and then what happened? did not explain the important part
@kevinhull7925
3 жыл бұрын
Smith lost, in a very controversial ruling. (The US Supreme Court said that, since the law applied to everyone and didn’t specifically target members of the Native American Church, and that Oregon had a compelling interest to enact drug laws and the Supreme Court considered drug laws beneficial to society, the law didn’t violate the First Amendment.) The ruling led to the now controversial Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), which says that the government must have a compelling government interest to restrict religious freedom and then could only restrict religious freedom to the minimal extent possible to accomplish its aims. The law passed with bipartisan support and was signed by Bill Clinton and had the support of civil liberties groups at the time it was passed, but nowadays is unpopular among liberals, who tend to see it as a license to discriminate. I do wonder how the Supreme Court would rule today, considering the ruling was partly based on the premise that the war on drugs is a good thing, whereas nowadays that idea is not as widely accepted and legalization has become more popular.
@AndrewLSeidel1
2 жыл бұрын
You forgot to mention that they were drug counselors and they were fired from jobs at a drug rehab facility for taking drugs.
@tbrowntracyj
Жыл бұрын
Whose vision was better the one that accepted culture of indians Or the one that tolerated indian cultural separation from the state Power to deny benefits after power to deny a job to someone who is fired Is more fundamental than this case reveals The cause of being fired needs no permission while the benefits accrue from and for the worker Having equality for opportunities that takes consideration that Oregon was able to recognize Supreme court was peculiar as a remedy
@GINGI9519
3 жыл бұрын
Hot girl videos must be quite desperate to advertise on a free exercise clause case
Пікірлер: 5