Play Facebook 
 
 Twitter 
 
 Google Plus 
 
 Embed Arkansas under fire after passing religious freedom law 2:28 autoplay autoplay Copy this code to your website or blog 
 
 On the heels of Indiana's controversial religious freedom law, Arkansas lawmakers on Tuesday gave final approval to a similar measure — and the governor says he'll sign it. 
 
 The Arkansas House voted 67-21 to pass the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which follows the state senate's approval of the bill Friday. Gov. Asa Hutchinson's office did not immediately respond to the bill's passing, but has previously said he would sign it into law when it reaches his desk. His spokesman said the governor would make a statement Wednesday. 
 
 Protesters gathered outside the governor's mansion in Little Rock on Tuesday morning in anticipation of the House vote. 
 
 Arkansas-based mega-retailer Walmart also came out against the bill, and urged the governor to veto it. 
 
 "Today's passage of HB1228 threatens to undermine the spirit of inclusion present throughout the state of Arkansas and does not reflect the values we proudly uphold," Walmart CEO Doug McMillon said in a statement Tuesday afternoon. 
 
 The Indiana law, enacted last week, and the proposed Arkansas law were presented as ways to keep government from infringing on religion. But opponents say they could be used as cover for discrimination, allowing businesses to refuse to serve gay and lesbian customers. 
 
 Tim Cook, the openly gay CEO of Apple, led widespread corporate opposition to the law in Indiana, and the NCAA, which is staging the Final Four in Indianapolis this week, hinted that it would think twice about bringing future events there. 
 
 The governors of New York, Connecticut and Washington suspended some government travel from their states to Indiana. 
 
 "They knew what they were doing. They were going to make it legal to refuse to serve gay men and women," Connecticut Gov. Dannel Malloy told MSNBC on Tuesday. "Somebody has to call them on it." 
 
 The CEO of Acxiom, a data services company with headquarters in Little Rock, wrote in an open letter to Gov. Hutchinson that the bill "inflicts pain on some of our citizens and disgrace upon us all." 
 
 Play Facebook 
 
 Twitter 
 
 Google Plus 
 
 Embed Arkansas Lawmakers Pass Controversial Act 1:02 autoplay autoplay Copy this code to your website or blog 
 
 And protesters at the Capitol on Monday held signs saying "Discrimination is not a Christian Value" and "Discrimination is a Disease." 
 
 Hutchinson, a Republican, told NBC affiliate KARK that the bill in his state is meant to strike a balance between religious freedom and equal protection of the law. "This bill tries to do that, and it's not that complicated," he said. 
 
 Sexual orientation is not covered by anti-discrimination laws in either state. 
 
 After the Arkansas bill passed, Arkansas Attorney General Leslie Rutledge on Tuesday approved the title language of a ballot proposal that would add sexual orientation and gender identity to the state's civil rights act, clearing the way for supporters to start gathering signatures. 
 
 Play Facebook 
 
 Twitter 
 
 Google Plus 
 
 Embed Indiana Governor Promises to Rework Religious Freedom Law 3:00 autoplay autoplay Copy this code to your website or blog 
 
 Nineteen other states and the federal government have religious freedom laws. The federal law was signed in 1993 by President Bill Clinton. 
 
 But legal experts have said that the Indiana and Arkansas laws could open a wider berth for discrimination because they allow businesses to use the religious claim to fight lawsuits brought by people — would-be customers, for example — and not just government action. 
 
 In North Carolina, Gov. Pat McCrory, a Republican, said on Monday that he would not sign a religious freedom bill working through the Legislature. 
 
 "What is the problem they're trying to solve?" he asked during a radio interview, according to The News & Observer newspaper of Raleigh. "I haven't seen it at this point in time." 
 
 A religious freedom bill has stalled in Georgia. 
 
 The Associated Press and Reuters contributed to this report. ||||| A bill that supporters say advances religious freedom got final approval in the Arkansas House on Tuesday, sparking protests from opponents who say the legislation can be used to discriminate against gays. 
 
 This story is only available from the Arkansas Online archives. Stories can be purchased individually for $2.95. Click here to search for this story in the archives. ||||| On Tuesday, the Arkansas state House of Representatives approved a final version of a "religious freedom" bill similar to the one that has caused an uproar in Indiana. Gov. Asa Hutchinson (R) has said he'll sign it. 
 
 "Similar," in the context of these politically fraught bills, is probably too vague a descriptor. Wondering how it differed concretely from the Indiana bill, we reached out to professor Katherine Franke of Columbia Law School, who also serves as faculty director of the school's Public Rights / Private Conscience Project. As the debate over the bill in Indiana moved forward, Franke was one of several dozen signatories to a letter to the state's legislature, asking for changes that might prevent the effects that critics most fear. 
 
 Those possible negative effects have centered around how the legislation in Indiana might allow businesses to deny services to customers based on the religious beliefs of the business owners -- and, more specifically, that it would allow Christian business owners to deny services to gay customers. (Indiana Gov. Mike Pence (R) has asked for 'clarification' from the legislature to prevent that from happening.) 
 
 Franke indicated that the Arkansas bill has a way in which it better addresses critics' concerns than the Indiana one, a way in which the two are the same, and a way in which Arkansas' bill is much worse. 
 
 How the bills are the same 
 
 "The Arkansas bill, like the Indiana bill, has a very broad definition of a 'person' who can assert religious liberty rights under the statute," Franke said, "and that definition is much broader than the federal definition, even as the Supreme Court recently interpreted it in Hobby Lobby," the 2014 case that considered whether or not a business could deny coverage for contraception based on the religious beliefs of its owners. "It's not just natural humans, people like you and me, but corporations of any kind. The federal court interpreted it only to apply to closely held corporations where the ownership is a small family and they all share the same religious commitments or beliefs." 
 
 In Arkansas and Indiana, in other words, any business of any size can say that its religious liberty rights are being infringed, even if the corporation is, say, Walmart, the ownership of which is far from small. (Walmart actually came out in opposition to the bill.) This is why the scenario offered at the outset, of a business denying service to a gay couple, is so resonant. In Indiana and Arkansas, that business can claim infringement on its religious rights. 
 
 How Arkansas' bill is more to critics' liking than Indiana's 
 
 "The Indiana bill says that the person" -- again, meaning an actual person or a corporate person -- "has to allege a substantial burden on a religious belief," Franke said, "but it also protects where there is a likely burden on a sincerely held religious belief. So if there's a possibility down the road of a burden on your faith or your religious belief, you can exert an exemption." 
 
 Think of it like the movie "Minority Report." In that film, a law enforcement body intervened in crime that were foreseen, stopping the perpetrator before he or she could act. The Indiana bill works somewhat similarly, allowing lawsuits intended to prevent religious rights from being infringed, before the infringement happens. "That is an extremely radical idea," Franke said, "that you could bring a lawsuit on a conjecture of a future injury." Arkansas' bill doesn't include this language. 
 
 How Arkansas' bill is less to critics' liking than Indiana's 
 
 "What the state has to prove under the Arkansas bill in order to overcome an assertion of a religious exemption" -- that is, in order to allow a law to trump concerns of religious liberties -- "is that the interest it's furthering with the law is 'essential," explained Franke. At the federal level, the government can allow a law to trump the religious liberty standard if the state's interest is compelling -- a looser standard that allows for things like occupational safety to trump religious exemptions. 
 
 "It sounds like not a very big difference with that one word, but what that one word does is make it much more difficult for the state to say that this is an important public interest that they're advancing," Franke explained. 
 
 The history of religious exemptions, Franke said, has traditionally been that they protect the rights of religious minorities. She offered several examples, including the desire of the Amish to be exempt from laws mandating that children go to public schools. In the 1990 case of Employment Division v. Smith, the Supreme Court, in a majority opinion from Justice Scalia, said that exemptions couldn't be used to avoid the requirements of generally applicable laws. It was the Smith case that prompted Congress to pass its Religious Freedom Restoration Act in the early 1990s, reinstating protections for minority religious practice -- in cases where no third party is being injured. That, she noted, is a key differentiator between the RFRA bills in Arkansas and Indiana and at the federal level: A third party might suffer injury from the exercise of a person's religious liberty. 
 
 "Religious liberty is not an absolute right. No right secured by the Constitution is an absolute right," she noted. "We always balance these rights against other important government interests and public interests." 
 
 "The way these RFRA laws are written, it sounds like these are absolute rights that trump any other state interest," Franke said. "And that's what's problematic about them." ||||| CLOSE Arkansas Gov. Asa Hutchinson is calling for changes to a religious objection measure facing a backlash from businesses and gay rights groups, saying it wasn't intended to allow discrimination based on sexual orientation. (April 1) AP 
 
 Arkansas Gov. Asa Hutchinson, right, answers reporters' questions as Sen. Jonathan Dismang, R-Beebe, listens at the state Capitol in Little Rock on Wednesday. (Photo: Danny Johnston, AP) 
 
 LITTLE ROCK — As local and state leaders and organizations pressured Arkansas Gov. Asa Hutchinson to veto House Bill 1228 — the Religious Freedom Restoration Act — the governor said Wednesday he won't sign the bill in its current form. 
 
 The full House passed the "religious freedom" bill Tuesday afternoon after three concurred amendments passed the House Judiciary Committee on Monday. The measure was sponsored by Rep. Bob Ballinger, R-Hindsville. Hutchinson had said he would sign the bill into law. 
 
 Ballinger said the governor has five days from the time he received the bill — not including Sunday — to act. He said that if Hutchinson does nothing, HB1228 will go into law; he has to veto the bill to prevent that. 
 
 The Republican governor said the bill wasn't intended to allow discrimination based on sexual orientation. 
 
 "It has been my intention all along to have House Bill 1228 to mirror the federal act," Hutchinson said Wednesday. "The bill that is on my desk at the present time does not ... mirror the federal law." 
 
 He was referring to the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act signed by President Clinton in 1993. 
 
 "I asked that changes be made in the legislation. I've asked leaders in the General Assembly to recall the bill so that it mirrors the federal religious act," Hutchinson said. 
 
 He wants lawmakers to either recall the bill or pass a follow-up measure to make the proposal more closely mirror the federal law. He wants the bill to make sure it reflects the values of the people of Arkansas and minimizes discrimination in the workplace. 
 
 Hutchinson didn't specifically call for changes that would prohibit the law from being used to deny services to someone, but he said he didn't believe the bill was intended to do so. 
 
 I am committed to signing a RFRA law, and I have asked the legislature for it to mirror Federal law. — Gov. Asa Hutchinson (@AsaHutchinson) April 1, 2015 
 
 "This law that is under consideration does not extend discrimination," Hutchinson said. 
 
 In speaking about the divisiveness of the issue, Hutchinson said there was a divide in his own house. His son Seth signed the petition urging him to veto the bill. 
 
 "This is a bill that in ordinary times would not be controversial, but these are not ordinary times," he said. 
 
 "I want to make it clear that Arkansas wants to be a place of tolerance," Hutchinson said. 
 
 Before Wednesday's news conference, many organizations raised concerns about what the measure could mean for business in the Natural State. 
 
 Retail giant Walmart, headquartered in Bentonville, posted a statement to Twitter on Tuesday saying HB 1228 does not reflect the company's values and urged Hutchinson to veto the legislation. 
 
 The bill as written would prevent state and local governments from infringing upon religious beliefs without a "compelling" interest. Supporters maintain it is not a discriminatory bill, but opponents say it will allow widespread discrimination against gays and lesbians. 
 
 Indiana Gov. Mike Pence signed a similar measure into law last week and is seeing widespread criticism by businesses and organizations. 
 
 Monday, Acxiom, one of Arkansas' largest employers and a longtime supporter of workplace diversity, announced the marketing technology company's firm opposition to the bill. In a letter to the governor, the company wrote, "The bill inflicts pain on some of our citizens and disgrace upon us all." 
 
 Little Rock Mayor Mark Stodola encouraged Hutchinson to veto the bill. In a news release Tuesday he stated, "Any piece of legislation that is so divisive cannot possibly be good for the state of Arkansas and its people." 
 
 Barbara Hall of Little Rock, right, cheers with about 200 other demonstrators on the steps of the Arkansas state Capitol in Little Rock Tuesday. (Photo: Danny Johnston, AP) 
 
 "There certainly is that impression that it would be a negative step," state economic forecaster Michael Pakko said. He said it's not clear whether there would be drastic implications for the state if the bill becomes law, but it would affect some business decisions, especially for companies that have taken a stance against the bill. 
 
 "There is a likelihood this bill would cause confusion more than anything else, and that alone could have some negative impact on the economy," Pakko said. 
 
 "It's just not the way to do business, and we're not going to do it that way," said North Little Rock Chamber of Commerce CEO Terry Hartwick. 
 
 He said discrimination has never been an issue in the area, and he doesn't understand why it's become an issue now. 
 
 "We're here to serve, and that's the way a chamber should be, to take in anybody. We're open for business, to do business as usual and to satisfy that customer, whomever they shall be," Hartwick said. 
 
 The Little Rock Chamber of Commerce also objected to the the bill, simply stating, "This is bad for business and bad for Arkansas." 
 
 Contributing: The Associated Press. 
 
 Read or Share this story: http://usat.ly/1bPd99o
– With Indiana still feeling the heat over its Religious Freedom Restoration Act, Arkansas inches up to the fire: State lawmakers yesterday approved House Bill 1228—its own RFRA—and sent it along to Gov. Asa Hutchinson, who is being called upon by many to veto the bill. Among that many: Bentonville-based Walmart, whose @WalmartNewsroom account last night tweeted a statement from CEO Doug McMillon urging a veto and noting the company's "core basic belief of respect for the individual." KTHV reports Walmart isn't the first to make such a request: Little Rock Mayor Mark Stodola, that city's Chamber of Commerce, and major employer Acxiom Corp. have all voiced their opposition. So will Hutchinson sign? KTHV says yes. The New York Times reports he had been uneasy with a previous version but quotes him as later saying he would sign a bill into law should it hit his desk "in similar form as to what has been passed in 20 other states." Arkansas Online reports that his rep yesterday reported having no new comments; NBC News adds Hutchinson will make a statement today. The Times and the Washington Post take a look at the subtle ways Arkansas' law differs from Indiana's, and they call out one word that doesn't appear in Indiana's bill: "essential." As the Post explains, "At the federal level, the government can allow a law to trump the religious liberty standard if the state's interest is compelling—a looser standard that allows for things like occupational safety to trump religious exemptions."