(February 5, 2015 at 6:31 am)Heywood Wrote: Presumably Mr Ham will be suing to protect his rights on the under federal government's Religious Freedom Restoration Act and Kentucky's version of that act. I don't know that Ham wins. I just don't think the case is a slam dunk for one side or the other.
I'm thinking that if this lawsuit gets into the Federal judiciary, the law will be voided for being unConstitutionally vague.
The text of Kentucky's law:
Quote:Government shall not substantially burden a person's freedom of religion. The right to act or refuse to act in a manner motivated by a sincerely held religious belief may not be substantially burdened unless the government proves by clear and convincing evidence that 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" shall include indirect burdens such as withholding benefits, assessing penalties, or an exclusion from programs or access to facilities.
Both "compelling governmental interest" and "least restrictive measures" are undefined trouble spots.
