North Dakota votes on a 'religious freedom' amendment tomorrow

[proud2BlibKansan]

Government may not burden a person's or religious organization's religious liberty. The right to act or refuse to act in a manner motivated by a sincerely held religious belief may not be burdened unless the government proves it has a compelling governmental interest in infringing the specific act or refusal to act and has used the least restrictive means to further that interest. A burden includes indirect burdens such as withholding benefits, assessing penalties, or an exclusion from programs or access to facilities.
http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/North_Dakota_Religious_Freedom_Amendment,_Measure_3_(June_2012)

Does this mean a man can marry a 12 year old girl because his religion says that's okay?

And of course, it authorizes bullying gays.

What about an unmarried pregnant woman? Could her boss now legally fire her for being pregnant and unwed?

What about women who use birth control pills?

This shit is getting ridiculous.

[liberalnationalist]

1. what this is

is the beginning of religion trying to take over the government....

someone's religious freedom stops when it infringes on my rights....
we need to band together as citizens to say we absolutely have an unequivical right to have freedom from religion not just of religion

I hate religion, and someones religious BS should not step on my rights, and as in the marrying a 12 year old girl...one might think it is "their religious right" to do so, but it aint, because the slobs "religious rights" stop at the right of the 12 year old girl who is an individual not to be married to some slob....

RELIGION IS GETTING OUT OF HAND IN AMERICA...wanna know why there is so much sexual abuse of children?......R E L I G I O N

[SoutherDem]

4. Women don't have rights in religion

So in the marrying a 12 year old example, the 12 year old has no rights.

I grew up in a fundamental church, I saw husbands treating their wives worst than a dog. They REALLY believe women are to be submissive to men.

[Initech]

13. The thought of the Christian Taliban taking over our government scares the crap out of me.

It's why I will *NEVER* in a million years ever approve of the idea of a new constitutional convention. You think the OWS people are the ones who are going to change it? Hell no - the Christian right will be the ones getting their hands on it. And that's how Taliban style governments are created. Our constitution isn't perfect but it's the best we've got and I'll be damned if we let insane fundamentalists like Bryan Fischer and Pat Robertson enact Biblical law. If we're gonna ban Sharia law we should ban all hardcore religious based laws. Our founding fathers would not want our country becoming a totalitarian theocracy.

[Solly Mack]

2. Blech

Fuckers.

And all because they hate women and hate Obama.

[SoutherDem]

3. Those are great questions

What happens if two religions oppose each other? Which one will trump the other?

What religious freedom are they hoping to get by passing this amendment that the 1st amendment doesn't already give?

I have seen some really wacky claims by fundamentals as to what their religions require.

This seems like the ultimate "God told me to do it defense"

[Whiskeytide]

5. "God told me to do it defense"

... wouldn't that have been the defense strategy for the 911 hijackers? Could this possibly backfire on North Dakota? I understand that the state could easily prove a compelling state interest in preventing terrorism - so the 911 hijackers is a poor example - but stupid laws passed by short-sighted people frequently have unintended consequences.

[msongs]

6. christians are at it again, since they can't win by persuasion nt

[MadHound]

7. Time for Rastafarians to move to North Dakota,

Their religion says they can toke up anytime, anywhere.

[Bandit]

8. Peyote for all...

[treestar]

9. this is simply unnecessary

They are already subject to the First Amendment and the Free Exercise Clause.

[Freddie Stubbs]

10. The government won't have much trouble proving that it has a compelling interest in prohibiting

the marriage if 12 year olds.

[JoePhilly]

11. Shria law? Honor killings?

[KurtNYC]

12. What it seems to ask is that people can discriminate or do something else that

is generally illegal or anti-social in the name of religion and the government would have to treat them as if they were not violating any laws and could not exclude them "from programs or access to facilities."

So if they want to opt out of part of a federal assistance program that helps women, gays, minorities, non-religious people, or whoever else they choose to discriminate against, they would still get the other benefits of the program.

The freedom to cherry pick which civil rights laws they want to comply with. (Right now only the federal government can choose which laws it wants to ignore.)

[Hugabear]

14. What "religious freedoms" are North Dakotans currently being denied?

Unless, as others have rightly pointed out, they simply want the "freedom" to discriminate against other people because they don't approve of their actions or beliefs.

[Rosco T.]

15. Y'all really read that?

"A burden includes indirect burdens such as withholding benefits, assessing penalties, or an exclusion from programs or access to facilities."

So, the church can't stop their employees from having access to contraception coverage in their insurance.
You can't keep someone out of your place of business because of they are a Muslim.

I don't see this as all bad, unless I'm missing something.

It MIGHT be an example of the Law of Unintended Consequences from those that drafted it tho...

[MountainLaurel]

16. This is simply horrific n/t

[hifiguy]

17. The iron law of unintended consequences

should unfold in some very interesting ways should this hammerheaded idiocy be enacted into law.

[white_wolf]

18. The text of the law sounds a lot like the old Shrbert Test, the SCOTUS used before Smith II.

I, actually, liked that test a lot more than the one Scallia replaced it with. You can read about the test here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sherbert_v._Verner#The_Sherbert_Test

[Viking12]

19. Rastas will be knocking down the doors to get into fargo

The bill is so broad, they just legalized weed (as long as it's used spiritually, of course)

[Major Nikon]

20. I wouldn't go there if they were giving out free ponies

I spent a winter in North Dakota once. I don't intend to repeat it. Cold takes on an entirely different meaning there.