As some may know I recently became a father. I should then add my normal apology in case my lack of sleep leaves anything unclear.
I began to write a diary about Constitutional Issues that I saw.
However, I think more important is the statement that seems to indicate this law is the norm.
I wanted then to delve into the way the 1993 federal law came about.
I think you will see well Mike is lying as this is not to rectify someone being denied benefits for smoking peyote . . .
Dont be fooled by pence statements federal law
In Mike Pence's statement he makes multiple references to similar laws, other states, the federal government. Almost ironically saying it is just the same as the Federal law, but well we need it because of the federal government.
“The Constitution of the United States and the Indiana Constitution both provide strong recognition of the freedom of religion"
“Fortunately, in the 1990s Congress passed, and President Clinton signed, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act—limiting government action that would infringe upon religion to only those that did not substantially burden free exercise of religion absent a compelling state interest and in the least restrictive means.
"but that act does not apply to individual states or local government action. At present, nineteen states—including our neighbors in Illinois and Kentucky—have adopted Religious Freedom Restoration statutes. And in eleven additional states, the courts have interpreted their constitutions to provide a heightened standard for reviewing government action."
“In order to ensure that religious liberty is fully protected under Indiana law, this year our General Assembly joined those 30 states and the federal government to enshrine these principles in Indiana law, and I fully support that action.
So . . . we are just doing what everyone else did.
No.
Please equip yourselves with an understanding leading up to the 1993 bill. I did a few hours ago. the circumstances are so different you may not have a problem with the 1993 bill (as intended).
Why the Federal Bill Is around
In Employment Division v. Smith, the Court denied Smith, a member of the Native American Church, a constitutional exemption from generally applicable laws that burdened religious conduct.
No one can get unemployment benefits if they do drugs and are discharged (generally applicable law) if your religion says smoke peyote well that's actual PRACTICE Mike.
Smith, a drug counselor, was denied unemployment benefits after he was discharged for violating an Oregon criminal law against illegal drug use. This was so even though the drug (peyote) was used in a sacred ceremony of his Native American religion.(fn43)
At first the Court denied exemptions for religiously motivated conduct that violated generally applicable laws. Mormon polygamy case is one of several examples.
Some Unemployment cases were different. But Smith returned. Instead of following the cases requiring exemptions, the Court returned to its original rule that denied a religious exemption from generally applicable laws that burdened religiously motivated
conduct.
Employment Division, Department of Human Resources of Oregon vs. Smith, 494 U.S. 872 (1990), is a United States Supreme Court case that determined that the state could deny unemployment benefits to a person fired for violating a state prohibition on the use of peyote, even though the use of the drug was part of a religious ritual. Although states have the power to accommodate otherwise illegal acts done in pursuit of religious beliefs, they are not required to do so.
There was a backlash to this change . . .Congress responded to Smith with the Religious Freedom Restoration Act ("RFRA" or "the Act") Under the Act, the government (state and national) could not substantially burden the exercise of religion unless the government had a compelling interest in doing so and pursued this
interest by narrowly tailored means.
There is obviously a big difference. And I am not fooled. One is allowing ceremony actual practice. I don't really have a problem of having protected someone's right to smoke peyote.
But that is not what we are talking about. So stop pretending this is anything but what it is Mike. And someone list all the businesses I need to avoid.