Linda Greenhouse, A Supreme Court Hijacking, The New York Times

The so-called bipartisan support for RFRA fell apart before the 2000 re-enactment because it is a tool for discrimination and extreme imposition of beliefs on third parties, as I document here. The actual hijacking is the Court's aggrandizement of its power through RFRA to impose its preferred social policies and second-guess Congress.

Greg Bluestein, BREAKING: Nathan Deal vetoes Georgia’s ‘religious liberty’ bill, AJC

Best reason to veto a RFRA: Leave religious liberty to the First Am. Congress should do the same

Bishop David A. Zubik, Zubik v. Burwell Let’s hope the Supreme Court stands up for religious liberty, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

Religious leaders brazenly use "religious liberty" as though there is a constitutional right to be unreasonable. "liberty" demanded in Zubik is extreme and unprecedented

Kyle Wingfield, Georgia's new, narrower, more cautious religious-liberty bill, My AJC

This is a rfra plus redundancy of First Amendment Protections. Waste of time and dangerous for all vulnerable individuals whether "third parties" or not. One point: the protection for firing based on faith is Hosanna Tabor on steroids.