The Indiana law invokes power to pass on religious discrimination to a third party. It places a burden on others and is not self-contained to the individual and their religious understandings.
Pence is simply wrong. It is obvious. The USA Constitution implies there is no obligation by others to accommodate the religious belief of an individual. The First Amendment of the USA Constitution provides for the practice of religion. It allows special exemptions for religious actors, but not when they work to impose costs on other.
The First Amendment doesn't change and hasn't changed. An amendment to the Constitution would be required to instill a different understanding of Freedom of Religion.
The word costs is not exclusive to money. Costs carries the definition of others in their own esteem and religious practices or in the case of non-religious practitioners the absence of same.
In the case of the Indiana law it puts a thumb on the scale of justice to favor religious precepts before the liberty of others. The other word used in this argument is liberty. Religious liberties. The liberties of others would be put into difficult circumstances while simply carrying out everyday life in the case of the Indiana law.
The First Amendment of the US Constitution is emphatic in that religion is not to be litigated, but, instead practiced. There is no legislative directive that can provide a religious preference. The First Amendment to the USA Constitution is the law of the land. There isn't anything else to understand, except, Pence used his power in the Governorship to court funders to his political ambitions.
Other than religious buildings or grounds there is no obligation by anyone to enforce segments of religion on others. By doing so will violate the First Amendment.
There simply is no provision for religious faith to impose standards on a nation of people and/or in this case the people of Indiana. In the case of the Robert's Court and Hobby Lobby, it was a private company and not the general public. I still think those decisions are faulty and victimizing. But, zealots don't care.
February 27, 2015
We write you as legal scholars (click here) with expertise in matters of religious freedom, civil rights, and the interaction between those fields, to offer our expert opinion on the scope and meaning of the proposed Religious Freedom Restoration Acts pending before both houses of the Indiana legislature. The thirty signatories to this letter, many who are Indiana University law professors,agree with the Indiana Supreme Court “that the Indiana Constitution’s religious liberty clauses did not intend to afford only narrow protection for a person internal thoughts and private practices of religion and conscience.”
That said, we have several concerns with the language of the proposed Religious Freedom Restoration Acts (RFRA). The first rests primarily in the way in which they expand the protection of religious liberty rights by unsettling a finely tuned harmony between religious liberty and other rights secured by the Indiana Constitution and laws. Although some proponents of the legislation maintain that the proposed RFRAs offers a modest and reasoned method to secure rights to religious liberty in Indiana, it is our expert opinion that the proposals, if adopted, would amount to an over-correction in protecting important religious liberty rights, thereby destroying a well - established harmony struck in Indiana law....
Nicole Wallace is typical of the rhetorical populous politics that speak as if she has all the facts and has the correct inflammatory speech opinion that will bring about the election day vote the Republicans have paid for. She actually knows nothing and has an opinion that might count at the ballot box by Republicans that don't care about facts and impacts; but; as usual it is always based in a lie.
...In fact, Hobby Lobby’s employees have been harmed, and continue to be harmed, by the Court’s decision. Although the Obama Administration is working on implementing the solution that the Court suggested in its opinion,...
The Robert's Court is causing damage. It is an activist court that will effect people's lives profoundly and forever. That isn't suppose to happen in the USA. One's belief is not suppose to impose costs to others.
...Therefore, Hobby Lobby’s employees have suffered harm that may well be irreparable, including heightened risk of unwanted pregnancies and other health problems....
Pence is simply wrong. It is obvious. The USA Constitution implies there is no obligation by others to accommodate the religious belief of an individual. The First Amendment of the USA Constitution provides for the practice of religion. It allows special exemptions for religious actors, but not when they work to impose costs on other.
The First Amendment doesn't change and hasn't changed. An amendment to the Constitution would be required to instill a different understanding of Freedom of Religion.
The word costs is not exclusive to money. Costs carries the definition of others in their own esteem and religious practices or in the case of non-religious practitioners the absence of same.
In the case of the Indiana law it puts a thumb on the scale of justice to favor religious precepts before the liberty of others. The other word used in this argument is liberty. Religious liberties. The liberties of others would be put into difficult circumstances while simply carrying out everyday life in the case of the Indiana law.
The First Amendment of the US Constitution is emphatic in that religion is not to be litigated, but, instead practiced. There is no legislative directive that can provide a religious preference. The First Amendment to the USA Constitution is the law of the land. There isn't anything else to understand, except, Pence used his power in the Governorship to court funders to his political ambitions.
Other than religious buildings or grounds there is no obligation by anyone to enforce segments of religion on others. By doing so will violate the First Amendment.
There simply is no provision for religious faith to impose standards on a nation of people and/or in this case the people of Indiana. In the case of the Robert's Court and Hobby Lobby, it was a private company and not the general public. I still think those decisions are faulty and victimizing. But, zealots don't care.
February 27, 2015
We write you as legal scholars (click here) with expertise in matters of religious freedom, civil rights, and the interaction between those fields, to offer our expert opinion on the scope and meaning of the proposed Religious Freedom Restoration Acts pending before both houses of the Indiana legislature. The thirty signatories to this letter, many who are Indiana University law professors,agree with the Indiana Supreme Court “that the Indiana Constitution’s religious liberty clauses did not intend to afford only narrow protection for a person internal thoughts and private practices of religion and conscience.”
That said, we have several concerns with the language of the proposed Religious Freedom Restoration Acts (RFRA). The first rests primarily in the way in which they expand the protection of religious liberty rights by unsettling a finely tuned harmony between religious liberty and other rights secured by the Indiana Constitution and laws. Although some proponents of the legislation maintain that the proposed RFRAs offers a modest and reasoned method to secure rights to religious liberty in Indiana, it is our expert opinion that the proposals, if adopted, would amount to an over-correction in protecting important religious liberty rights, thereby destroying a well - established harmony struck in Indiana law....
Nicole Wallace is typical of the rhetorical populous politics that speak as if she has all the facts and has the correct inflammatory speech opinion that will bring about the election day vote the Republicans have paid for. She actually knows nothing and has an opinion that might count at the ballot box by Republicans that don't care about facts and impacts; but; as usual it is always based in a lie.
...In fact, Hobby Lobby’s employees have been harmed, and continue to be harmed, by the Court’s decision. Although the Obama Administration is working on implementing the solution that the Court suggested in its opinion,...
The Robert's Court is causing damage. It is an activist court that will effect people's lives profoundly and forever. That isn't suppose to happen in the USA. One's belief is not suppose to impose costs to others.
...Therefore, Hobby Lobby’s employees have suffered harm that may well be irreparable, including heightened risk of unwanted pregnancies and other health problems....
