enow.com Web Search

Search results

  1. Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
  2. Religious Freedom Restoration Act - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_Freedom...

    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."

  3. Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_Land_Use_and...

    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]

  4. Religious Freedom Restoration Act (Indiana) - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_Freedom...

    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 ...

  5. Free Exercise Clause - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Exercise_Clause

    Thus, state and local government actions that are facially neutral toward religion are judged by the Employment Division v. Smith standard rather than RFRA. According to the court's ruling in Gonzales v. UDV (2006), RFRA remains applicable to federal statutes, which must therefore still meet the "compelling interest" standard in free exercise ...

  6. Employment Division v. Smith - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Employment_Division_v._Smith

    Employment Division, Department of Human Resources of Oregon v. Smith , 494 U.S. 872 (1990), is a United States Supreme Court case that held 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.

  7. Sherbert v. Verner - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sherbert_v._Verner

    Sherbert v. Verner, 374 U.S. 398 (1963), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment required the government to demonstrate both a compelling interest and that the law in question was narrowly tailored before it denied unemployment compensation to someone who was fired because her job requirements substantially conflicted ...

  8. Nutritionists react to the red food dye ban: 'Took far too long'

    www.aol.com/nutritionists-react-red-food-dye...

    The FDA has banned red dye No. 3, as the synthetic additive is known to cause cancer. Nutritionists Ilana Muhlstein and Robin DeCicco discuss what this means for American health.

  9. Michigan Religious Freedom Restoration Act - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michigan_Religious_Freedom...

    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 ...