|
The Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) is a federal law that was passed almost unanimously〔(【引用サイトリンク】title=1A. What Is the Religious Freedom Restoration Act? )〕〔http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/indianas-religious-freedom-restoration-act-explained_900641.html〕 by the U.S. Congress in 1993 and signed into law by President Bill Clinton.〔()〕〔(【引用サイトリンク】title=1A. What Is the Religious Freedom Restoration Act? )〕 The law mandates that religious liberty of individuals can only be limited by the "least restrictive means of furthering a compelling government interest".〔(【引用サイトリンク】title=Apple's Tim Cook 'deeply disappointed' in Indiana's anti-gay law )〕 Originally, the federal law was intended to apply to federal, state, and local governments. In 1997, the U.S. Supreme Court in ''City of Boerne v. Flores'' held that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act only applies to the federal government but not states and other local municipalities within them. As a result, 21 states have passed their own RFRAs that apply to their individual state and local governments. ==Pre ''Hobby Lobby''== The Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993, Pub. L. No. 103-141, 107 Stat. 1488 (November 16, 1993), codified at through (also known as RFRA), is a 1993 United States federal law that "ensures that interests in religious freedom are protected."〔http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/13-354_olp1.pdf〕 The bill was introduced by Congressman Chuck Schumer (D-NY) on March 11, 1993. A companion bill was introduced in the Senate by Ted Kennedy (D-MA) the same day. A unanimous U.S. House and a nearly unanimous U.S. Senate—three senators voted against passage〔—passed the bill, and President Bill Clinton signed it into law. The federal RFRA was held unconstitutional as applied to the states in the ''City of Boerne v. Flores'' decision in 1997, which ruled that the RFRA is not a proper exercise of Congress's enforcement power. However, it continues to be applied to the federal government—for instance, in ''Gonzales v. O Centro Espirita Beneficente Uniao do Vegetal''—because Congress has broad authority to carve out exemptions from federal laws and regulations that it itself has authorized. In response to ''City of Boerne v. Flores'' and other related RFRA issues, twenty-one individual states have passed State Religious Freedom Restoration Acts that apply to state governments and local municipalities.〔(【引用サイトリンク】title=State Religious Freedom Acts )〕 State RFRA laws require the Sherbert Test, which was set forth by ''Sherbert v. Verner'', and ''Wisconsin v. Yoder'', mandating that strict scrutiny be used when determining whether the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, guaranteeing religious freedom, has been violated. In the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which usually serves as a model for state RFRAs, Congress states in its findings that a religiously neutral law can burden a religion just as much as one that was intended to interfere with religion;〔Religious Freedom Restoration Act full text at http://www.prop1.org/rainbow/rfra.htm〕 therefore the Act 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.” The federal RFRA provided an exception if two conditions are both met. First, the burden must be necessary for the "furtherance of a compelling government interest".〔 Under strict scrutiny, a government interest is compelling when it is more than routine and does more than simply improve government efficiency. A compelling interest relates directly with core constitutional issues. The second condition is that the rule must be the least restrictive way in which to further the government interest. 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「State Religious Freedom Restoration Acts」の詳細全文を読む スポンサード リンク
|