How RFRA Works, Explained In One Chart [For low-information voters who don't want to remain so]

The Federalist ^ | 04/01/2015 | Sean Davis

[SeekAndFind]

Despite the deliberate misinformation being spread by Leftist activists and their friends in the media, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, or RFRA, is not a complicated law. It is not difficult to understand. It is not a blanket license to discriminate.

The RFRA statutes, which currently bind nearly two dozen state governments as well as the federal government, require courts to use a simple balancing test when weighing the facts of specific religious freedom cases. The laws state that the government may only substantially burden the free exercise of religion of a person or organization if the government 1) has a compelling interest to do so, and 2) is using the least restrictive means possible to further that compelling interest. In legal parlance, RFRA requires courts to use strict scrutiny when adjudicating these types of cases.

[SeekAndFind]

[Steve_Seattle]

The problem is that it appears that a person must GO TO COURT - a very expensive and time-consuming process - in order to guarantee their freedom of conscience. Now, maybe once a precedent is set, not everyone would need to go to court, but the government can fine you despite precedent, and you would still need to go to court. This law does not seem very favorable to small business.

[SeekAndFind]

RE: The problem is that it appears that a person must GO TO COURT

That is of course, if an aggrieved party ( e.g. gay couple ) sues.

But then that will happen anyway without RFRA.

At least with RFRA, the person has some lawful protection he can cite.

[DoodleDawg]

So how does step two work when the government is not a party to the dispute?

[Attention Surplus Disorder]

So far, that’s 42,358 neurons more than any given lib has available to attempt to understand this issue.

[SoFloFreeper]

posted here:

http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3274662/posts

[donna]

Forcing Christians to participate in gay sexual
ceremonies/activities is rape.

We should repeat “rape” in every other sentence when we
discuss this issue. And, Christians should be filing sexual
harassment suits against the gay lobby.

[Coronal]

Good question, one which few seem to ask.

[etcb]

The government is always a party in enforcement of a law enacted by government. The RFRA simply gives a defence to a party charged under the anti discrimination law.

[DoodleDawg]

The government is always a party in enforcement of a law enacted by government.

From Section 9 of the law: "A person whose exercise of religion has been substantially burdened, or is likely to be substantially burdened, by a violation of this chapter may assert the violation or impending violation as a claim or defense in a judicial or administrative proceeding, regardless of whether the state or any other governmental entity is a party to the proceeding."

In neither the photographer case or the baker case was the government a party to the proceedings.

[etcb]

I was wrong to speak before researching the matter and certainly appreciate the polite manner in which you corrected my error.

[Intolerant in NJ]

... if the government 1) has a compelling interest to do so...and since every case where a person is forced to act contra to his religious beliefs violates his religious practices, whereas in virtually all cases the supposed aggrieved parties have alternatives to forcing that violation (they can go to other photographers or pizza shops), the government would very rarely seem to have a "compelling interest" to force the businessman to comply.....

[tet68]

Considering the rate that the gay community contracts
AIDs or HIV and other STDs, it would seem to be a safety issue to be forced to engage in close contact with them.
Be that as it may, I worry about the effect of Islam
using this as justification for it’s treatment of the
unbelievers.