Religion
See other Religion Articles
Title: Indiana religion law is Jim Crow of our time
Source:
Cincinnati.com
URL Source: http://www.cincinnati.com/story/opi ... on-law-jim-crow-time/70617014/
Published: Mar 29, 2015
Author: Ryan Messer
Post Date: 2015-03-29 04:44:12 by Willie Green
Keywords: None
Views: 33002
Comments: 127
The arguments for Indiana’s Religious Freedom Restoration Act arguments are strikingly similar to the arguments for racial discrimination some 50 years ago. Then, the nation debated whether it was right and just for someone to be barred from service at a lunch counter because of the color of his or her skin. Astonishingly, here we are again, having to combat arguments that it should be legal to bar someone from the same lunch counter based on the gender of the person they love. Let’s tell it like it is: The so-called Religious Freedom Restoration Act is the Jim Crow legislation of our time. Today, African-Americans are protected from discrimination of this kind – and that’s exactly how it should be in the Land of the Free. Alas, LGBT people enjoy no such protection under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, but at least always had trusted their home state legislatures and governors not to turn on them. I take this personally because, as of Thursday, my family and I are not protected from discrimination when we visit family and friends in the state of my birth. This is real and wrong and grieves me deeply. The passage of this discriminatory legislation brings back painful memories in Cincinnati of a charter amendment, commonly known as Article XII, that prohibited City Council from passing any ordinance that would have granted LGBT people equal protection under the law. It was a sorry moment in our city’s history – one in which an entire class of people was singled out for non-protection. The city’s image was damaged throughout the country, and the economic impact was significant, with conventions being canceled and prestigious companies choosing not to do business in our city. I was a resident of Cincinnati at the time, and the passage of the charter amendment created a cloud over the city that ultimately contributed to my decision to leave. I wasn’t alone. Many people I knew moved to cities that they viewed as more welcoming: Chicago, Atlanta, San Diego. I moved to New York. Fortunately, the citizens of Cincinnati rediscovered their essential instinct for justice and repealed Article XII, and I moved back as soon as I could. Cincinnati now is seen as one of those welcoming cities – one dramatically different from what it was. Did we fall into the dream that the rest of American had taken that journey with us? If so, we’ve had a rude awakening. Now I have to question where in Indiana my family can go without discrimination. Can we visit the Indianapolis Children’s Museum? Will a hotel turn us away? Would we be allowed to buy a cupcake at a bakery? If you can, put yourself in our shoes for a moment you can see how unsettling and infuriating this situation is. Maybe the good people of Indiana will come back to their senses as the good people of Cincinnati did some years ago. While they’re pondering what they’ve done, we Cincinnatians should contact the convention organizers who have announced they will pull their meetings out of Indiana and let them know that they are heartily welcome in the Queen City. We should work with the business leaders who have decided not to expand in Indiana and let them know that they are very welcome to locate in our Ohio and Kentucky counties. And we certainly should let all the talented Hoosiers who happen to be LGBT know that they are welcome to live, work, love and play here. Indiana may have lost its sense of justice and good sense for a while but the rest of us understand the human and business cases for diversity and inclusion. Let’s cash in on the progress we’ve made in Cincinnati and elevate our status as a city that welcomes diversity of all kinds and declines to discriminate against any of our citizens.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Comments (1-15) not displayed.
.
.
.
#16. To: A K A Stone (#14)
NEW Testament bump. (The one that is actually Christian, in case you forgot)
Refusing someone service at a lunch counter has nothing to do with interstate commerce. misterwhite ,Rand Paul took it on the chin for daring to point out that the Civil Rights laws banned institutional discrimination ....but that laws trampling on freedom of association are unconstitutional ;commerce clause or otherwise. https://youtu.be/MWBDWU7qES8
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
I know that. But what is your point? Everyone isn't a christian. Some people practice Judaism.
I don't think you'd have to force him...
That is fine if one wanted to back such a cake. But one should never be forced to. Just like the decent folks who are trying to be forced to bake cakes for Sodomites. By the way I discriminate. No Sodomites are allowed to post here. Meguro is an example.
Not if they're in the KKK.
Not if they're in the KKK. You're confusing my examples. Or I didn't write clearly enough. They are different examples.
That seems like a good policy. Meguro seemed to be a big part of why LP was a cess pool of flame wars, and LP became a forum for insulting people, while LF is a forum for discussing ideas. Based upon the empirical results the no fag policy creates a more civil atmosphere.
Not if they're in the KKK. This sounds like a request for the boys in purple robes!
I like that idea. But truthfully I insult people sometimes. Less lately.
If the federal government wants to pass Civil Rights legislation, fine. Those laws would only apply to the the federal government. If any state wants to pass Civil Rights legislation, fine. Those laws would only apply to that particular state government. But, in my opinion, there is no way any Civil Rights legislation should apply to individuals or private sector corporations. Let the individual (or business) succeed or fail on their decisions. Rand Paul took it on the chin for for his flip-flop on the Civil Rights Act. In 2010, he said the law gave the federal government too much power in telling business owners what they could and could not do. In May 2012, he told CNN's Wolf Blitzer that he would have voted for the bill in 1964 if he had the chance.
Less lately. Every once in a while an idea would get discussed on LP, but it was the exception to the rule. There is a huge difference between what LF is and what LP had become. I recall that the guys who would things down over there mentioned that he had some friends check out LP, and that they were appalled by what they saw. I had a friend who would look at LP on his own, he did not post, and Meguro was the one in his mind that seem to make the place degenerate. I should have him check out LF and see what he thinks. Without Meguro this is a far more civil atmosphere, Meguro seemed to bring out the worst in people, in addition to its own degeneracy.
Yeah. Now we need to ban the blacks, Hispanics, Jews and liberals from posting, and this forum will be great. Boring as hell, but really great.
There was nothing wrong with LP that a good moderator couldn't have fixed. The inmates took over the asylum. Actually, LP was a good example of Libertarianism run amok.
Again, based upon the empirical results. If Murron were not here we would be poorer for her absence, so banning blacks would not make for a better forum, but one of lower value. The ones who turned LP into a cess pool could be identified not by race or religion, but by their deviant lifestyles.
The nation should debate whether the owner of a business licensed to be open to the public has the constitutionally protected right to bar specific classes of people from service for personally biased reasons. --- -- I'd say no, --- seeing that the owner has agreed to operate his open to the public business under the protection of a license, -- he must serve the public without personal bias. True enough, refusing a class of people service at a lunch counter has nothing to do with interstate commerce, but it has a lot to do with having an open to the public restaurant refuse to serve a specific class of people for specious and biased reasons. -- Reasons that violate our constitutional principles.
That it was. Goldi was of the Hebrew faith; I think the advice Jethro gave to his son-in-law Moses would have served LP very well. If Meguro were here it would have ended up being banned anyway, so Stone's "no fags" rule or Devil Anse would have led to the same point anyway
Translation:--- Goldie allowed libertarians to post opinions that countered the majority rule agitprop posted by misterwhite and his sycophants. Translation:--- The majority rule group couldn't gain control, and misterwhite is still in a snit about it..
-- I'd say no, --- seeing that the owner has agreed to operate his open to the public business under the protection of a license, -- he must serve the public without personal bias. The tenets of my faith *is" personal, and NOT superseded by a tyrannical gubmint that ignores MY civil rights. And btw Paine, your opinion on this matter doesn't sound very libertarian to me. It sounds...fascist. Are you now advocating this gubmint has the constitutional right to license our very defecation?? (after all, it IS "business," is it not, because a fee is paid to a sewage utility which "serves the public," correct? ) Moreover, isn't "licensing" and over-regulation (as is proposed in this case) just another way to blackmail, extort, and impose morality upon individuals and businesses that violate the tenets of our faith? So in your opinion, you're advocating the fascist enforcement Christian bakery should be compelled to bake a pornographic-topped cake? A Jewish bakery a Swastika-top cake? Nice support of this insanity.
WELL, gentlemen?? These hypocritical crusading "Rights!!" libertarian jihadists may as well be demanding bakers be compelled to scrawl on a cake, "THE BAKER OF THIS CAKE IS A %$#!@ CHRISTIAN HOMOPHOBE AND RACIST! %$#! YOU!!" As per the the spirit USCON and Bill of Right, right? Pffft.
Boring as hell, but really great. There is no reason why Stone shouldn't have the same rights to cater to whom he wants to post, for the same reasons you support a business owner to not have to cater to a certain type of people. Meguro is a pickle smooching freak of nature.
Every society gets the kind of criminal it deserves. What is equally true is that every community gets the kind of law enforcement it insists on. Robert Kennedy
Without Meguro this is a far more civil atmosphere, Meguro seemed to bring out the worst in people, in addition to its own degeneracy. A agree with your observations. Meguro was a homofascist and degenerate troll, period. His "job" was exactly to sabotage LP. Speaking of "sabotage"... I also used to suggest that friends check out LP...only to be aghast at the infamous "canary-in-the-coalmine" yukon turning it into a giant dung-flinging baboon cage. That is why it never grew, and LP could not be recommended.
Boring as hell, but really great. I'm not sure if you're being sarcastic or disingenuous.... ALL of the above demos could well be the most conservative poster at any of these forums. Homos, NOT so much. There is a huge difference between trolls whose prime objective is advancing subversiveness and anarchy and crapping all over the forum in order to discredit it. Intellectually honest discourse from different perspectives.
Just offering some helpful suggestions. Meguro was disruptive because he/she was allowed to be disruptive, turning every thread into a debate about homosexuality. He/she could have been controlled, but wasn't.
CORRECTION: That sentence should read. Willie. Should a black baker be forced to bake a KKK cake for them.
Should a Baker be forced to bake a cake? Or should they be forced to bake a cake and put words on it also? Would either of those be a violation of freedom of speech?
The nation should debate whether the owner of a business licensed to be open to the public has the constitutionally protected right to bar specific classes of people from service for personally biased reasons. --- -- I'd say no, --- seeing that the owner has agreed to operate his open to the public business under the protection of a license, -- he must serve the public without personal bias. Calm yourself. I'm against most types of business licensing, but licensing is constitutional, so I accept it as a necessary evil. Yep, we agree that morality should be self imposed. No, In my opinion, a licensed wedding cake bakery should serve the public, but should refuse to decorate a cake with the silly bullshit demanded. Yep, the whole issue is insane all right, but it ain't me that's going crazy about it...
Would either of those be a violation of freedom of speech? "That to compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions, which he disbelieves is sinful and tyrannical;" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia_Statute_for_Religious_Freedom Seems to me the transhumanist/postgenderist activists in this case have assumed dominion over the baker and forced the baker's craftsmanship to conform with and propagate their own, UN-natural, opinions - opinions with which the baker does not agree. I think forcing the baker to bake a cake to propagate opinions which he disbelieves is sinful and tyrannical.
In my opinion, a licensed wedding cake bakery should serve the public, sell decorated cakes, but should refuse to decorate a cake with the silly bullshit demanded. Forcing a baker to decorate a cake with crap offensive to him would be a violation of his rights.
Should I be able to walk into the gift shop at the local natural history museum's planetarium and demand they sell me a model of the Universe with the Earth at its center? Human reproductive sexuality, Male and Female, was selected for by billions of years of evolution. Deal with it.
Are you afraid meguro might lead you astray and tempt you to indulge in the sins of the flesh? Too bad you don't believe in Darwin, dude. I can assure both you AND meguro that those of us who are truly heterosexual NEVER experience homosexual fantasies. The mere thought is naturally repugnant, and we don't need Holy Scripture to tell us that.
Yep, as naturally repugnant as the odor of rotten food. But the tranhumanist/postgenderists have learned from past experience that sort of natural common sense can be desensitized. It's not surprising such cancerous, cultural, self-destructiveness reflects the #1 objective on the NWO todo list...
It's not. Hell, it's not even conservative.
I agree with Ayn Rand on this one: "In a free society, men are not forced to deal with one another. They do so only by voluntary agreement." Period.
Why should you need a license to bake cakes?
Nah. I just thought he was an asshole to be honest.
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/STATUTE-107/pdf/STATUTE-107-Pg1488.pdf
Murron is not black, but she has a grandkid who is. She (Rebel Gal) posted a photo of herself years ago. It makes no difference, but she needs to be pinged anyway. So... ((((( PING )))))
Don't you love hit piece articles that don't show what the legislation actually says.
"For the Lord is our Judge, The Lord is our Lawgiver, The Lord is our King; He will save us" (Isaiah 33:22)
In my opinion, a licensed wedding cake bakery should serve the public, sell decorated cakes, but should refuse to decorate a cake with the silly bullshit demanded. Forcing a baker to decorate a cake with crap offensive to him would be a violation of his rights. Ask the majority rule devotees, like misterwhite. -- They usually claim that food preparers, restaurants, etc -- must be licensed to protect the public's health.
https://iga.in.gov/legislative/2015/bills/senate/101#document-92bab197 First Regular Session 119th General Assembly (2015) PRINTING CODE. Amendments: Whenever an existing statute (or a section of the Indiana Constitution) is being amended, the text of the existing provision will appear in this style type, additions will appear in this style type, and deletions will appear in this Additions: Whenever a new statutory provision is being enacted (or a new constitutional provision adopted), the text of the new provision will appear in this style type. Also, the word NEW will appear in that style type in the introductory clause of each SECTION that adds a new provision to the Indiana Code or the Indiana Constitution. Conflict reconciliation: Text in a statute in this style type or this SENATE ENROLLED ACT No. 101 AN ACT to amend the Indiana Code concerning civil procedure. Be it enacted by the General Assembly of the State of Indiana: SECTION 1. IC 34-13-9 IS ADDED TO THE INDIANA CODE AS A NEW CHAPTER TO READ AS FOLLOWS [EFFECTIVE JULY 1, 2015]: Chapter 9. Religious Freedom Restoration Sec. 1. This chapter applies to all governmental entity statutes, ordinances, resolutions, executive or administrative orders, regulations, customs, and usages, including the implementation or application thereof, regardless of whether they were enacted, adopted, or initiated before, on, or after July 1, 2015. Sec. 2. A governmental entity statute, ordinance, resolution, executive or administrative order, regulation, custom, or usage may not be construed to be exempt from the application of this chapter unless a state statute expressly exempts the statute, ordinance, resolution, executive or administrative order, regulation, custom, or usage from the application of this chapter by citation to this chapter. Sec. 3. (a) The following definitions apply throughout this section: (b) This chapter may not be construed to affect, interpret, or in any way address the Establishment Clause. (c) Granting government funding, benefits, or exemptions, to the extent permissible under the Establishment Clause, does not constitute a violation of this chapter. Sec. 4. As used in this chapter, "demonstrates" means meets the burdens of going forward with the evidence and of persuasion. Sec. 5. As used in this chapter, "exercise of religion" includes any exercise of religion, whether or not compelled by, or central to, a system of religious belief. Sec. 6. As used in this chapter, "governmental entity" includes the whole or any part of a branch, department, agency, instrumentality, official, or other individual or entity acting under color of law of any of the following: (2) A political subdivision (as defined in IC 36-1-2-13). (3) An instrumentality of a governmental entity described in subdivision (1) or (2), including a state educational institution, a body politic, a body corporate and politic, or any other similar entity established by law. Sec. 7. As used in this chapter, "person" includes the following: (2) An organization, a religious society, a church, a body of communicants, or a group organized and operated primarily for religious purposes. (3) A partnership, a limited liability company, a corporation, a company, a firm, a society, a joint-stock company, an unincorporated association, or another entity that: (B) exercises practices that are compelled or limited by a system of religious belief held by: (ii) the individuals; who have control and substantial ownership of the entity, regardless of whether the entity is organized and operated for profit or nonprofit purposes. Sec. 8. (a) Except as provided in subsection (b), a governmental entity may not substantially burden a person's exercise of religion, (b) A governmental entity may substantially burden a person's exercise of religion only if the governmental entity demonstrates that application of the burden to the person: (2) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest. Sec. 9. A person whose exercise of religion has been substantially burdened, or is likely to be substantially burdened, by a violation of this chapter may assert the violation or impending violation as a claim or defense in a judicial or administrative proceeding, regardless of whether the state or any other governmental entity is a party to the proceeding. If the relevant governmental entity is not a party to the proceeding, the governmental entity has an unconditional right to intervene in order to respond to the person's invocation of this chapter. Sec. 10. (a) If a court or other tribunal in which a violation of this chapter is asserted in conformity with section 9 of this chapter determines that: (2) the governmental entity imposing the burden has not demonstrated that application of the burden to the person: (B) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest; the court or other tribunal shall allow a defense against any party and shall grant appropriate relief against the governmental entity. (2) Compensatory damages. (c) In the appropriate case, the court or other tribunal also may award all or part of the costs of litigation, including reasonable attorney's fees, to a person that prevails against the governmental entity under this chapter. Sec. 11. This chapter is not intended to, and shall not be construed or interpreted to, create a claim or private cause of
Comments (57 - 127) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest7So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.
#17. To: misterwhite (#6)
The nation should debate whether the owner of a private business has the constitutionally protected right to bar anyone from service for any reason.
#18. To: Willie Green (#16)
NEW Testament bump. (The one that is actually Christian, in case you forgot)
#19. To: A K A Stone (#15)
So someone from the KKK should be allowed to force a black baker to bake a cake that says "Put The Niggers In Chains"
as long as the Klansman actually ate the cake, I'm sure there'd be plenty of black bakers who would volunteer to bake it for him.
#20. To: Willie Green (#19)
I don't think you'd have to force him... as long as the Klansman actually ate the cake, I'm sure there'd be plenty of black bakers who would volunteer to bake it for him.
#21. To: A K A Stone (#18)
Some people practice Judaism.
#22. To: Willie Green (#21)
Some people practice Judaism.
#23. To: A K A Stone (#20)
By the way I discriminate. No Sodomites are allowed to post here. Meguro is an example.
#24. To: Byelstin (#21)
Some people practice Judaism.
#25. To: nativist nationalist (#23)
LF is a forum for discussing ideas
#26. To: tomder55 (#17)
"misterwhite ,Rand Paul took it on the chin for daring to point out that the Civil Rights laws banned institutional discrimination ....but that laws trampling on freedom of association are unconstitutional ;commerce clause or otherwise."
#27. To: A K A Stone (#25)
But truthfully I insult people sometimes.
#28. To: nativist nationalist (#23)
"Based upon the empirical results the no fag policy creates a more civil atmosphere."
#29. To: nativist nationalist (#27)
"and what LP had become."
#30. To: misterwhite (#28)
Yeah. Now we need to ban the blacks, Hispanics, Jews and liberals from posting, and this forum will be great.
#31. To: misterwhite, Y'ALL (#6)
The nation should debate whether the owner of a private business has the constitutionally protected right to bar anyone from service for any reason.
Refusing someone service at a lunch counter has nothing to do with interstate commerce.
#32. To: misterwhite (#29)
Actually, LP was a good example of Libertarianism run amok.
#33. To: misterwhite (#29)
There was nothing wrong with LP that a good moderator couldn't have fixed. The inmates took over the asylum.
Actually, LP was a good example of Libertarianism run amok.
#34. To: tpaine (#31)
The nation should debate whether the owner of a business licensed to be open to the public has the constitutionally protected right to bar specific classes of people from service for personally biased reasons. ---
#35. To: A K A Stone, Willie Green, tpaine (#11)
Willie. Should a black baker be forced to bake a KKK cake for me?
#36. To: misterwhite (#28)
Yeah. Now we need to ban the blacks, Hispanics, Jews and liberals from posting, and this forum will be great.
#37. To: nativist nationalist, A K A Stone, CZ82 (#27)
I had a friend who would look at LP on his own, he did not post, and Meguro was the one in his mind that seem to make the place degenerate. I should have him check out LF and see what he thinks.
#38. To: misterwhite, nativist nationalist (#28)
Yeah. Now we need to ban the blacks, Hispanics, Jews and liberals from posting, and this forum will be great.
#39. To: GrandIsland (#36)
"There is no reason why Stone shouldn't have the same rights to cater to whom he wants to post"
#40. To: Liberator (#35)
Willie. Should a black baker be forced to bake a KKK cake for me?
#41. To: Liberator, Tpaine (#35)
#42. To: Liberator (#34)
Paine, your opinion on this matter doesn't sound very libertarian to me. It sounds...fascist.
Are you now advocating this gubmint has the constitutional right to license our very defecation?? (after all, it IS "business," is it not, because a fee is paid to a sewage utility which "serves the public," correct? ) --- Moreover, isn't "licensing" and over-regulation (as is proposed in this case) just another way to blackmail, extort, and impose morality upon individuals and businesses that violate the tenets of our faith?
So in your opinion, you're advocating the fascist enforcement Christian bakery should be compelled to bake a pornographic-topped cake? A Jewish bakery a Swastika-top cake?
Nice support of this insanity.
#43. To: A K A Stone (#41)
(Edited)
#44. To: A K A Stone (#41)
Should a Baker be forced to bake a cake? Or should they be forced to bake a cake and put words on it also? Would either of those be a violation of freedom of speech?
#45. To: Willie Green (#0)
#46. To: A K A Stone (#20)
By the way I discriminate. No Sodomites are allowed to post here. Meguro is an example.
#47. To: Willie Green (#46)
(Edited)
The mere thought is naturally repugnant
#48. To: Liberator (#34)
"And btw Paine, your opinion on this matter doesn't sound very libertarian to me."
#49. To: A K A Stone (#41)
"Should a Baker be forced to bake a cake? Or should they be forced to bake a cake and put words on it also?"
#50. To: tpaine (#44)
In my opinion, a licensed wedding
#51. To: Willie Green (#46)
Are you afraid meguro might lead you astray and tempt you to indulge in the sins of the flesh?
#52. To: tomder55, Willie Green (#2)
The Religious Freedom Restoration Act(RFRA) of 1993 is a federal law aimed at preventing laws that "substantially burden" a person's free exercise of religion. The bill was introduced by then Congressman Chuck Schumer in the House ,and Senators Orrin Hatch and Ted Kennedy in the Senate ,and passed by a unanimous U.S. House and a near unanimous U.S. Senate .It was signed into law by Bill Clinton.
107 STAT. 1488 PUBLIC LAW 103-141—NOV. 16,1993
Public Law 103-141
103d Congress
An Act
To protect the free exercise of religion.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives
of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the "Religious Freedom Restoration
Act of 1993".
SEC. 2. CONGRESSIONAL FINDINGS AND DECLARATION OF PURPOSES.
(a) FINDINGS.—The Congress finds that—
(1) the framers of the Constitution, recognizing free exercise
of religion as an unalienable right, secured its protection in
the First Amendment to the Constitution;
(2) laws "neutral" toward religion may burden religious
exercise as surely as laws intended to interfere with religious
exercise;
(3) governments should not substantially burden religious
exercise without compelling justification;
(4) in Employment Division v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872 (1990)
the Supreme Court virtually eliminated the requirement that
the government justify burdens on religious exercise imposed
by laws neutral toward religion; and
(5) the compelling interest test as set forth in prior Federal
court rulings is a workable test for striking sensible balances
between religious liberty and competing prior governmental
interests.
(b) PURPOSES.—The purposes of this Act are—
(1) to restore the compelling interest test as set forth in
Sherbert v. Verner, 374 U.S. 398 (1963) and Wisconsin v.
Yoder, 406 U.S. 205 (1972) and to guarantee its application
in all cases where free exercise of religion is substantially
burdened; and
(2) to provide a claim or defense to persons whose religious
exercise is substantially burdened by government.
SEC. 3. FREE EXERCISE OF RELIGION PROTECTED.
(a) IN GENERAL.—Government shall not substantially burden
a person's exercise of religion even if the burden results from
a rule of general applicability, except as provided in subsection
(b).
(b) EXCEPTION.—Government may substantially burden a per-
son's exercise of religion only if it demonstrates that application
of the burden to the person—
(1) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest;
and
(2) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compel
ling governmental interest.
(c) Judicial Relief.—A person whose religious exercise has
been burdened in violation of this section may assert that violation
as a claim or defense in a judicial proceeding and obtain appropriate
relief against a government. Standing to assert a claim or defense
under this section shall be governed by the general rules of standing
under article III of the Constitution.
SEC. 4. ATTORNEYS FEES.
(a) Judicial Proceedings.—Section 722 of the Revised Stat
utes (42 U.S.C. 1988) is amended by inserting "the Religious Free
dom Restoration Act of 1993 " before "or title VI of the Civil Rights
Act of 1964".
(b) Administrative Proceedings.—Section 504(b)(l)(C) of title
5, United States Code, is amended—
(1) by striking "and" at the end of clause (ii);
(2) by striking the semicolon at the end of clause (iii)
and inserting ", and"; and
(3) by inserting "(iv) the Religious Freedom Restoration
Act of 1993;" after clause (iii).
SEC. 5. DEFINITIONS.
As used in this Act—
(1) the term "government" includes a branch, department,
agency, instrumentality, and official (or other person acting
under color of law) of the United States, a State, or a subdivi
sion of a State;
(2) the term "State" includes the District of Columbia,
the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and each territory and
possession of the United States;
(3) the term "demonstrates" means meets the burdens of
going forward with the evidence and of persuasion; and
(4) the term "exercise of religion means the exercise of
religion under the First Amendment to the Constitution.
SEC. 6. APPLICABILITY.
(a) IN GENERAL.—This Act applies to all Federal and State
law, and the implementation of that law, whether statutory or
otherwise, and whether adopted before or after the enactment of
this Act.
(b) RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.—Federal statutory law adopted
after the date of the enactment of this Act is subject to this Act
unless such law explicitly excludes such application by reference
to this Act.
(c) RELIGIOUS BELIEF UNAFFECTED.—Nothing in this Act shall
be construed to authorize any government to burden any religious
belief.
SEC. 7. ESTABLISHMENT CLAUSE UNAFFECTED.
Nothing in this Act shall be construed to affect, interpret,
or in any way address that portion of the First Amendment prohibit
ing laws respecting the establishment of religion (referred to in
this section as the "Establishment Clause"). Granting government
funding, benefits, or exemptions, to the extent permissible under
the Establishment Clause, shall not constitute a violation of this
Act. As used in this section, the term "granting", used with respect
to government funding, benefits, or exemptions, does not include
the denial of government funding, benefits, or exemptions.
Approved November 16, 1993.
#53. To: nativist nationalist, Murron (#30)
(Edited)
If Murron were not here we would be poorer for her absence, so banning blacks would not make for a better forum, but one of lower value
The D&R terrorists hate us because we're free, to vote second party
"We (government) need to do a lot less, a lot sooner" ~Ron Paul
#54. To: A K A Stone (#14)
#55. To: A K A Stone, misterwhite, Y'ALL (#50)
Should a Baker be forced to bake a cake? Or should they be forced to bake a cake and put words on it also? Would either of those be a violation of freedom of speech?
Why should you need a license to bake cakes?
#56. To: redleghunter, A K A Stone (#54)
(Edited)
Don't you love hit piece articles that don't show what the legislation actually says.
style type. style type reconciles conflicts between statutes enacted by the 2014 Regular Session and 2014 Second Regular Technical Session of the General Assembly. (1) "Establishment Clause" refers to the part of the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States or the Constitution of the State of Indiana prohibiting laws
respecting the establishment of religion. (2) "Granting", used with respect to government funding, benefits, or exemptions, does not include the denial of government funding, benefits, or exemptions.
(1) State government.
(1) An individual.
(A) may sue and be sued; and
(i) an individual; or
even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability.
(1) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and
(1) the person's exercise of religion has been substantially burdened, or is likely to be substantially burdened; and
(b) Relief against the governmental entity may include any of the following: (A) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and
(1) Declaratory relief or an injunction or mandate that prevents, restrains, corrects, or abates the violation of this chapter.
action against any private employer by any applicant, employee, or former employee.
.
.
.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]