P
- Status
C
ChurchSoldier
Guest
Thanks for posting.
O
oliver927
Guest
I am having trouble understanding step 3 of this graphic. This is how I understand it in my mind but the graphic seems to be saying the opposite:
“Is there a reasonable alternative to serve the public interest?” → Yes → The individual claiming the religious belief exemption would have to then do the reasonable alternative and thus do in some way what they were saying they could not without violating their sincere beliefs. To me this is not a “win” for the individual since they would have to perform the reasonable alternative.
Also, In scenario 1 step 3 it says no, but the outcome of that case says “Mr. Abbott’s religious freedom rights were violated and he is free to continue helping the needy of Florida” This seems like a “Win” for Mr. Abbot but the “No” in step 3 is supposed to mean he lost.
What am I missing that this makes opposite sense in my brain?
“Is there a reasonable alternative to serve the public interest?” → Yes → The individual claiming the religious belief exemption would have to then do the reasonable alternative and thus do in some way what they were saying they could not without violating their sincere beliefs. To me this is not a “win” for the individual since they would have to perform the reasonable alternative.
Also, In scenario 1 step 3 it says no, but the outcome of that case says “Mr. Abbott’s religious freedom rights were violated and he is free to continue helping the needy of Florida” This seems like a “Win” for Mr. Abbot but the “No” in step 3 is supposed to mean he lost.
What am I missing that this makes opposite sense in my brain?
U
Used2beSherryG
Guest
Thank you for posting this graphic. I just shared it on my facebook page and encourage others to do the same. We have an obligation to be well informed and be able to give an answer to those who are being unreasonable and fear-mongering. I found that many of my faithful Catholic brothers and sisters are shrinking from discussing this topic mainly because they don’t understand what the law is about. The silent majority need to hear the entire truth of this matter. One picture is worth a thousand words. 
R
rossum
Guest
That is a good explanation of how the Federal RFRA works. The problem with the original Indiana version was that it differed from the Federal RFRA at stage 1, by omitting the “sincere” test, and at stage 2, by omitting the role of Government – any private individual or company could use it against any other private individual or company.
The New Mexico florist who lost her RFRA case did so because she was not the Government. The Indiana law was a botched attempt to fix that by overly broadening the application of the law. The Arkansas law had the same problem, which was why Governor Hutchinson sent it back for amendment to make it closer to the Federal law.
Not all RFRA laws are the same.
rossum
- Status