Wicca's New Rights under the Georgia Religious Freedom Restoration Act

a reply to: Rocker2013

I absolutely agree with you about the motivation of the creation of these laws.

I am starting to believe (or maybe it's strong hopefulness) that this is going to backfire on these religious reactionaries and demonstrate once and for all the wisdom in the separation of church and state.

/fingerscrossed

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Rocker2013

I absolutely agree with you about the motivation of the creation of these laws.

I am starting to believe (or maybe it's strong hopefulness) that this is going to backfire on these religious reactionaries and demonstrate once and for all the wisdom in the separation of church and state.

/fingerscrossed

Gawd I hope so.

Texas is trying to push one that says they can just ignore any Federal ruling.

www.sacurrent.com...

a reply to: Annee

But, just remember, these people, above all, believe in the US Constitution.

It's getting worse, not better, I'm afraid.

How has this anti-American near traitorous BS been pushed onto the Republican party rank and file?

I thought they had reached maximum insanity during the Reagan administration.

Boy, did I miss that one.

/sheesh

a reply to: Gryphon66
Georgia's:

50-15A-2.
43 (a) Government shall not substantially burden a person's exercise of religion even if the
44 burden results from a rule of general applicability, except as provided in subsection (b) of
45 this Code section.
46 (b) Government may substantially burden a person's exercise of religion only if it
47 demonstrates that application of the burden to the person is:
48 (1) In furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and
49 (2) The least restrictive means of achieving that compelling governmental interest.
50 (c) A person whose religious exercise has been burdened in violation of this chapter may
51 assert that violation as a claim or defense in a judicial proceeding and obtain appropriate
52 relief against government

Florida's:

761.03 Free exercise of religion protected.--
(1) The government shall not substantially burden a person's exercise of religion, even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability, except that government may substantially burden a person's exercise of religion only if it demonstrates that application of the burden to the person:
(a) Is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and
(b) Is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.
(2) A person whose religious exercise has been burdened in violation of this section may assert that violation as a claim or defense in a judicial proceeding and obtain appropriate relief.
History.--s. 3, ch. 98-412.

Federal:

(a) In general
Government shall not substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability, except as provided in subsection (b) of this section.
(b) Exception
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.
(c) Judicial relief
A person whose religious exercise has been burdened in violation of this section may assert that violation as a claim or defense in a judicial proceeding and obtain appropriate relief against a government. Standing to assert a claim or defense under this section shall be governed by the general rules of standing under article III of the Constitution.

Please show me the BIG difference between them?

And the important case law that applies to them ALL...

But Oregon's ban on the possession of peyote is not a law specifically aimed at a physical act engaged in for a religious reason. Rather, it is a law that applies to everyone who might possess peyote, for whatever reason—a "neutral law of general applicability," in the Court's phrasing. The Court characterized Smith's and Black's argument as an attempt to use their religious motivation to use peyote in order to place themselves beyond the reach of Oregon's neutral, generally applicable ban on the possession of peyote. The Court held that the First Amendment's protection of the "free exercise" of religion does not allow a person to use a religious motivation as a reason not to obey such generally applicable laws. "To permit this would be to make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land, and in effect to permit every citizen to become a law unto himself." Thus, the Court had held that religious beliefs did not excuse people from complying with laws forbidding polygamy, child labor laws, Sunday closing laws, laws requiring citizens to register for Selective Service, and laws requiring the payment of Social Security taxes.

If the worked the way you and these Wiccans believed it does there would be all sorts of new religions popping up that allowed you to get around every law on the books.

a reply to: defcon5

You claimed the laws in Florida and Georgia were identical, and they are not.

You cherry picked areas of the Georgia and Florida laws that echo each other; you know that Florida's law is not at all structured like Georgia's (which mimics the Federal RFRA almost word for word as well as in structure, which I acknowledged).

Are Florida's and Georgia's Constitutions ALSO identical? Let's see ...

Florida Constitution:

SECTION 3. Religious freedom.—There shall be no law respecting the establishment of religion or prohibiting or penalizing the free exercise thereof. Religious freedom shall not justify practices inconsistent with public morals, peace or safety. No revenue of the state or any political subdivision or agency thereof shall ever be taken from the public treasury directly or indirectly in aid of any church, sect, or religious denomination or in aid of any sectarian institution.

Georgia Constitution:

Paragraph III. Freedom of conscience. Each person has the natural and inalienable right to worship God, each according to the dictates of that person´s own conscience; and no human authority should, in any case, control or interfere with such right of conscience.

Paragraph IV. Religious opinions; freedom of religion. No inhabitant of this state shall be molested in person or property or be prohibited from holding any public office or trust on account of religious opinions; but the right of freedom of religion shall not be so construed as to excuse acts of licentiousness or justify practices inconsistent with the peace and safety of the state.

Are those IDENTICAL too?

Did you also forget that the Georgia Religious Freedom Restoration Act just passed SPECIFICALLY incorporates the Georgia Constitution by reference?

You've misquoted which SCOTUS decision you really want to use to make your point when you were absolutely certain of your assertion because you had counseled with attorneys on a personal matter.

How does that happen, one wonders, with so much research and consultation and certainty, eh?

You've completely ignored the fact that the decision that you keep citing and bolding and emphasizing is Employment Division, Department of Human Resources of Oregon vs. Smith (1990)

What year was that decision again? Was it 1990?

What was passed in 1993 that transcended that particular decision by further act of law, referencing same within the body of the law? Was it 42 U.S. Code Chapter 21B - RELIGIOUS FREEDOM RESTORATION ACT?

Was was passed in 2015 in Georgia that reiterates the Federal RFRA pere et fils while also establishing unique criteria relative to Georgia alone (you know, the subject of the discussion here?) Was it the Georgia Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 2015?

Did you forget that Justice Alito SPECIFICALLY referenced Smith (1990) in Holt v. Hobbs (2015) and Burwell v. Hobby Lobby (2014) AND STATED THAT IT WAS SUPERSEDED BY RFRA?

These are the facts. I'm not going to repeat them again. With all due respect Defcon, on the particulars of this issue, you're mistaken.

I am mistaken in my statement in the Original Posting.

The Georgia State Leglislature has not passed the bill, it has only been passed by the Senate.

The Georgia House is still working on it.

IT HAS NOT YET BECOME LAW IN GEORGIA.

This is an inexcusable mistake on my part, particularly when I am so quick to point out the errors of others.

I owe much appreciation for all contributions in the thread so far.

a reply to: Gryphon66

originally posted by: Gryphon66
Did you also forget that the Georgia Religious Freedom Restoration Act just passed SPECIFICALLY incorporates the Georgia Constitution by reference?

Where?
The law is posted above and the word “constitution” is nowhere within it.

That's not even to mention this little tidbit which will pretty much end the marriage debate part of this argument:

Paragraph IV. Religious opinions; freedom of religion. No inhabitant of this state shall be molested in person or property or be prohibited from holding any public office or trust on account of religious opinions; but the right of freedom of religion shall not be so construed as to excuse acts of licentiousness or justify practices inconsistent with the peace and safety of the state.

What you have here is some little group, with no legal expertise, that has decided to interpret the law in the way that fits their agenda, despite there being plenty of case law stating that this isn't going to happen due to RFRA.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
What year was that decision again? Was it 1990?

It doesn't matter if its 4000 years old, it still holds true, and is on the books. This case was specifically brought up to me by John Whitehead of the Rutherford Institute when I initially approached them about using RFRA here in Florida to fight the state. I suppose that you think the Constitution is BS because of its age? How about our entire Civil law system that has roots back to the Romans?

a reply to: defcon5

First of all, please make sure you see my own acknowledgement of my own error in this regard: This Act is not yet law.

To answer your question:

50-15A-1.
15 (a) The General Assembly finds and determines that:
16 (1) The framers of the United States Constitution and the people of this state, recognizing
17 free exercise of religion as an inalienable right, secured its protection in the First
18 Amendment to the United States Constitution and in Paragraphs III and IV of Section I,
19 Article I of the Constitution of this state, respectively;

As to your underlined portion ...

Why would a plural marriage be an act of licentiousness? How is it inconsistent with the peace and safety of the state?

The answer is (as I pointed out in my own commentary about the bill, the Constitution, et. al.) that we dont' have official legal decisions on those specific questions because a) the GRFRA has not yet even become law and b) RFRA has been stated in at least two RECENT 2015 SCOTUS DECISIONS as the basis to invalidate earlier decisions (like the 1990 one that you so favor).

We don't have a final answer yet to these questions, no matter how much you keep insisting that we do.

"Some little group" with "no legal expertise" still has the rights to express their religious belief, PARTICULARLY when GRFRA becomes law. Your estimation of their importance is your own opinion only.

And for the third time now ... to address the

It doesn't matter if its 4000 years old, it still holds true, and is on the books. This case was specifically brought up to me by John Whitehead of the Rutherford Institute when I initially approached them about using RFRA here in Florida to fight the state. I suppose that you think the Constitution is BS because of its age? How about our entire Civil law system that has roots back to the Romans?

What you keep quoting from is a legal decision from SCOTUS in 1990.

That decision was superceded by later passed law passed (RFRA 1993) and the fact that RFRA supercedes the SPECIFIC CASE you keep quoting from was addressed DIRECTLY by Justice Alito (2014-2015) as I have shown you on two occasions above.

Now you're just floundering and going off-topic and trying to make personal comments about me rather than my posts.

I do not and have not stated that the Constitution is BS because of its age, nor have I commented on the significance of Common Law.

Please, refrain from personal comments directed at me as much as possible and "play the ball."

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Rocker2013

I absolutely agree with you about the motivation of the creation of these laws.

I am starting to believe (or maybe it's strong hopefulness) that this is going to backfire on these religious reactionaries and demonstrate once and for all the wisdom in the separation of church and state.

/fingerscrossed

Gawd I hope so.

Texas is trying to push one that says they can just ignore any Federal ruling.

www.sacurrent.com...

Isn't that tantamount to secession from the Union?
I'm not totally informed on the subject, but from previous discussions about things happening in the US years back I seem to recall that any state passing a law attempting to override the Federal government is basically secession.

a reply to: Rocker2013

The Constitution as well as Federal Law is ALREADY superior to State law if there is a conflict:

It's called, unsurprisingly, the Supremacy Clause (COTUS, Article Six, Clause 2):

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.

The oft-quoted Tenth Amendment guarantees the several States the right to make laws that are not the specific purview of the Federal Government.

This issue, however, was the basis of the American Civil War, and the grumblings from the States of the former Confederacy have not stopped since. I know, I'm a native 49-year-old Georgian, and I've watched the sentiments grow (or be grown, more accurately) from "The South's Gonna Rise Again!" in the 70s to the constant state of ridiculousness we see today.

The supremacy of the Constitution AND Federal Law is completely and utterly clear for most of America for well over 200 years.