Human Rights Campaign Analysis

In the aftermath of the Supreme Court Case Obergefell v. Hodges (2015) which nationally legalized same sex marriage, the religious right has felt that protections on religious liberty in this country have gone under attack. As the LGBTQ+ movement gains more traction in mainstream media, local municipalities, and even state governments, many religiously conservative states legislatures have begun to fight back by passing laws that protect a person’s right to discriminate against the LGBTQ+ community because of religious objections. While a person’s right to abstain from participating in a business transaction concerning a same sex marriage has been widely debated (and continues to be widely debate) for some time now, the new anti-transgender

The state of Mississippi just recently signed into law that allows businesses to deny service to gay couples. This bill called HB 1523 signed into law by Governor Phil Bryant is being called the religious freedom bill. The bill now signed into law has received major backlash from the entire United States during the almost two weeks that it has been enacted. The Governor has made statements saying that the bill was signed into law to protect religious beliefs and the convictions held by the individuals associated with private businesses and organizations. Many major organizations including the federal government have spoken up about this bill claiming to stop federal funding to not supporting that state by closing stores and businesses within the state. Nothing like this has ever been enacted in this country and the harsh attacks on the Governor and state of Mississippi have not stopped. Many LGBT organizations along with civil rights unions have called the bill discriminatory to the LGBT community in the state of Mississippi. The bill allows private businesses to withhold service from the gay community due to religious beliefs, which is from a moral standpoint wrong because sexual orientation is a part of a person that is instilled into someone and is on the same level as racial discrimination. Governor Phil Bryant and the state of Mississippi has no right to say that people should be allowed to be discriminated towards because of their sexual orientation it goes

Earlier this year Governor Nathan Deal was faced with the decision to sign or veto Georgia House Bill 757 (HB 757). Georgia House Bill 757, submitted by Representatives Tanner, Nix, Battles, Powell, Hatchett, and others was passed by the House and Senate in the 2015-2016 session. This bill is also known as the “Pastor Protection Bill”. It was introduced to the house following the Supreme Court decision to allow same sex marriages. The bill would provide protection to religious institutes and faith based organizations the right to deny preforming marriage services. It would also give them protection from discrimination if they refused to provide services to anyone they believed infringed on their religious beliefs. This bill would also, allow faith based organization the right to discriminate against hiring individuals based on religious belief. Those against the bill were concerned it would allow citizens of Georgia to be discriminated against based on their sexual orientation. Those in favor of the bill felt it supported their Christian principles. Governor Deal made the right decision by vetoing the bill in March 2016.

This bill allows Christians to do all the discriminating. For example: Say a friend you know is a baker. If baking a cake is a violation of your religious beliefs, then why did he become a baker. Your friend baking this cake has nothing to do with the gay wedding. The cake is being made for an event no matter what the cake is for. Your friend who is the baker is not attending, approving, or have anything to do with the wedding. The argument is absurd!

Mississippi, the focal point of national consideration and some feedback as of late after entry of enactment that could let organizations and government authorities not to give administrations to some same-sex couples. HB 1523 was signed into law on April 7, 2016 by Gov. Phil Bryant will take effect on July 1, 2016. This law makes it able for allow public officials and private businesses to refuse to offer services for gay marriages. “Gunn said he wrote the bill in response to the brief jailing of Kentucky court clerk Kim Davis for refusing to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples after the Supreme Court ruled such marriages legal. The bill specifies clerks and staffers must find someone in the office willing to sign the license, but

This act was passed to define and protect the institution of marriage which is supposed to be “between a man and a woman”. As a tactic, the state of Vermont promoted same sex marriages by labeling them as “civil unions” (Schowengerdt, 2002). The state of Vermont felt civil unions would provide gays and lesbians with the same financial benefits as heterosexual couples (Stewart, 2004). In 1998, Hawaii’s stated legislation implemented the DOMA amendment that altered the state’s constitution and rejected same sex marriages (Schowengerdt, 2002). Between 1995 and 2000, 28 states passed laws preventing the recognition of same sex marriages (Schowengert, 2002). The purpose of the DOMA was to prevent gays and lesbians from “exporting same sex marriages to other states” (Finnis, 1997). A Florida Federal Judge denied two women recognition of their marriage which took place in Massachusetts. As a result of this denial, attemtps were made to force other states and the federal government to recognize same sex marriages in states where it is legal (Stewart, 2003).

However, opponents argue that the law’s intent was “never about the best interests of Texans or of children, but about forwarding a political agenda to codify the permission to discriminate against LGBTQ Texans into state law,” as GLAAD’s president Sarah Kate Ellis put it in a statement.

When the government interferes with a fundamental right, the regulation or statute at issue must meet the strictest standard of scrutiny. In order to pass constitutional muster, the regulation or statute must be implemented for a “compelling government interest,” and must be narrowly tailored to achieve that interest. The regulations in each of the respective states prevent same-sex couples from marrying, or prevent recognition of legal, out-of-state marriages in their home

Hodges concluded that the right to marry is a fundamental right inherent in the liberty of a person protected by the Constitution. The Court has long afforded the right to marry constitutional protection. But the standard test for identifying a fundamental right under the Due Process Clause is that the right must be “deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition (Washington Post)”. However, the majority opinion went further to find that “the liberties implied within the Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Clause have stretched to certain personal choices central to a person’s dignity and autonomy, including their intimate choices that define personal identity and beliefs (Washington Post)”. Using this idea, the majority opinion concluded that the liberty interest to marry extends to same-sex couples. The ruling has helped gay rights advocates fight more than a hundred and fifteen pieces of legislation that were introduced in state legislatures that were targeting gay people. The majority opinion agreed that the Constitution contemplates that democracy is the appropriate process for change. “In addition to clearing the way for same-sex marriage nationwide, Friday’s decision may help end discrimination against gays and lesbians in other matters, such as adoption and custody rights, legal experts say (LATimes)”. Gay couples can now have no problem matters when wanting to start a family because of the great decision made by the Supreme Court. Justice Kennedy’s majority opinion in the United States v. Windsor, which struck down a federal law denying benefits to married same-sex couples, and exactly twelve years after his majority opinion in Lawrence v. Texas, which struck down laws making gay sex a crime.“In all his decisions Justice Kennedy embraced a vision of a living Constitution, one that evolves with societal changes (NYTimes)”. Kennedy makes a great point that the generations before wrote and ratified the Bill

This anti-gay propaganda law was signed in the summer of 2013, and some of the outcries from activists have been in the form of ‘hate speech’ in the words of Bennetts. One the activists, Stephen Fry, has stated the law has similarities to the Nazi holocaust. Even President Barack Obama has stated that he has no patience

The state of Mississippi is taking a step back into the past. The new lesbian, gay, bio-sexual, and transgender law is a law that gives business owners the right to refuse service based on religious objections. House bill 1523: it protects a specific group of beliefs that are commonly expressed by religious conservatives. Second, it states that marriage must be limited to one woman and one man. Sexual activity between two persons is restricted to married couples. Gender is defined at birth by anatomy and genetics. Finally, the bill allows religious organizations, and their employees, for-profit companies, and their employees, and state employees to freely refuse goods, and services to anyone if it would conflict with their sincerely held

No one is physically hurting those who oppose same-sex marriage. However, at a core level, NOM members and affiliates argue that they should not be legally required to tolerate same-sex marriage in public areas, such as schools, churches, or hospitals.4 A law should only protect a harm because a law that protects offenses is problematic. The first reason for this is that it implies Bentham's utilitarianism in that it only takes into account what the majority feels is morally incorrect. This is why Pace v. Alabama was decided in the manner that it was to begin with. People thought the integration of races was morally wrong at the time. However the ruling in this failed to protect the rights of the minority who wanted to get married to a person of another race. In 2015 America, Bentham would have likely supported Snyder, but not NOM because of America's widespread acceptance of same-sex marriage as demonstrated by the national celebration following the Obergefell v. Hodges ruling that legalized same-sex marriage.5 However, the problem with utilitarianism is that it becomes problematic when public opinion changes, as it did with Loving v. Virginia, which ended up overturning Pace v. Alabama. Another issue with utilitarianism is that it disregards the harms done to the minority. Since the members of NOM and the

Human Rights, something that most of us take for granted, are still not a reality in many countries. NorthStar Group recognizes, that as a company with global operations, our business can help to promote human rights throughout the world.

In a hypothetical scenario in which same-sex marriage and religious freedom are brought to a legal confrontation, the constitutional rights of both plaintiffs and defendants bring forth a nationwide debate on civil liberties and rights—yet it is easy to mistake one for the other. In this scenario, after lesbian couples Donna and Theodora married in the state of Massachusetts instead of North Carolina (Theodora’s home state), both decided to move to North Carolina in the city of Clinton where they found jobs to financially support one another. However, when both couples contacted a local bakery shop for a wedding cake, they were denied by the shop’s owner who cited North Carolina’s recently enacted law that allows businesses to refuse the patronage of homosexuals when the business owners themselves have a religious objection to homosexuality and same-sex marriage. When Donna and Theodora tried to hire a photographer for when they planned to recite their wedding vows, the photographer refused—with the issue of religious freedom again been cited in her arguments. Although this initially didn’t come as a surprise to Donna and Theodora, Donna was more concerned about the maid of honor, Bernice, a transgender person being able to use the women’s restroom. Because Bernice was born male, under the rules of House Bill 2—more formally addressed as the Public Facilities Privacy and Security Act (aka “the bathroom bill”)—that would exclude Bernice from using the bathroom of her choice

All people are entitled to various basic rights which should not be desecrated under any situation. Some of these rights include political rights, civil liberties and most importantly the right to physical safety and life. Human rights bodies articulate for tolerance, justice, human dignity and mutual respect for all people. Human rights are protected by ensuring that all people receive humane and decent treatment. Denying people their basic rights are violating them and it’s a terrible offense which can face a strict legal response. Everything that violates people’s rights or prevents them from enjoying ought to be eliminated with immediate effect.. Many people from all over the world cannot access some services due to poverty.