Replies

I don’t have an example, no. It was a hypothetical—several people posted them on this thread...seems to be fairly normal to discuss hypotheticals when a-yet-unsigned-law is on the table.:)

I misspoke somewhat when discussing the legality of hate speech, and that was my mistake. I recently returned from a long trip to Europe and made the leap that hate speech laws over there were somehow also in effect to the same degree back home.

Actually, if you read the bill - just 3 pages long, and most of it on just defining the ammendmant - it only states that religious freedom will be protected. If anyone can imagine a discrimination against homosexuality in it, they can imagine discrimination against anything that involves the beleif of any religion - that includes cults.

PS: Here's the bill to ammend sections 41-1493 and 41-1493.01 (bill 1062). I know it's mute, but it still supports my point in post 89. I took the liberty of editing out the line numbers and the words that had been striked out to make it readable, though I left in the words in bold that signify the changes that would have been made in the bill.

Free exercise of religion is a fundamental right that applies in this state even if laws, rules or other government actions are facially neutral.

B. Except as provided in subsection C OF THIS SECTION, STATE ACTION shall not substantially burden a person's exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability.

C. STATE ACTION may substantially burden a person's exercise of religion only if THE OPPOSING PARTY demonstrates that application of the burden to the PERSON'S EXERCISE OF RELIGION IN THIS PARTICULAR INSTANCE is both:

1. In furtherance of a compelling governmental interest.

2. The least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.

D. A person whose religious exercise is burdened in violation of this section may assert that violation as a claim or defense in a judicial proceeding, REGARDLESS OF WHETHER THE GOVERNMENT IS A PARTY TO THE PROCEEDING. THE PERSON ASSERTING SUCH A CLAIM OR DEFENSE MAY OBTAIN APPROPRIATE RELIEF. A party who prevails in any action to enforce this article against a government shall recover attorney fees and costs.

E. FOR THE PURPOSES OF this section, the term substantially burden is intended solely to ensure that this article is not triggered by trivial, technical or de minimis infractions.

F. FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS SECTION, "STATE ACTION" MEANS ANY ACTION BY THE GOVERNMENT OR THE IMPLEMENTATION OR APPLICATION OF ANY LAW, INCLUDING STATE AND LOCAL LAWS, ORDINANCES, RULES, REGULATIONS AND POLICIES, WHETHER STATUTORY OR OTHERWISE, AND WHETHER THE IMPLEMENTATION OR APPLICATION IS MADE OR ATTEMPTED TO BE MADE BY THE GOVERNMENT OR NONGOVERNMENTAL PERSONS.