Here is the start of Alitos actual statement: The Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (RFRA) prohibits the “Government [from] substantially burden[ing] a person’s exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability” unless the Government “demonstrates that application of the burden to the person—(1) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and (2) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.” 42 U. S. C. §§2000bb–1(a), (b). As amended by the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 (RLUIPA), RFRA covers “any exercise of religion, whether or not compelled by, or central to, a system of religious belief.” I still fundamentally disagree with the majority opinion that corporations can/should enjoy the same religious rights as individuals. I believe this ruling (inappropriately) starts with its opening statement treating corporations as people and furthermore that it selectively protects the rights of some (in the name of religion) while trampling on the rights of others. Lets see what else I can find in the actual statement.
Posted on: Tue, 01 Jul 2014 01:43:44 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015