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

NutmegYankee

(16,483 posts)
22. I call Bullshit for Connecticut
Sat Mar 28, 2015, 04:55 PM
Mar 2015

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 person’s exercise of religion. (a) The state or any political subdivision of the state shall not burden a person’s 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 person’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 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.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

20 wrongs do not make a right, good to see the mass media is waking up, even if unintentionally. Fred Sanders Mar 2015 #1
What's your point? 99Forever Mar 2015 #2
This was to inform people B2G Mar 2015 #3
Some of the states listed ban discrimination against LGBT persons. NutmegYankee Mar 2015 #35
The federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act was introduced by Chuck Schumer... PoliticAverse Mar 2015 #4
Was there this much aversion B2G Mar 2015 #5
It was extremely 'bi-partisan'... PoliticAverse Mar 2015 #7
Still scratching my head... nt B2G Mar 2015 #9
The issue is coming to a head now primarily because of same-sex marriage PoliticAverse Mar 2015 #11
you really have to have a lot of hate... awoke_in_2003 Mar 2015 #20
It's especially silly for cake makers since all they have to do is change out a bride or groom. PoliticAverse Mar 2015 #23
Exactly.... sendero Mar 2015 #32
the problem with the law awoke_in_2003 Mar 2015 #33
Well... sendero Mar 2015 #34
No, it implies... awoke_in_2003 Mar 2015 #57
Seriously? stone space Mar 2015 #40
The reasons for the Federal law (which does not permit discrimination) were legal disputes involving Bluenorthwest Mar 2015 #24
The scope of that bill was not intended for that purpose. LiberalFighter Mar 2015 #42
The main purpose of RFRA was to protect Native American religious practices The Velveteen Ocelot Mar 2015 #27
K&R! marym625 Mar 2015 #6
For me, I loathe religion. I think it's the greatest pestilence even unleashed on mankind! One has RKP5637 Mar 2015 #8
+1000 marym625 Mar 2015 #19
I've heard of folks who loathe atheism, also. stone space Mar 2015 #29
It is, and hence a divided nation. n/t RKP5637 Mar 2015 #30
Should atheism be abolished? You talk about abolishing religion. (nt) stone space Mar 2015 #31
In my perfect world there would be neither. n/t RKP5637 Mar 2015 #36
Agnostics Rule! (nt) stone space Mar 2015 #37
Yes, agree, they should! n/t RKP5637 Mar 2015 #38
. stone space Mar 2015 #39
How is atheism a religion? haikugal Mar 2015 #43
Who said that atheism is a religion? (nt) stone space Mar 2015 #46
Your question implied it haikugal Mar 2015 #49
I don't see much of a difference between abolishing religion and abolishing atheism. stone space Mar 2015 #52
Clarity, Thx. haikugal Mar 2015 #53
No, not even slightly. Donald Ian Rankin Mar 2015 #62
I'm not sure what your point here is. stone space Mar 2015 #63
Magic-thinking is fatal. nt valerief Mar 2015 #56
IMO this is an excellent informative post! Thanks! n/t RKP5637 Mar 2015 #10
I am okay with boycotting all of them Kalidurga Mar 2015 #12
Oklahoma laws were killed OKNancy Mar 2015 #13
Out of all those states, Arizona, Idaho and Virginia are the only ones I've visited. nomorenomore08 Mar 2015 #14
ACLU: "The timing of this legislation is important to understanding its INTENT: Zorra Mar 2015 #15
But that doesn't change the fact that the text of the bill B2G Mar 2015 #17
I didn't say it did. But it is the reason that Indiana is at the forefront of Zorra Mar 2015 #18
Probably because of ALEC awoke_in_2003 Mar 2015 #21
It is not almost identical. Neither are the states. LiberalFighter Mar 2015 #45
Actually, there are big differences. The federal act's intent was to protect specific religious Luminous Animal Mar 2015 #60
thanks for posting and highlighting the differences. salin Mar 2015 #61
I believe Kansas was the first state to start this MuseRider Mar 2015 #16
I call Bullshit for Connecticut NutmegYankee Mar 2015 #22
The (b) part is the same as in the Indiana law: PoliticAverse Mar 2015 #25
The difference is Connecticut has strong GLBT protections written into law. NutmegYankee Mar 2015 #26
The laws are similar but not identical with important differences riderinthestorm Mar 2015 #28
This section allows any current Indiana law to be challenged for religious reasons. LiberalFighter Mar 2015 #47
Thank you for the specific details. riderinthestorm Mar 2015 #51
Supremely dishonest article and OP alcibiades_mystery Mar 2015 #41
Thank you LiberalFighter Mar 2015 #50
Give us time - nt LiberalElite Mar 2015 #44
Its even worse...31 according to this workinclasszero Mar 2015 #48
Michican has one going through the Lansing cesspool right now project_bluebook Mar 2015 #54
You know that bastard will workinclasszero Mar 2015 #55
I don't think Dickie will sign it. roamer65 Mar 2015 #58
You may be right project_bluebook Mar 2015 #59
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»19 states that have ‘reli...»Reply #22