Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: 19 states that have ‘religious freedom’ laws like Indiana’s that no one is boycotting [View all]NutmegYankee
(16,483 posts)22. I call Bullshit for Connecticut
The state has a very strong anti-discrimination law that covers BOTH sexual orientation and gender identity/expression. See Sec. 46a of the State code.
The law in question only gives a person the right to challenge a law and has exceptions in (b) that the state has used to ban discrimination in public businesses.
Sec. 52-571b. Action or defense authorized when state or political subdivision burdens a persons exercise of religion. (a) The state or any political subdivision of the state shall not burden a persons exercise of religion under section 3 of article first of the Constitution of the state even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability, except as provided in subsection (b) of this section.
(b) The state or any political subdivision of the state may burden a persons 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 compelling governmental interest.
(c) A person whose exercise of religion has been burdened in violation of the provisions of this section may assert that violation as a claim or defense in a judicial proceeding and obtain appropriate relief against the state or any political subdivision of the state.
(d) Nothing in this section shall be construed to authorize the state or any political subdivision of the state to burden any religious belief.
(e) Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect, interpret or in any way address that portion of article seventh of the Constitution of the state that prohibits any law giving a preference to any religious society or denomination in the state. The granting of government funding, benefits or exemptions, to the extent permissible under the Constitution of the state, shall not constitute a violation of this section. As used in this subsection, the term granting does not include the denial of government funding, benefits or exemptions.
(f) For the purposes of this section, state or any political subdivision of the state includes any agency, board, commission, department, officer or employee of the state or any political subdivision of the state, and demonstrates means meets the burdens of going forward with the evidence and of persuasion.
(b) The state or any political subdivision of the state may burden a persons 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 compelling governmental interest.
(c) A person whose exercise of religion has been burdened in violation of the provisions of this section may assert that violation as a claim or defense in a judicial proceeding and obtain appropriate relief against the state or any political subdivision of the state.
(d) Nothing in this section shall be construed to authorize the state or any political subdivision of the state to burden any religious belief.
(e) Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect, interpret or in any way address that portion of article seventh of the Constitution of the state that prohibits any law giving a preference to any religious society or denomination in the state. The granting of government funding, benefits or exemptions, to the extent permissible under the Constitution of the state, shall not constitute a violation of this section. As used in this subsection, the term granting does not include the denial of government funding, benefits or exemptions.
(f) For the purposes of this section, state or any political subdivision of the state includes any agency, board, commission, department, officer or employee of the state or any political subdivision of the state, and demonstrates means meets the burdens of going forward with the evidence and of persuasion.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
63 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
19 states that have ‘religious freedom’ laws like Indiana’s that no one is boycotting [View all]
B2G
Mar 2015
OP
20 wrongs do not make a right, good to see the mass media is waking up, even if unintentionally.
Fred Sanders
Mar 2015
#1
The federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act was introduced by Chuck Schumer...
PoliticAverse
Mar 2015
#4
It's especially silly for cake makers since all they have to do is change out a bride or groom.
PoliticAverse
Mar 2015
#23
The reasons for the Federal law (which does not permit discrimination) were legal disputes involving
Bluenorthwest
Mar 2015
#24
The main purpose of RFRA was to protect Native American religious practices
The Velveteen Ocelot
Mar 2015
#27
For me, I loathe religion. I think it's the greatest pestilence even unleashed on mankind! One has
RKP5637
Mar 2015
#8
I don't see much of a difference between abolishing religion and abolishing atheism.
stone space
Mar 2015
#52
Out of all those states, Arizona, Idaho and Virginia are the only ones I've visited.
nomorenomore08
Mar 2015
#14
Actually, there are big differences. The federal act's intent was to protect specific religious
Luminous Animal
Mar 2015
#60
The difference is Connecticut has strong GLBT protections written into law.
NutmegYankee
Mar 2015
#26
This section allows any current Indiana law to be challenged for religious reasons.
LiberalFighter
Mar 2015
#47