Tap any paragraph to write a margin note. Your notes collect in the Desk below the text and file under cases with @. The side-by-side margin rail opens on a larger screen.

Code · Missouri · Chapter 1

1.307. Applicability of religious freedom restoration act — limitations — relevant circumstances defined.

273 words·~1 min read·/mo/chapter-1/1-307

A research copy — for the controlling text, always check the official state or federal source. Not legal advice.

1.307. Applicability of religious freedom restoration act — limitations — relevant circumstances defined. — 1. Section 1.302 and this section apply to all state and local laws, resolutions and ordinances and the implementation of such laws, resolutions, and ordinances, whether statutory or otherwise, and whether adopted before or after August 28, 2003.
2. Nothing in section 1.302 and this section shall be construed to authorize any government to burden any religious belief, except that nothing in these sections shall be construed to establish or eliminate a defense to a civil action or criminal prosecution based on a federal, state, or local civil rights law.
3. Nothing in section 1.302 and this section shall be construed as allowing any person to cause physical injury to another person, to possess a weapon otherwise prohibited by law, to fail to provide monetary support for a child or to fail to provide health care for a child suffering from a life-threatening condition.
4. "Relevant circumstances" may include legitimate penological interests needed to protect the safety and security of incarcerated persons and correctional facilities, but shall not include reasonable requests by incarcerated individuals for the opportunity to pray, reasonable access to clergy, use of religious materials that are not violent or profane, and reasonable dietary requests.
­­--------
(L. 2003 S.B. 12)
(2018)As applied to plaintiffs, city ordinance prohibiting discrimination based on person's reproductive health decisions or pregnancy violated section and the First Amendment's right to expressive association, and the city failed to show that ordinance furthered a compelling government interest or was not unduly restrictive. Our Lady's Inn v. City of St. Louis, 349 F.Supp.3d 805 (E.D.Mo.).
★   the supreme law of the land   ★
Don't Tread on Me
E Pluribus Unum — out of many, one

"If you don't know your rights, you don't have any."

Marginalia · a citizen's law index
A research desk, not legal advice. Always read the cited source before relying on a summary.
Questions or an issue? support@self-law.org
disclaimerMarginalia is a research index, not a law firm. Nothing on this site is legal, tax, or financial advice and no attorney–client relationship is formed by using it. Statutes, regulations, and case law change; summaries, search results, AI output, and member posts may be incomplete, out of date, or wrong. Any interpretation drawn from material on this site should be validated by a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction before you act on it.