Mertex
Cat Lady =^..^=
- Apr 27, 2013
- 26,532
- 13,987
- 1,445
It was not.
It was actually an attempt to bring Arizona law into line with federal law.
You still don't get it, do you.....? It was going against the Civil Rights Act.....maybe you better go read it again.
The Religious Freedom Restoration Act which passed Congress on a voted of 533-3 and was signed by Clinton.
42 U.S. Code § 2000bb?1 - Free exercise of religion protected | LII / Legal Information Institute(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 chapter 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.
(a) In general Government shall not substantially burden a persons exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability, except as provided in subsection (b) of this section.
(b) Exception Government may substantially 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) 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.
Sounds terrible, doesn't it. Funny that the Civil Rights lawyers didn't think it violated the CRA.
By the way, next time that idiot Jones mentions Smith, tell him to read this post.
And how does it go against the CRA? I'm sure in your twisted and bewildered mind it does.....
And I'm not your messenger...if you want to tell Jones something, do it yourself....