Maybe those ten should have had those copper implants installed. You know the ones? They allow the recipient to talk directly and immediately to allah when installed in the center of their forehead. Hardly any pain or bleeding due to the installation. They won't corrode and they come in sizes from .223 to 50 cal. Very effective, too...... ??
What I can't figure out is why they wanted to save him. He is and was the enemy. Why not a long range sniper? obozo might love him and his parents might love him but the military who knew had a completely different opinion of him.
If not its over year of the same crap between him and obozo.
OPINION: Good Riddance, Harry Reid
By JIM GERAGHTY, The National Review
From the last Morning Jolt until April 6:
We Won’t Have Harry Reid to Kick Around for Much Longer!
Good riddance!
Senator Harry Reid, the tough tactician who has led Senate Democrats since 2005, will not seek re-election next year, bringing an end to a three-decade congressional career that culminated with his push of President Obama’s ambitious agenda against fierce Republican resistance. That is a fantastic open-seat opportunity for Republicans, who mopped the floor with Democrats in the 2014 elections in Nevada.
This is really good news for Senator Brian Sandoval. I mean, Governor Brian Sandoval. I mean, for now.
The perception was that Sandoval wasn’t interested in running against Reid. He may never get a better opportunity than this coming open-seat race…
This morning, the buzz — keep an eye on Jon Ralston, who covers Nevada politics like no one else — is that the Democrats’ best option is former state attorney general Catherine Cortez Mastio. But this open seat comes after a 2014 election cycle that was just horrific for Democrats, in which they lost the races for governor, lieutenant governor, secretary of state, state attorney general, state treasurer, and state controller, lost a U.S. House seat they had previously held, lost control of the state senate (with a one-seat flip), and lost control of the state sssembly. Last year wiped out a lot of whatever rising talent Nevada Democrats had.
Its a real shame that no matter how much she lies (when ever her lips are moving), no matter how many illegal stunts she has been involved in, the same large groups of stupid people will vote for her.
Trey Gowdy: Hillary Clinton Wiped Her Server Clean
By Lauren French, Politico
Hillary Clinton wiped “clean” the private server housing emails from her tenure as secretary of state, the chairman of the House committee investigating the 2012 terrorist attacks in Benghazi said Friday.
“While it is not clear precisely when Secretary Clinton decided to permanently delete all emails from her server, it appears she made the decision after October 28, 2014, when the Department of State for the first time asked the Secretary to return her public record to the Department,” Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.), chairman of the Select Committee on Benghazi, said in a statement.
,br>
Clinton was under a subpoena order from the panel for all documents related to the 2012 attacks on the American compound there. But David Kendall, an attorney for Clinton, said the 900 pages of emails previously provided to the panel cover its request.
Kendall also informed the committee that Clinton’s emails from her time at the State Department have been permanently erased.
I guess that there is no chance of the e-mails being found in the hallway desk after years and years like The Whitewater Papers.
... the same large groups of stupid people will vote for her.
Sexist.
It's a sad state when we will probably have to choose between a Clinton and a Bush again next year. Nearly 320 million people in this country and this is the best we can do. SMH.
On a side note, any thoughts on the GOP'ers in AZ and IN this past week? Are these ultra right wingers going to have a negative effect on the party as a whole in terms of scaring off the much needed independents to win a national election?
... the same large groups of stupid people will vote for her.
Sexist.
It's a sad state when we will probably have to choose between a Clinton and a Bush again next year. Nearly 320 million people in this country and this is the best we can do. SMH.
On a side note, any thoughts on the GOP'ers in AZ and IN this past week? Are these ultra right wingers going to have a negative effect on the party as a whole in terms of scaring off the much needed independents to win a national election?
I agree. The criminal immigrants and drug cartels have more say then the law abiding, tax paying citizens of this country. But, I don't care who runs I will vote against any liberal progressive power hungry crook without an ounce of honesty in her fat butt. I wish all the conservatives, republicans, libertarians and who ever else runs against xxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxs would all get their collective heads out of the dark regions and put up a candidate that cares about the country and its lawful, law abiding, hard working and tax paying citizens. And I darn sure would like to see all the money wasted on illegals go to the military who are more and more treated like second class people, unless your a deserter.
Conversation of a group of people during GW Bush's second run at president.
"Let's get Bush re-elected."
"Are you kidding? They aren't going to elect him again!"
"Oh yes they will. We'll put John Kerry running against him and it will all work out."
"Good thinking."
Ok, so it probably didn't happen exactly like that, but you have to admit it makes you wonder. LOL!
Ok, so it wasn't that great a joke.
President Barack Obama will travel to Kenya this July for the Global Entrepreneurship Summit, the White House announced Monday.
“The Government of Kenya has agreed to co-host the 2015 Global Entrepreneurship Summit (GES) this July. Organized annually since 2009, the GES has emerged as a global platform connecting emerging entrepreneurs with leaders from business, international organizations, and governments looking to support them. This will be the first time the GES will take place in sub-Saharan Africa,” press secretary Josh Earnest said in a statement.
Religious freedom bills/laws. What exactly are they? In Indiana things are heating up. Why now? 19 other states have passed these types of laws so what's the big deal in Indiana? I'm looking for real answers, not rhetoric. All I've heard so far is the left saying this is sanctioned discrimination. OK, I get it. Enough said. So, my next question is what exactly does this bill/law do? What does it accomplish? Does it keep a mom and pop catering operation from being sued for denying catering services to same sex couples because the mom and pop business bases their denial of service on religious grounds? Is that the basic idea? I don't know. I'm asking.
Religious freedom bills/laws. What exactly are they? In Indiana things are heating up. Why now? 19 other states have passed these types of laws so what's the big deal in Indiana? I'm looking for real answers, not rhetoric. All I've heard so far is the left saying this is sanctioned discrimination. OK, I get it. Enough said. So, my next question is what exactly does this bill/law do? What does it accomplish? Does it keep a mom and pop catering operation from being sued for denying catering services to same sex couples because the mom and pop business bases their denial of service on religious grounds? Is that the basic idea? I don't know. I'm asking.
There is an attempt in some states to allow people of faith to follow the tenants of their faith in all facets of their lives, even in business. Now I can see where some people may suggest that this allows for discrimination. If people of faith are not allowed to live up to the tenants of that faith they are being discriminated against.
The ACLU for years has gone after the Christian faith. There are 100s of examples. look them up. obozo and his minions have (and still are) attempted to remove Christian services from the military in all kinds ow ways, including an attempt to remove a pastor because of his religious beliefs.
I don't know if this law is a backlash out of fear or if it is to re-establish the Judeo-Christian dogma that this country has used to define itself.
I could get into the whole Muslim thing (it does scare me) and their attempt to establish their own laws and courts in a lot of countries but why waste my time, because they are protected.
Personally I would like to see a real separation of church and state. If someone brakes one of our laws, take em to court. But that could cause discrimination. I would rather see the laws applied equally across all of us who are legal law abiding tax paying citizens, whether we vote or not..
Religious freedom bills/laws. What exactly are they? In Indiana things are heating up. Why now? 19 other states have passed these types of laws so what's the big deal in Indiana? I'm looking for real answers, not rhetoric. All I've heard so far is the left saying this is sanctioned discrimination. OK, I get it. Enough said. So, my next question is what exactly does this bill/law do? What does it accomplish? Does it keep a mom and pop catering operation from being sued for denying catering services to same sex couples because the mom and pop business bases their denial of service on religious grounds? Is that the basic idea? I don't know. I'm asking.
There is an attempt in some states to allow people of faith to follow the tenants of their faith in all facets of their lives, even in business. Now I can see where some people may suggest that this allows for discrimination. If people of faith are not allowed to live up to the tenants of that faith they are being discriminated against.
The ACLU for years has gone after the Christian faith. There are 100s of examples. look them up. obozo and his minions have (and still are) attempted to remove Christian services from the military in all kinds ow ways, including an attempt to remove a pastor because of his religious beliefs.
I don't know if this law is a backlash out of fear or if it is to re-establish the Judeo-Christian dogma that this country has used to define itself.
I could get into the whole Muslim thing (it does scare me) and their attempt to establish their own laws and courts in a lot of countries but why waste my time, because they are protected.
Personally I would like to see a real separation of church and state. If someone brakes one of our laws, take em to court. But that could cause discrimination. I would rather see the laws applied equally across all of us who are legal law abiding tax paying citizens, whether we vote or not..
This law does allow business owners to refuse services to individuals who's lifestyles goes against their religious beliefs; those who identify as LGBT is who's this law is targeted towards. To me at least, it seems like those who wish to deny services to LGBT under the guise of religious freedom are only picking and choosing which religous ideals they wish to follow. Eating shellfish, wearing mixed fiber clothing, and homosexuality are all considered abominations equally. For me it seems very similar to denying African Americans the ability to shop at white owned businesses during the last century. These are individuals that are being discriminated based on who they are.
Can anyone provide a specific example of how the law might be applied? And why is there so much more opposition here than in all the other states with Religious Freedom laws? What's different?
Can anyone provide a specific example of how the law might be applied? And why is there so much more opposition here than in all the other states with Religious Freedom laws? What's different?
I'm no expert, but it's my understanding that the issue with Indiana is that it doesn't have any laws preventing discrimination towards LGBT. I'm guessing many/most of the other states have laws preventing the discrimination in addition to the religious freedom law. So in Indiana, you can't discriminate based on age, gender, race, etc, but not including sexual orientation. This law comes right out and says you can discriminate on religious grounds and about the only people not protected would be LGBT.
Sadly, here in MI we don't have the protections for LGBT either, but I did just see a proposed law to eliminate discrimination of dog breeds. Seriously.
Religious freedom bills/laws. What exactly are they? In Indiana things are heating up. Why now? 19 other states have passed these types of laws so what's the big deal in Indiana? I'm looking for real answers, not rhetoric. All I've heard so far is the left saying this is sanctioned discrimination. OK, I get it. Enough said. So, my next question is what exactly does this bill/law do? What does it accomplish? Does it keep a mom and pop catering operation from being sued for denying catering services to same sex couples because the mom and pop business bases their denial of service on religious grounds? Is that the basic idea? I don't know. I'm asking.
There is an attempt in some states to allow people of faith to follow the tenants of their faith in all facets of their lives, even in business. Now I can see where some people may suggest that this allows for discrimination. If people of faith are not allowed to live up to the tenants of that faith they are being discriminated against.
The ACLU for years has gone after the Christian faith. There are 100s of examples. look them up. obozo and his minions have (and still are) attempted to remove Christian services from the military in all kinds ow ways, including an attempt to remove a pastor because of his religious beliefs.
I don't know if this law is a backlash out of fear or if it is to re-establish the Judeo-Christian dogma that this country has used to define itself.
I could get into the whole Muslim thing (it does scare me) and their attempt to establish their own laws and courts in a lot of countries but why waste my time, because they are protected.
Personally I would like to see a real separation of church and state. If someone brakes one of our laws, take em to court. But that could cause discrimination. I would rather see the laws applied equally across all of us who are legal law abiding tax paying citizens, whether we vote or not..
This law does allow business owners to refuse services to individuals who's lifestyles goes against their religious beliefs; those who identify as LGBT is who's this law is targeted towards. To me at least, it seems like those who wish to deny services to LGBT under the guise of religious freedom are only picking and choosing which religous ideals they wish to follow. Eating shellfish, wearing mixed fiber clothing, and homosexuality are all considered abominations equally. For me it seems very similar to denying African Americans the ability to shop at white owned businesses during the last century. These are individuals that are being discriminated based on who they are.
great rebuttal eulogy. That was what i was going to compare it to. it is legal discrimination which is a bunch of bull ***. The indiana one is a big one right now because next weekend the NCAA championship is in Indianapolis
It's tough because I feel like it can go both ways. This is all IMO, of course.
Example. I don't feel like anyone should be able to force a Christian who genuinely believes that God hates homosexuals to provide their business services to them. Saying that they;re choosing which religious ideals to follow is true, but that's like saying we've all broken the law at some point (we have) so we should all turn ourselves in to the police and go to jail. I bet there are more people out there that support LGBT rights then not, so really the business owner is probably hurting their business.Flip side is, what if it extended to other rights like voting, holding office etc. Not sure there is a right answer.I've been thinking about this stuff more with all the attention police have been getting. If I get pulled over, I'm genuinely not afraid that an officer is going to shoot me. Granted, I'm not going to act like an @$$hat and escalate the situation...but there genuinely are people out there that are afraid and believe a cop is going to assault them. Well, that or they say they are to rile people up. Guess it's hard for me to relate when I have not experienced it. Same with discrimination...I'm a Caucasian Army vet EMT...I don't really get discriminated against. I have gay friends, I don't agree with their lifestyle/choice/genetics or whatever you think it is, but I don't let it define them. My team leader in 2008 was gay while DADT was a policy...everyone knew but he never got in trouble. People are so much more than their sexuality or religion. Well, most people.I don't hate gays, and I don't hate people that hate gays. If I owned a business, I'd provide services to both of em. Like I said, not sure what the right answer is...don't want to force people to violate their religious beliefs, but don't want people discriminated against either.
It's legal discrimination. I doubt there are any fourm members that would support Jim Crow laws, but It's hard to find something similar to compare it to. These are people. It's when it becomes the law of the land that I have an issue with. If you were turned away because of the color of your skin, age, sexual preference, or who you choose to form relationships with; it might be an experience you're not likely to forget. It's easy for the people not being discriminated against to say suck it up and go shop where they accept you.
To be President you must...
Be a natural-born citizen of the United States
Be at least thirty-five years old
Have been a permanent resident in the United States for at least fourteen years.
That's discriminating against immigrants, people younger than 35 and citizens that live abroad. Aren't we all about immigrants? Fix it!
It's legal discrimination. I doubt there are any fourm members that would support Jim Crow laws, but It's hard to find something similar to compare it to. These are people. It's when it becomes the law of the land that I have an issue with. If you were turned away because of the color of your skin, age, sexual preference, or who you choose to form relationships with; it might be an experience you're not likely to forget. It's easy for the people not being discriminated against to say suck it up and go shop where they accept you.
I'm sure I'll get blasted for this, but in this day and age I really doubt our collective social conscientiousness would allow a business engaged in active discrimination to thrive. We've come a long way since the Jim Crow era. These laws do not explicitly permit or endorse discrimination against any race, religion, sexual preference or gender. I personally think they fall into the category of unnecessary legislation. If they were used for that purpose, any business engaging in such practices would not only be limiting the market for their own goods or services, but they would likely be the subject of such harsh public criticism and outrage that they'd be forced to change their policy or go out of business. I can't imagine any business enduring the demonstrations we saw in Ferguson without suffering detrimental hardship. If a business wants to refuse service to anyone, let them do so at their own risk. If they can eek out a living serving only like-minded rejects, so be it. I'm not saying it would be right, but those that wish to engage in such discrimination can always find a way to do so regardless of the law.
Can anyone provide a specific example of how the law might be applied? And why is there so much more opposition here than in all the other states with Religious Freedom laws? What's different?
I'm no expert, but it's my understanding that the issue with Indiana is that it doesn't have any laws preventing discrimination towards LGBT. I'm guessing many/most of the other states have laws preventing the discrimination in addition to the religious freedom law. So in Indiana, you can't discriminate based on age, gender, race, etc, but not including sexual orientation. This law comes right out and says you can discriminate on religious grounds and about the only people not protected would be LGBT.
Sadly, here in MI we don't have the protections for LGBT either, but I did just see a proposed law to eliminate discrimination of dog breeds. Seriously.
Can anyone provide a specific example of how the law might be applied? And why is there so much more opposition here than in all the other states with Religious Freedom laws? What's different?
I'm no expert, but it's my understanding that the issue with Indiana is that it doesn't have any laws preventing discrimination towards LGBT. I'm guessing many/most of the other states have laws preventing the discrimination in addition to the religious freedom law. So in Indiana, you can't discriminate based on age, gender, race, etc, but not including sexual orientation. This law comes right out and says you can discriminate on religious grounds and about the only people not protected would be LGBT.
Sadly, here in MI we don't have the protections for LGBT either, but I did just see a proposed law to eliminate discrimination of dog breeds. Seriously.
Lemme guess, Pit bulls?
The dog that holds the record for vicious attacks is the German Shepherd.
On a thread note, it seems the law in question is headed back for some tuning. But, I still find it strange that so many other states have similar laws that have not been questioned. And, I don't find this strange given the media coverage, that a law proposed by obozo is strikingly similar and is not being questioned at all.
And having never read the proposed law I can't say one way or another what the problem(s) are.
Since there is supposed to be a separation of church and state one would think that laws protecting the rights of all of us would trump any discrimination.
My big question and concern is if I have a business and a number of employees does the fed have the right to force say, paying for my employees birth control?
Its kinda like obozocare. Pass it and then read it.
OK, thanks to all who have weighed in on the subject. I know this is a contentious subject and I appreciate everyone's civility while discussing this law. But, I still don't understand the specifics. How exactly would the law work? I've heard a LOT form the left leaning news and also many well established businesses telling us how bad this law stinks and it would lead to discrimination of LBGT but to me the specifics are not clear and, I'm skeptical of their claims. I've read right leaning media reports too. Still skeptical of the explanations or lack thereof, and, still don't understand the specifics.
Nobody in the news business is actually explaining this story except to put their own spin on it and I'm left still asking. How EXACTLY does the law work? Examples, please? I'm no legal scholar so, I'm hesitant to search out the text of the bill and read it but I may have to give it a try.
Surely the law will not lead to discrimination to the degree the the protesters are claiming. I'm almost certain it can't be as bad as all that noise they are making. Indiana's Governor says "This law does not give anyone a license to discriminate". Well, Governor, anybody, what exactly DOES it do?
From Indiana General Assembly's website.
2015 Session
Senate Bill 101
DIGEST:
Religious freedom restoration. Prohibits a governmental entity from substantially burdening a person's exercise of religion, even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability, unless the governmental entity can demonstrate that the burden: (1) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and (2) is the least restrictive means of furthering the compelling governmental interest. Provides a procedure for remedying a violation. Specifies that the religious freedom law applies to the implementation or application of a law regardless of whether the state or any other governmental entity or official is a party to a proceeding implementing or applying the law. Prohibits an applicant, employee, or former employee from pursuing certain causes of action against a private employer.
Cool. Got it. Makes total sense to me now. <----- Joking.
Other states that have religious freedom acts also have protections for members of the LBGT community. This would be the first state that didn't offer protections for their human rights.
OUTRAGEOUS: VA Forces Vet To Get X-Ray To Prove His Leg Is Missing
Fox News Insider
The Department of Veterans Affairs wanted to prove that Army veteran Chad Fleming was actually an amputee. So instead of referencing his extensive medical records or simply looking to see that he's missing his left leg, they insisted that he get an X-ray taken of his artificial limb.
"You think that they'd just look at my records and say, 'You know what? We bought 14 legs, this guy's an amputee.' But no," Fleming told The Blaze.
"[The doctor] actually laughed. And I told him, I said, ‘You wonder why the country is in such a deficit? It’s because you’re wasting money taking X-rays of a leg that doesn’t exist.'"
"It’s like, ‘Dude, I’m not a starfish. It isn’t going to grow back.'"
Comments
OPINION: Good Riddance, Harry Reid
By JIM GERAGHTY, The National Review From the last Morning Jolt until April 6:
We Won’t Have Harry Reid to Kick Around for Much Longer!
Good riddance!
Senator Harry Reid, the tough tactician who has led Senate Democrats since 2005, will not seek re-election next year, bringing an end to a three-decade congressional career that culminated with his push of President Obama’s ambitious agenda against fierce Republican resistance. That is a fantastic open-seat opportunity for Republicans, who mopped the floor with Democrats in the 2014 elections in Nevada. This is really good news for Senator Brian Sandoval. I mean, Governor Brian Sandoval. I mean, for now. The perception was that Sandoval wasn’t interested in running against Reid. He may never get a better opportunity than this coming open-seat race…
This morning, the buzz — keep an eye on Jon Ralston, who covers Nevada politics like no one else — is that the Democrats’ best option is former state attorney general Catherine Cortez Mastio. But this open seat comes after a 2014 election cycle that was just horrific for Democrats, in which they lost the races for governor, lieutenant governor, secretary of state, state attorney general, state treasurer, and state controller, lost a U.S. House seat they had previously held, lost control of the state senate (with a one-seat flip), and lost control of the state sssembly. Last year wiped out a lot of whatever rising talent Nevada Democrats had.
Trey Gowdy: Hillary Clinton Wiped Her Server Clean
By Lauren French, Politico
Hillary Clinton wiped “clean” the private server housing emails from her tenure as secretary of state, the chairman of the House committee investigating the 2012 terrorist attacks in Benghazi said Friday.
“While it is not clear precisely when Secretary Clinton decided to permanently delete all emails from her server, it appears she made the decision after October 28, 2014, when the Department of State for the first time asked the Secretary to return her public record to the Department,” Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.), chairman of the Select Committee on Benghazi, said in a statement. ,br>
Clinton was under a subpoena order from the panel for all documents related to the 2012 attacks on the American compound there. But David Kendall, an attorney for Clinton, said the 900 pages of emails previously provided to the panel cover its request.
Kendall also informed the committee that Clinton’s emails from her time at the State Department have been permanently erased.
I guess that there is no chance of the e-mails being found in the hallway desk after years and years like The Whitewater Papers.
I agree. The criminal immigrants and drug cartels have more say then the law abiding, tax paying citizens of this country. But, I don't care who runs I will vote against any liberal progressive power hungry crook without an ounce of honesty in her fat butt. I wish all the conservatives, republicans, libertarians and who ever else runs against xxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxs would all get their collective heads out of the dark regions and put up a candidate that cares about the country and its lawful, law abiding, hard working and tax paying citizens. And I darn sure would like to see all the money wasted on illegals go to the military who are more and more treated like second class people, unless your a deserter.
"Let's get Bush re-elected."
"Are you kidding? They aren't going to elect him again!"
"Oh yes they will. We'll put John Kerry running against him and it will all work out."
"Good thinking."
Ok, so it probably didn't happen exactly like that, but you have to admit it makes you wonder. LOL!
Ok, so it wasn't that great a joke.
By: Nick Gass, Politico
President Barack Obama will travel to Kenya this July for the Global Entrepreneurship Summit, the White House announced Monday.
“The Government of Kenya has agreed to co-host the 2015 Global Entrepreneurship Summit (GES) this July. Organized annually since 2009, the GES has emerged as a global platform connecting emerging entrepreneurs with leaders from business, international organizations, and governments looking to support them. This will be the first time the GES will take place in sub-Saharan Africa,” press secretary Josh Earnest said in a statement.
There is an attempt in some states to allow people of faith to follow the tenants of their faith in all facets of their lives, even in business. Now I can see where some people may suggest that this allows for discrimination. If people of faith are not allowed to live up to the tenants of that faith they are being discriminated against.
The ACLU for years has gone after the Christian faith. There are 100s of examples. look them up. obozo and his minions have (and still are) attempted to remove Christian services from the military in all kinds ow ways, including an attempt to remove a pastor because of his religious beliefs.
I don't know if this law is a backlash out of fear or if it is to re-establish the Judeo-Christian dogma that this country has used to define itself.
I could get into the whole Muslim thing (it does scare me) and their attempt to establish their own laws and courts in a lot of countries but why waste my time, because they are protected.
Personally I would like to see a real separation of church and state. If someone brakes one of our laws, take em to court. But that could cause discrimination. I would rather see the laws applied equally across all of us who are legal law abiding tax paying citizens, whether we vote or not..
The dog that holds the record for vicious attacks is the German Shepherd.
On a thread note, it seems the law in question is headed back for some tuning. But, I still find it strange that so many other states have similar laws that have not been questioned. And, I don't find this strange given the media coverage, that a law proposed by obozo is strikingly similar and is not being questioned at all.
And having never read the proposed law I can't say one way or another what the problem(s) are.
Since there is supposed to be a separation of church and state one would think that laws protecting the rights of all of us would trump any discrimination.
My big question and concern is if I have a business and a number of employees does the fed have the right to force say, paying for my employees birth control?
Its kinda like obozocare. Pass it and then read it.
Nobody in the news business is actually explaining this story except to put their own spin on it and I'm left still asking. How EXACTLY does the law work? Examples, please? I'm no legal scholar so, I'm hesitant to search out the text of the bill and read it but I may have to give it a try.
Surely the law will not lead to discrimination to the degree the the protesters are claiming. I'm almost certain it can't be as bad as all that noise they are making. Indiana's Governor says "This law does not give anyone a license to discriminate". Well, Governor, anybody, what exactly DOES it do?
2015 Session
Senate Bill 101
DIGEST:
Religious freedom restoration. Prohibits a governmental entity from substantially burdening a person's exercise of religion, even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability, unless the governmental entity can demonstrate that the burden: (1) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and (2) is the least restrictive means of furthering the compelling governmental interest. Provides a procedure for remedying a violation. Specifies that the religious freedom law applies to the implementation or application of a law regardless of whether the state or any other governmental entity or official is a party to a proceeding implementing or applying the law. Prohibits an applicant, employee, or former employee from pursuing certain causes of action against a private employer.
Cool. Got it. Makes total sense to me now. <----- Joking.
Fox News Insider
The Department of Veterans Affairs wanted to prove that Army veteran Chad Fleming was actually an amputee. So instead of referencing his extensive medical records or simply looking to see that he's missing his left leg, they insisted that he get an X-ray taken of his artificial limb.
"You think that they'd just look at my records and say, 'You know what? We bought 14 legs, this guy's an amputee.' But no," Fleming told The Blaze.
"[The doctor] actually laughed. And I told him, I said, ‘You wonder why the country is in such a deficit? It’s because you’re wasting money taking X-rays of a leg that doesn’t exist.'"
"It’s like, ‘Dude, I’m not a starfish. It isn’t going to grow back.'"