Just asking, but seeing that you keep posted the same link, are you doing it to be condescending, a smart butt, or forgot you did? I mean, I am pretty sure that while we all do not agree on many things we are all fairly intelligent here. I am just not sure why the same chart once again.
Why does anyone think we (or any state) need a watered down version of a Federal law? It is federal law.
I actually appreciated that you did and looked at it. I just could not figure out the second time.
Why does anyone think we (or any state) need a watered down version of a Federal law? It is federal law.
In 1997 the Supreme court ruled that the RFRA does not apply to states or municipalities.
Odd to exclude states, but I am sure the states knew they were excluded.... why wait 18 years to decide to pass your own law?
Gotcha. I did disagree with the final bill, but the initial one that was just protecting clergy from marrying those they did not agree with I had no issue with and believe would have passed. In society as it is now with so many taking to the courts, I would hate for my church to get sued because the priest would not marry a couple that one or both had divorces, so I can see that how it was initially worded could have been useful. (Though I will say no matter how offended or mad a person or couple gets at clergy, suing is just crappy.)
