Is Christianity A Justifiable Excuse For Discrimination Of Lgbt Rights Within Western Society?

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.

America has been built on freedom throughout the years. Freedom to speak, freedom to choose, freedom to worship, and freedom to do just about anything you want within that of the law. America’s law has been designed to protect and preserve these freedoms. The First Amendment guarantees freedom of religion, speech, press, assembly, and petition. It assures citizens that the federal government shall not restrict freedom of worship. It specifically prohibits Congress from establishing an official, government supported church. Under The First Amendment, the federal government cannot require citizens to pay taxes to support a certain church, nor can people be prohibited from worshipping in any way they see fit. However, if a certain religion

The LGBT community in the United States has always had massive difficulty fitting into our society. For many years they put up with constant mistreatment and other forms of abuse coming from the those who do not agree with their lifestyle. They have for long advocated for the acceptance of their existence and punishment for crimes committed against them. One of the hardest battles the community has had to face was the right to marry in a society that still holds the values of a traditional relationship which is between a male and female. The struggle was quite harsh but it all paid off by 2015 when the supreme court granted gay couples the right to marry. This historical decision did not go without outcry and criticisms. Most of the dissatisfaction came from those who hold very religious values and beliefs that claims homosexuality is a sin. Religion has always been a part of the American way of life since the nation's founding and with that homosexuality has been demonized throughout our society. Now that gay couple possess the legal rights to have a marriage license, religious companies and/or stores are now denying service to LGBT couples as they believe it sinful on their behalf to even take part. Many people gay or straight who fought for gay rights believe these is pure discrimination and that stores should not have the right to deny service for any customer for any reason. However, this belief is unconstitutional and goes

“The power to tax involves the power to destroy.” This is what the Supreme Court determined in the landmark decision of McCulloch v. Maryland. Presently churches or religious establishments are tax exempt. Many people vividly oppose the government’s stance on the issue, but though the government does many things wrong, as many will tell you, this is not one one of them.

The First Amendment to the United States Constitution founded the concrete belief that government and faith-based institutions must and will remain separate from one another. This section of the first amendment disavows the U.S. government to establish or sanction any system of organized faiths or religions upon the people or to outlaw or disgrace any systems of organized faiths as well. But the line discerning the legitimacy of a faith and the true extent of the government's power over faith-based organizations has only remained to become muddled over the past 240 years of its establishment. Over the years, the ideology and true intent of the founding fathers had remained in question, where some believe the amendment addresses to the general

The forty other companies range from scrap metal companies to firms. The forty other owners argue that their company shares the same interest as the owners religious beliefs. The right of religious freedom is a right that is protected by the First Amendment and a federal law that was made in 1993 called the Religious Freedom Restoration. Before Hobby Lobby’s case was seen by the supreme court there were two other cases that made it through the courts all leading to the ruling that companies that make a profit do not have religious rights.

The First Amendment tells us that every single person has the rights to speak freely without the government interfering with his or her rights. Each person has a freedom to voice their beliefs about Christianity. According to the First Amendment the government cannot keep any person from establishing a Church Ministry, we as the Creation of the Creator has the choice to practice (or not to practice) any faith without the government involvement. We were created to praise and serve Jesus Christ. No one has the ability or the authority to stop what was put in place by God Almighty. Men seem to try, but that’s all man can do is try.

Many other states have developed laws that protect individuals' religious freedoms, yet Indiana's law has more of a controversial front to its recent legislation. This action is to help court cases to decide whether a business owner was discriminating towards a customer or simply complying with the first amendment. Most have argued that this legislation discriminates towards sexuality; whereas, others believe they would be practicing their religious rights. Government and religion have crossed paths before, but this new bill overpasses a boundary that appeals intolerable. Furthermore, the causes of the new Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) is causing an uproar due to it's discriminatory presence and the future of this country's well-being

In Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971), “the Supreme Court established a three-part test for determining when states were allowed to support religious accommodations, making it permissible when the law served a “secular legislative purpose;” when the law did not promote or impede religious interests, and when the law would not create ‘an excessive government entanglement with religion.’”(P. R. Lockhart, 2016)

The first amendment to the U.S. Constitution states, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…” The Supreme Court has been inconsistent in the application of these sometimes conflicting requirements. At times, the Court takes a separationist position, erecting a solid wall between church and state, and at other times takes an accommodationist position, siding with an individual’s right to exercise their religious beliefs. Religious liberty under the First Amendment should not be limited to private individuals, but extended to corporations, and only when its application does not interfere with legitimate governmental interests. History shows that the Court has repeatedly found that constitutional rights extend to corporations. This controversial approach was recently seen in the Supreme Court case Burwell v. Hobby Lobby (2014). Today, the Court continues to address this issue.

As part of the promise he made to religious leaders during his 2016 presidential campaign, on May 4, 2017, President Donald J. Trump signed a Presidential Executive Order Promoting Free Speech and Religious Liberty. This mandate, in opposition to the Johnson Amendment, is used to circumvent the Internal Revenue Service’s ability to revoke the tax-exempt status of a church, thereby granting them an inalienable right

A closely held corporation owned by a family who are members of the Assemblies of God church argued that paying for employee’s birth control violated their company conscious. The court decided that the company could be given a tax credit by the government in order so that there is less of a burden on the corporation. This case, Burwell v Hobby Lobby was controversial and the dissent, written by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, was interesting as well. She argued that no prior case recognizes a for-profit corporation to be exempt for a generally applicable law. She urged the court to stay out of weighing of religious claims and found no proof of a substantial burden on the corporation. She also argued that corporations are artificial beings existing only in contemplation of law so they have no conscious or

The Alabama Senate recently voted in favor of Senate Bill 193, allowing Briarwood Presbyterian Church to create its own police force (Blumberg). Briarwood Presbyterian now has the right to “appoint and employ one or more persons to act as police officers to protect the safety and integrity of the church and its ministries” (LegiScan). The protesters of the Bill see it as a violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, which states the government may not pass any laws “respecting any establishment of religion”, including favoring one religion or disallowing the free practice of religion (Carlson). Supporters of the Bill say that prohibiting the creation of their police force prevents the safe practice of their religion, also a violation of the First

A trademark of the United States citizen is the desire to help their fellow man. By the government funding social programs, taxpayer money is granted regardless of race, faith, or sexual preference. If a group wants to receive government funding, then complying with all laws, rules and regulations is perfunctory and their core philosophy may not be used as a basis for discrimination. By extending special assistance to faith-based organizations (FBO), the federal government is shirking their constitutional responsibility to not favor a particular religion. Therefore, government funding for FBO is improper, unnecessary, and ultimately divisive.

In this paper the directions wanted a comment on organized religion, and that depends on the definition of what people interpret organized religion. I have heard organized religion referred to as only denominational churches and as any church that meets regularly. The contrast between the two meanings vary deeply. For instance, I am a member of a non-denominational church that meets regularly and to me it is an organized religion. It is a church that has been set up years ago, that has its boundaries as to where it functions. I believe without my church I would be a lost soul. It has given me a ground to live by and