Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
The Religious Freedom Restoration Act was a cornerstone for tribes challenging the National Forest Service's plans to permit upgrades to Arizona's Snowbowl ski resort. Six tribes were involved, including the Navajo, Hopi, Havasupai, and Hualapai. The tribes objected on religious grounds to the plans to use reclaimed water.
In the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which usually serves as a model for state RFRAs, Congress states in its findings that a religiously neutral law can burden a religion just as much as one that was intended to interfere with religion; [11] therefore the act states that the "Government shall not substantially burden a person's ...
In a similar spirit, Indiana’s Religious Freedom Restoration Act provides that the state “may substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion only if [it] demonstrates that application ...
The plaintiffs argued that the rule violated protections for religious freedom under the U.S. Constitution's First Amendment and a federal law called the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. The ...
The Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), as originally passed by Congress in 1993 with bipartisan support, was designed to protect the people from the government imposing its will on an ...
House Bill 5958, also known as the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, is a pending piece of legislation in Michigan that, opponents assert, may allow for the refusal of service, the denial of employment and of housing, and other actions that act against a citizen's rights if a person claims that working with or for that citizen would violate their religious freedom; however this much is only a ...
The Religious Freedom Restoration Act is clear that it protects religious freedom for all Hoosiers, and the Court of Appeals’ decision today reflects that clear directive.”
The archbishop brought suit, challenging the ruling under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) of 1993. Flores argued that the Boerne, Texas, congregation had outgrown the existing structure, rendering the ruling a substantial burden on the free exercise of religion without a compelling state interest. [3]