Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
The Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993, Pub. L. No. 103-141, 107 Stat. 1488 (November 16, 1993), codified at 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb through 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb-4 (also known as RFRA), is a 1993 United States federal law that "ensures that interests in religious freedom are protected."
Many states have freedom of religion established in their constitution, though the exact legal consequences of this right vary for historical and cultural reasons. Most states interpret "freedom of religion" as including the freedom of long-established religious communities to remain intact and not be destroyed.
The status of religious freedom in North America varies from country to country. States can differ based on whether or not they guarantee equal treatment under law for followers of different religions, whether they establish a state religion (and the legal implications that this has for both practitioners and non-practitioners), the extent to which religious organizations operating within the ...
The organization's 2024 Religious Liberty in the States (RLS) Index developed a catalog of domestic religious freedom, which ranks religious liberty protections for each of the 50 states. The ...
The federal government passed a "Religious Freedom Restoration Act" in 1993, and about two dozen states have their own version. Democrats, businesses say the bill would hurt Iowa's ability to ...
The Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), as originally passed by Congress in 1993 with bipartisan support, was designed to protect the people from the government imposing its will on an ...
The Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993, Pub. L. No. 103-141, 107 Stat. 1488 (November 16, 1993), codified at 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb through 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb-4 (also known as RFRA, pronounced "rifra" [1]), is a 1993 United States federal law that "ensures that interests in religious freedom are protected."
The Religious Freedom Restoration Act is clear that it protects religious freedom for all Hoosiers, and the Court of Appeals’ decision today reflects that clear directive.”