Civil Rights Violations Case Study

The controversy between marriage equality and the exercise of religious freedom is a confliction between nondiscrimination laws and religious freedom laws. Religious freedom seemed to be an important aspect of an American citizen, after all it is the very first amendment to the constitution. With each American citizen being granted equality by the Civil Rights Act of 1964, discrimination made against an individual based on his/her sexual preference may seem to violate this act. In history, religious organizations typically been immune from state and local laws prohibiting discrimination based on sexual orientation. However, with the cases of Obergefell v. Hodges and Kim Davis this stance is challenged.

Whether big or small, corporations should not be treated like people, let alone granted religious freedom. The Supreme Court continued the horrible trend of pro-corporation rights. Whether one stands with Hobby Lobby, Inc. and considers this case a success of religious freedom or an intrusion, I see it as the court favored corporation’s rights over personal rights. Female workers should be given the availability to use contraceptives. In 2012, the Supreme Court ruled on the case of Burwell v. Hobby. The case dealt with the free exercise clause under the first amendment and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFTA) and whether a for-profit corporation could be exempt from the Affordable Care Act. The free exercise clause of the First Amendment states that Congress shall make no law...prohibiting the free exercise of religion. Therefore, Religious Freedom Restoration Act prohibits the government from “substantially burdening” a person’s exercise of religion unless “application of the burden is in furtherance of a compelling government interest” and is the “least restrictive means of furthering that interest”.

Greensboro, North Carolina, was considered a model city for the civil rights movement during the 1960’s. Compared to other major cities of South, it was said to be a “beacon of Southern progressivism” because of its industrial development, educational opportunities, and so-called “advanced” race relations (p. 6). However, in William H. Chafe’s book Civilities and Civil Rights, it is clear to see that these claims exemplify a contradiction within the city’s history. Although Greensboro was said to have a “higher class” of African Americans in comparison to other Southern cities, the race was still highly oppressed as a whole. Experiencing this type of environment, particularly the act of institutionalized racism, led many African American

One of the main viewpoints discussed in the article was that with the past court cases, they have never discovered a for-profit corporation and/or organization to be religious. And that if they let every company who refuses to abide by this law be exempt because they are a religious company, the government would fall apart. Walter Dellinger, who was a part of the Clinton administration, explained that the employees of hobby lobby shouldn’t have to share the same beliefs as the owners of the company because it’s not like the company is a religious corporation it’s only the owners and they cannot make them feel the same way as them because they are only employees. But Paul Clement, who was a part of the Bush Administration, says that, that is not

In the United States, religion and government have been separated from one another for many years. The reason being is that there are so many religions these days, and people would argue about which religion would take political power, ultimately resulting in conflicts and fights. Many centuries ago, each country had only one primary religion which every citizen practiced. In Italy for example, their official religion was Christianity, and having Christian beliefs intertwined in government allowed Italians to follow their religions rules along with the rules the government has as well. While some people may think that having religion and government together would be a good thing, many citizens living in Europe between the 12th and 16th century did not.

General Order 600-42, establishes the department’s policy against the practice of racial profiling as set out in state and federal laws, concerning racial profiling and discriminatory practices in general. Discrimination in any form, including racial profiling, is strictly prohibited and the department shall take immediate and appropriate action to investigate allegations of discrimination (Houston Police Department General Order, 2012).

We live in a world in which it could be perceived all humans have rights, which are protected and respected by all governments regardless of ideology. For all of those who see things beyond the walls of politics, it is clear that for the majority of the world’s population their reality implies otherwise. While every violation of civil rights and liberties should be addressed, given my personal experience, I consider the violation of 12th and 13th article of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights the most important civil liberties or rights issue of the moment. The 12th article states that everyone has the right to liberty of movement and to choose his residence, everyone is free to leave any country, including his own, and

America is one of the most respected countries in the world; because of its maintenance of peace and because of its history. Racism was however mostly practiced here (Skog 2011). Racism was between the blacks and the whites. The whites did not want to accept the fact that blacks can be as smart as they are. They did not want them in their country but mostly ruling in their country.

The Privacy Office of the DHS created rights to minimize the dangers to, and safeguards, the rights to privacy of U.S. citizens in the mission of homeland security. According to (Lansford, 2011) “the Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties provides policy and legal guidance on civil rights and civil liberties issues; These agencies were created to alleviate the fears and concerns of civil libertarians and ensure that the DHS does not violate citizens' civil liberties”. The National Infrastructure Advisory Council provides advice to security agencies on protecting critical information about the civil rights of citizens. The Interagency Coordinating Council on Emergency Preparedness and Individuals with Disabilities ensures the consideration

Rights are not something that someone else, including a country or a constitution gives or confers upon you. A fundamental right is a right you have by righteousness of your birth in your specific country. We have different sets of right that apply to different scenarios of our lives. A constitution just acknowledges such rights, and sets down a policy that such rights should not be violated. Civil rights are rights help us protect individual freedoms of their illegal destruction and repression by the power; whether that of governments or any other public or private political agent, and guarantee capacity the citizen to participate in civil and political life of the State on equal terms and without discrimination.

While "liberty and justice for all" is embraced by our nation, as well as nations around the world, we still live in a society subjected to the violation of our civil and human rights. Moreover, such violations are allowed in our nation when individuals turn a blind eye to the situation, out of fear or ignorance. This phenomenon occurs around the world, based on systems of oppression against individuals and groups due issues, such as differing political affiliations, religions, or cultures.

"When Mateen first came on the FBI's radar, agents opened a preliminary investigation, which allows them to conduct limited surveillance and searches but not to use their most aggressive tools, like foreign intelligence warrants. The bureau used the authority it had to run undercover sources against Mateen, search his "transactional records" and record his conversations, Comey says." (Alter, Calabresi, Chan, Dias, Miller, Philip, Prusher, Scherer, and Von Drehle)

This tax exemption is a subsidy, and the Constitution prohibits subsidizing religion. As Mark Twain argued: "no church property is taxed and so the infidel and the atheist and the man without religion are taxed to make up the deficit in the public income thus caused." While atheists and other forms of non-believers make up a small portion of our population (The Pew Religious Landscape survey reported that as of 2014, 22.8% of the U.S. population is religiously unaffiliated, atheists made up 3.1% and agnostics made up 4% of the U.S. population), it does not mean that they should be unfairly targeted by an already unconstitutional subsidy (former US Supreme Court Chief-Justice William H. Rehnquist determined that these tax exemptions are in fact subsidies). Unequivocally, this is a clear violation of the separation of church and state, and almost 23% of the United States population is being taken advantage of through the continued tax breaks for churches. The billions of dollars that governments can garner through taxing churches can go back into communities through legitimate, secular government funded programs that accomplish the same outcome as the public services that churches provide.

The government has usurped the roles of the church in many different ways including trust. The American people used to trust their church to help them with whatever they needed. When they did not have a job, the church would help them get a job. When they had no food, the church would put together meals for the person. Anything that people needed, the church would provide. Now, the government helps people find jobs or get food. They provide welfare for people without a job and food stamps for people without food. The government also has Medicaid and homeless housing for people who need medical help or housing. Doing these things, the government has created hope for a better life and trust in what the government can do.

Although the reason has yet to be ascertained, The American Humanist Association believes that media outlets covering the voter initiative concluded that the last minute funding from religious organizations spurred a push in the extra votes needed to solidify the ban on same-sex marriage.1 It is also believed that voters of various religious denominations were targeted using a faith based message indicating God’s disproval of gays in general, let alone their right to marry. It is also without argument that there is a freedom of speech aspect that protects religion from the penalties some would expect them to be charged with. It was also evident in the 1970s that the Lemon test was created in order to prove that religion was using the freedom of speech exemption which is so commonly abused (Brammer 1007). For these reasons, and due to the separation of church and state, churches, as well as other religious organizations, should not be allowed to contribute and/or campaign in political initiatives, specifically gay marriage.