翻訳と辞書 Words near each other ・ Religious hierarchy ・ Religious Hospitallers of St. Joseph ・ Religious humanism ・ Religious identity ・ Religious image ・ Religious images in Christian theology ・ Religious information by country ・ Religious initiation rites ・ Religious instinct ・ Religious institute (Catholic) ・ Religious intellectualism in Iran ・ Religious interpretations of the Big Bang theory ・ Religious intolerance ・ Religious Jewish music ・ Religious Kibbutz Movement ・ Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act ・ Religious language ・ Religious law ・ Religious left ・ Religious liberalism ・ Religious liberalism in Rajput courts ・ Religious life at Stonyhurst College ・ Religious literacy ・ Religious male circumcision ・ Religious ministry ・ Religious music ・ Religious music in Iran ・ Religious Musings ・ Religious name ・ Religious nationalism Dictionary Lists mini英和辞書 mini和英辞書 Webster 1913 Latin-English FOLDOC Wikipedia English ウィキペディア

翻訳と辞書　辞書検索 [ 開発暫定版 ] スポンサード リンク Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act ： ウィキペディア英語版 Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act The Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA), , codified as et seq., is a United States federal law that prohibits the imposition of burdens on the ability of prisoners to worship as they please and gives churches and other religious institutions a way to avoid burdensome zoning law restrictions on their property use. It also defines the term “religious exercise” to include "any exercise of religion, whether or not compelled by, or central to, a system of religious belief." 〔(Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. p 1 )〕 RLUIPA was enacted by the United States Congress in 2000 to correct the problems of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) of 1993. The act was passed in both the House of Representatives and the Senate by unanimous consent in voice votes, meaning that no objection was raised to its passage, so no written vote was taken. ==Previous law== 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. In ''Employment Div. Dep't of Human Resources v. Smith'', 494 U.S. 872, 883–85 (1990), the Supreme Court held that a substantial burden on religious exercise was subject to strict scrutiny where the law "lent itself to individualized governmental assessment of the reasons for the relevant conduct." It was not a case permitting exceptions for freedom of religion when generally applicable health and welfare regulations were in question, and it should be remembered that Smith lost this case (involving a denial of unemployment benefits where the litigant had used illegal drugs in a religious ceremony). In line with the scrutiny regime established in ''West Coast Hotel v. Parrish'' in 1937, the Court ruled that unless the law is not one of general applicability, regardless of specific circumstance, government may act if policy is rationally related to a legitimate government interest, even if the act imposes a substantial burden on the exercise of religion. 抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』 ■ウィキペディアで「Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act」の詳細全文を読む スポンサード リンク 翻訳と辞書 : 翻訳のためのインターネットリソース Copyright(C) kotoba.ne.jp 1997-2016. All Rights Reserved.