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.
? Please explain further. I do not get your point.
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 think the governor’s point about following the federal act is a good one. I like consistency.”
I don’t like a one-size-fits-all federal solution to every problem. In a nation where states’ rights has any meaning, there is “inconsistency” by design.