From the sounds of it, the Air Force's attorneys didn't think too carefully about how to respond to Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) claims.
H.B. 2802 would expand discrimination protections but would carve out religious institutions.
Donating to the needy, in addition to being a generally nice thing to do, is a protected First Amendment activity.
The ruling allows Religious Freedom Restoration Act claimants - in this case Muslims subjected to discriminatory treatment by the FBI - to sue for money damages against government officials.
The Administration claims money damages are never "appropriate" under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act - even when they are the only possible means of redressing rights violations.
The Supreme Court will decide whether three Muslims who refused to be informants can sue for damages under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.
But is it actually even needed?
An Indiana judge just issued a blow to the state's First Church of Cannabis.
Mostly, memo reiterates what religious freedom protections mean.
Judge smacks down EEOC attempt to apply federal civil rights law against funeral home.
A better argument is required than a fear of a slippery slope.
It's a fairly pure example of compelled speech.
RFRAs help safeguard the religious from oppressive government demands.
The threat of a corporate boycott has sacrificed religious liberties without protecting gays
The latest incredibly important news on cakes and flowers.
Enjoy that slice of victory cake. It tastes like...What the hell is that?
The 2016 hopeful is vacillating in his support for Indiana's RFRA.
Memories Pizza, while not as gay-affirming as many of us would like, didn't announce pending discrimination.
He is abusing business boycotts
Understanding the limits of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act
Do you care about free minds and free markets? Sign up to get the biggest stories from Reason in your inbox every afternoon.
This modal will close in 10
