Talk:Religious Freedom Restoration Act

Deciding Communication Law: Key Cases in Context (Susan Dente Ross)
I don't currently have time to correct this, but just a heads-up for anyone with more than a passing interest in this article: some of the passages cited from Susan Ross' book are nearly copied verbatim rather than merely drawing upon her information or even paraphrasing. · Andonic  contact 16:03, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't have time to look more closely at this just now either, but I do see that the book is previewable online vie Google Books. See Wtmitchell  (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 23:19, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Sponshorship discrepancy corrected
I just corrected an error in the introductory paragraph claiming that this bill "was introduced by Howard McKeon of California and Dean Gallo of New Jersey", cited to the following page: "Religious Freedom Restoration Act full text at http://www.prop1.org/rainbow/rfra.htm". The good-faith error was due to a poor transcription of the bill's text by the source.

The actual Introduction statement, from the full-text PDF of HR 1308 as viewable in the THOMAS data is as follows (apologies for any spacing damage I may have missed, copy-pasting from the PDF made a mess of the text and required serious cleanup):

However, the cited source commits the grave error of truncating this to:

Obviously, in light of this, the http://www.prop1.org/rainbow/rfra.htm page cannot be considered a reliable source. I would ask that editors refrain from using it as a reference for further work on this article. The Bill's full text is adequately accessible at the canonical sources, either the Library Of Congress's THOMAS system or the Congress.gov site that will eventually replace it. – FeRD_NYC (talk) 10:34, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Direct quote in the lead
An earlier version of this article used a direct quote from a primary source in the lead - "substantially burden". This has been replaced with an interpretation, but without a secondary source (the source given is a primary one). I'm reverting to the original per policy at WP:PRIMARY and elsewhere. Andyjsmith (talk) 13:51, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Hmmm... this seems to have provoked a dispute. The original phrase - "substantially burden" - is a direct quote and is referenced earlier in the same sentence, here. I am unable to find the current phrase "ensures that interests in religious freedom are protected" in the cited source. Any ideas? Andyjsmith (talk) 14:35, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
 * is in page 56 of the reference (burwell v hobby lobby opinion) Ctrl F found it pretty quickly. Bryce Carmony (talk) 15:24, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Informative news article

 * "So just what are religious freedom laws designed to protect?", LA Times. • Sbmeirow  •  Talk  • 17:44, 3 April 2015 (UTC)