article_snippet: Under Indiana's RFRA, the government must show that the government policy interest advances a compelling state interest and is the least restrictive means to address the problem at issue.
article_snippet: In certain cities and other, local jurisdictions, however, there are ordinances prohibiting such discrimination.
article_snippet: This would bring Indiana into alignment with Illinois, which has a RFRA, but which also has a comprehensive nondiscrimination statute, ameliorating any concerns about RFRA being used in discriminatory fashion.
article_snippet: Another possibility would be to amend a comprehensive nondiscrimination statute to confirm that any federal, state, or local nondiscrimination laws constitute a compelling state interest for the purposes of RFRA.  
article_snippet: But this language would expressly carve out local ordinances from the scope of RFRA, such as the nondiscrimination ordinance in Indianapolis.
article_snippet: In essence, this would preserve much of Indiana state law as Indiana state law existed before RFRA: absent local nondiscrimination laws, persons are free in Indiana to discriminate against LGBT persons on any basis.
article_snippet: This amendment, however, would make clear that the state-level RFRA cannot be used to trump local city ordinances that protect the LGBT community.
article_snippet: Well, that precise amendment was proposed -- and adopted -- in the Georgia legislature as precise amendment considered a RFRA comparable to Indiana's.  