bill 170

What it proposes:This plan from Sen. Ron Alting, R-Lafayette, would essentially grant full civil rights protections for LGBT Hoosiers, similar to the Democrats’ proposal.

Where it stands: Sen. Ron Alting, R-Lafayette, filed the legislation as a statement that he thinks equal rights are “way, way overdue,” but he said he will support Senate Bill 100 and does not expect his bill to reach a hearing. He said he will work with Republican leadership to improve Senate Bill 100 through amendments.

Senate Bill 344

What it proposes: This plan from the Senate Republicans is distinct from the others in that it does not offer civil rights protections to transgender people. Instead, Senate Bill 344 covers only sexual orientation. It also exempts small businesses of fewer than six employees from providing wedding-related services. It would allow existing local nondiscrimination ordinances to stand, but it prevents cities from passing anything that goes beyond the state civil rights law. While it charges the Indiana Civil Rights Commission with protecting people from unfounded claims of discrimination, it would not institute a fine for frivolous claims.

Why it’s liked: With no consensus on the civil rights issue, lawmakers say they need alternative approaches to further the public debate. Senate Bill 344 offers some key differences from parts of Senate Bill 100 that have been criticized — namely, its sections on local ordinances, small business exemptions and frivolous claims.

Why it’s criticized: LGBT advocates say it’s necessary to include transgender protections.

Where it stands: With support from the Senate Republican leadership, this proposal has been promised to make it to a hearing.

Lawmaker proposes alternative civil rights bill

Call Star reporter Stephanie Wang at (317) 444-6184. Follow her on Twitter: @stephaniewang.

—