Posted on 04/01/2015 8:55:24 AM PDT by E. Pluribus Unum
Arkansas Republican Gov. Asa Hutchinson has asked his state's legislature to alter a religious-freedom bill sent to his desk before he will sign it.
"I ask that changes be made in the legislature, and I've asked that the leaders of the General Assembly to recall the bill so that it can be amended to reflect the terms of the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act," Hutchinson said.
The Governor noted that the bill applies to corporations and litigations between private citizens or entities, neither of which are included in the federal law signed by Bill Clinton.
(Excerpt) Read more at abcnews.go.com ...
Looks like Walmart got to Gov. Hutchinson. When push comes to shove Chamber of Commerce > Social Conservatives.
Hutchinson caved with some of mumbo jumbo about the bill needing to be changed.
A career politician has to always worried about big business $$$$$ for the next election and put them ahead of any principles like First Amendment guarantees of religious freedom.
Another Republican cave to Big Business like Amnesty and other issues.......
I think the governor’s point about following the federal act is a good one. I like consistency. The problems we’ve seen with the bakers and florists is one where the state imposes itself between parties to enforce what the .gov sees as a larger state interest. The Act would allow the baker/florist to have an argument, assuming they have strongly-held beliefs, and the .gov would have to support how their solution is the least intrusive into the religious practice of the individual.
That’s what I’m seeing, in his statement about making the bill reflect what is already law on the federal level. If the hissy Left have a problem with that, then they have a problem with the federal law that was pushed by a DemocRAT and signed by a DemocRAT president.
I’m done. The GOP worships mammon. I come back from the primary, but that’s it.
I find “Republican” Gov. Asa Hutchinson to be “divisive.”
I agree with your sentiments re: this nation today but as long as the MSM will allow only one point of view an airing there is NOTHING that can be done.
I’m for Ted Cruz for sure, but if he doesn’t make it I’m out and I don’t care if Ted endorses the winning candidate, I’m out of supporting the GOP candidate in the fall.
Don’t be sucked in by any fake emotional issues to support them again.
I had decided last year not to support most Republicans because they aren’t really conservative regardless of the words coming out of their mouth. 95 percent of them are not real conservatives on any issue, social or economic.....
I vote for a few Republicans, but just write-in names if its a RINO versus Democrat.
I await the emergence of a third party like UKIP in the UK, fighting the corporatist control of the political system.
So it is BETTER than the federal law. And it is to be opposed by the REPUBLICAN governor of Arkansas because Wal-Mart, craving the business of homosexuals, DEMANDS opposition??
I guess I don’t get it ... because I’ve seen references to the Federal one, and I thought the states were following that same one. This is starting to get real confusing for me in the details of what is different. I don’t mind following the Federal one, but then I guess I don’t know what has been added, so to make it different from the Federal one.
I know we’ve already got one such statute in Oklahoma, but I have no idea how it is different or the same as Indiana, and the same question for the Arkansas one.
It would seem if the states follow the Federal one, no one could have any complaint since it’s been in effect for a very long while!
? Please explain further. I do not get your point.
14th Amendment, Section 1:All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States [emphasis added]; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Note that the “privileges or immunities” term which John Bingham, the main author of Section 1 used in that section, is just another way to refer to constitutionally enumerated rights, most of these well-known rights listed in the Bill of Rights.
Dude, you are as ill informed as our Dearest Leaders. The DO J under Holder interprets the act to include individuals and the SCOTUS has held that businesses can also use RFRA as an affirmative defense.
I notice Pence stays as vague as possible so no-one can prove what he is saying,
If a gulag is the worst thing we can envision then we do not yet have our hearts set on the Lord.
Dude — only in matters where the federal government is the one imposing a burden on religious practices, a la the case that started the whole thing, the peyote case. SCOTUS, in 1997, ruled the federal RFRA could not be applied to the states.
I think the governor’s point about following the federal act is a good one. I like consistency. The problems we’ve seen with the bakers and florists is one where the state imposes itself between parties to enforce what the .gov sees as a larger state interest. The Act would allow the baker/florist to have an argument, assuming they have strongly-held beliefs, and the .gov would have to support how their solution is the least intrusive into the religious practice of the individual.
My point was that following the language and practice of the federal law leaves AR less open to problems and challenges because the federal law has been in place for over 20 years. The federal law was successfully used in the Hobby Lobby case about abortifacients being required by to be covered for qualifying ObamaCare policies.
Without a state-level RFRA, any business run by a religious principled person that declines to provide a service on religious grounds could be taken to court or the state civil rights commission for discrimination. With a RFRA in place, they have a potential argument to make in their case. Further, the state must show an overriding interest to force the matter but can only do so in a way that least interferes with the religious practice.
Any better??
Good point.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.