General Discussion

PoliticAverse

(26,366 posts)

25. The (b) part is the same as in the Indiana law:

Sat Mar 28, 2015, 04:13 PM

Mar 2015

From the Indiana law at: https://iga.in.gov/legislative/2015/bills/senate/101#document-92bab197

(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: (1) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and (2) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.

Both are virtually identical to the provision in the Federal law:

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-103hr1308eas/pdf/BILLS-103hr1308eas.pdf

(b) EXCEPTION
.—Government may substantially 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 compel-
ling governmental interest.

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:

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

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