Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
The Religious Freedom Restoration Act holds the federal government responsible for accepting additional obligations to protect religious exercise. In O'Bryan v. Bureau of Prisons, it was found that the RFRA governs the actions of federal officers and agencies and that the RFRA can be applied to "internal operations of the federal government."
Section 1 of Indiana Senate Bill 50 stated that Indiana's Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) is not an authorization for a “provider” to refuse to offer or provide services, facilities, use of public accommodations, goods, employment, or housing to an individual on the bases of certain characteristics, including, but not limited to ...
In 1997, the United States Supreme Court held the RFRA to be unconstitutional as applied to state and local governments, in City of Boerne v. Flores, 521 U.S. 507. Unlike the RFRA, which required religious accommodation in virtually all spheres of life, RLUIPA only applies to prisoner and land use cases. [3]
Blockbuster job growth continues to power the U.S. economy, with the Bureau of Labor Statistics reporting 303,000 payrolls added in March. Usually, such strong growth might signal that inflation ...
The US job market is still piping hot. That’s raising questions about how fast inflation will continue to cool. The economy added a staggering 254,000 jobs in September, according to Friday data ...
House Bill 5958, also known as the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, is a pending piece of legislation in Michigan that, opponents assert, may allow for the refusal of service, the denial of employment and of housing, and other actions that act against a citizen's rights if a person claims that working with or for that citizen would violate their religious freedom; however this much is only a ...
Retirement is not an option for Betty, a 75-year-old who claims she’s forced to work due to the devastating impact inflation has had on her finances. “I’m still working to make ends meet ...
The Court decided that the law was a valid exercise of Congress's enforcement power under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, because it was aimed at remedying state-sponsored discrimination, despite an earlier court finding that a literacy test was not in and of itself a violation of the 14th Amendment.