- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Serious question/hypothetical for you legal eagle types
Posted on 2/27/14 at 2:48 pm to VOLhalla
Posted on 2/27/14 at 2:48 pm to VOLhalla
quote:
Having a religious belief can invalidate a law? Explain please
If the law violates Free Exercise as encompassed by the First Amendment, or a state constitutional or statutory right regarding religious practice, then the law may be invalidated. States have to show a "compelling interest" in order to regulate a religious practice (Sherbert v. Verner.)
In fact, this bill in AZ has been so egregiously misrepresented by the media that 99.9% of people don't realize that it is nothing more than a clarification on AZ's version of Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) - a federal statute which permits those accused of breaking the law with a "religious practice" defense.
This post was edited on 2/27/14 at 2:50 pm
3
Posted on 2/27/14 at 2:55 pm to Antonio Moss
Again, it's been a while, but wasn't sherbet overturned?
And do you agree with the statement that having a religious belief doesn't automatically give one an out from obeying a Constitutionally valid law?
And do you agree with the statement that having a religious belief doesn't automatically give one an out from obeying a Constitutionally valid law?
Posted on 2/27/14 at 3:17 pm to Antonio Moss
quote:
In fact, this bill in AZ has been so egregiously misrepresented by the media that 99.9% of people don't realize that it is nothing more than a clarification on AZ's version of Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) - a federal statute which permits those accused of breaking the law with a "religious practice" defense.
It was redundant and unnecessary, but the clear intent and message expressed by all of its supporters was that it was specifically targeting gays and that's what I find objectionable and I think created the firestorm.
Posted on 2/27/14 at 8:46 pm to Antonio Moss
quote:
In fact, this bill in AZ has been so egregiously misrepresented by the media that 99.9% of people don't realize that it is nothing more than a clarification on AZ's version of Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) - a federal statute which permits those accused of breaking the law with a "religious practice" defense.
Correct.
It was a freedom bill, not a discrimination bill that the loudmouths thought it was.
Page 1 of 1
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News