Sentences with phrase «exercise of religion»

Does the first amendment right free exercise of religion extend to a business?

The free exercise of religion can be inconvenient, and sometimes more than inconvenient.

To ensure the future of the free exercise of religion in higher education in California and across America, we respectfully call on the supporters of Senate Bill 1146 to immediately withdraw their support of this bill, with the commitment to disavow similar intrusions in the future.

The 1993 federal statute states, «Government shall not substantially burden a person's exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability» without compelling government interest.

We enjoy the same free exercise of religion under the First Amendment and participate, even if from different points of view, in debate on Christian morality and public policy.

Are we to conclude that Madison viewed the free exercise of religion as one of a number of «rights of conscience,» the others being best left unspecified?

The First Amendment Defense Act can and should protect the free exercise of religion without ignoring the freedom of speech, press and assembly for the non-observant as well as the devout.

Their consumption of peyote was a constitutionally protected exercise of religion; therefore, Oregon could not send them to prison or refuse to pay them unemployment compensation.

The Supreme Court has ruled that the «negative right» to the free exercise of religion guaranteed by the First Amendment does not prevent individuals from being coerced into obeying laws of general applicability when doing so violates their religious beliefs.

They are there in order to facilitate the First Amendment - guaranteed free exercise of religion for our servicemen and women.

This decision held specifically that a state may enforce its drug laws against Native Americans who have a religious obligation to ingest ceremonial peyote, and more generally that the constitutional protection of the free exercise of religion does not require the government to make exceptions to laws of general applicability for the benefit of persons who have genuine religious scruples about obeying them.

The American experiment is inseparable from a religiously grounded morality that produced a polity that not only tolerates but requires the vibrant exercise of religion in public life.

That religion, or the duty which we owe to our Creator, and the manner of discharging it, can be directed only by reason and conviction, not by force or violence, and therefore all men have an equal, natural and unalienable right to the free exercise of religion according to the dictates of conscience, and that no particular religious sect or society ought to be favored or established by law in preferrence [sic] to others.

The Supreme Court held that the free exercise of religion required an exemption from an otherwise valid policy.

The free exercise of religion becomes synonymous with «theocracy,» and its practice declared to be a threat to democracy and the public order.

The free exercise of religion allows a religious community to democratically agitate for its legal establishment and for a confessional state.

America has been remarkably favored — «blessed» if you prefer — by a wise and constitutional policy of non-preferential protection for the free and responsible exercise of religion.

(b) Government may substantially burden a person's exercise of religion only if it demonstrates that application of the burden to the person --(1) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and (2) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.

This tramples on the free exercise of religion rights of the minority.

The California Assembly has proposed legislation that is harmful to the free exercise of religion in higher education.

The RFRA Act simply states that the «Government shall not substantially burden a person's exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability.»

Mr. Keith Cressman, a Methodist minister, filed suit against the state alleging violations of his rights to freedom of speech, due process, and the free exercise of religion under the First and Fourteenth Amendments.

With a subjective interpretation and adjudication of such cases, we need reassurance that such would not restrict the free exercise of religion for our chaplains and military personnel.

Marsden believes that «the free exercise of religion does not extend to the dominant intellectual centers of our culture.»

Praying in Jesus» name at a presidential inauguration is an expression of the free exercise of religion guaranteed to every American in the First Amendment.

After arguments at the US Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit in April of 2017, the three judges of the Sixth Circuit concluded that the Township's ban did not present a «substantial burden» on the free exercise of religion of Livingston Christian School.

Clinton said at the time that the law subjects the federal government to «a very high level of proof before it interferes with someone's free exercise of religion.»

The drafters of the law say that it was meant to protect free exercise of religion.

The text says that the state can not «substantially burden a person's exercise of religion» unless it is furthering a «compelling government interest» and acting in the least restrictive way possible.

A church just is an instrument for engaging in the exercise of religion.

The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, after all, forbids the government from passing laws that restrict the free exercise of religion, and the practice of some religions includes refusal to engage in (or, apparently, to promote) the use of certain forms of birth control.

Nothing contained herein shall be construed to limit the people's rights of freedom of speech, freedom of the press, free exercise of religion, and such other rights of the people, which rights are inalienable.

The outcry is in response to Indiana's Republican Gov. Mike Pence signing into law a «religious freedom» bill that will free individuals and business owners from abiding by state and local laws that «substantially» burden their exercise of religion, unless the government can prove that it has a compelling interest and is doing so by the least restrictive means.

First, the Indiana law explicitly allows any for - profit business to assert a right to «the free exercise of religion.»

The Constitution, unlike the M and R, actually the protects «the free exercise of religion» — as opposed to «the [mere] rights of conscience,» and clearly our Framers understood religion to be more than «the religion of the self.»

I'm reading NFIB v. Sebelius (the Obamacare decision) in preparation for teaching the case to my constitutional law students and came across the following most interesting passage in in Justice Ginsburg's opinion: «A mandate to purchase a particular product would be unconstitutional if, for example, the edict impermissibly abridged the freedom of speech, interfered with the free exercise of religion, or infringed on a liberty interest protected by the Due Process Clause.»

We can therefore say that the right of religious hospitals to object to performing abortions, which is rooted in their right to free exercise of their religion, is at best on hold in Alaska.

The «double taxation» of parents who choose a religious education for their children unjustly burdens the free exercise of religion, and that is clearly a matter that engages the propria of the Church.

After all, the first right protected in the Bill of Rights is the free exercise of religion.

In this age and this country, as Lincoln might say, the limits on the free exercise of religion must themselves be legitimated to the satisfaction of those who care, and care deeply, about religion.

To contend for the free exercise of religion is to contend for the perpetuation of a nation that is, in Lincoln's words, «so conceived and so dedicated.»

The free exercise of religion is the irreplaceable cornerstone of that order.

This fall the U.S. Supreme Court will consider arguments in a case that goes to the very heart of the constitutional guarantee of free exercise of religion.

The Court held that where a prohibition on the exercise of religion «is not the object... but merely the incidental effect of a generally applicable and otherwise valid provision, the First Amendment has not been offended» (494 US at 878).

As Nina Shea, director of the Center for Religious Freedom, observed, this expression implies a narrower scope of the exercise of religion.

Religious beliefs were not the «target» of the ACA, and it was plainly not that law's «object» to interfere with plaintiffs» or anyone's exercise of religion.