Lakewood Bakery

Freedom of religion is one of the most cherished foundations of both American society and the Church. The eleventh Article of Faith provides an excellent definition for freedom of religion, “We claim the privilege of worshipping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege: let them worship how, where, or what they may.” As society grows less religious, there are concerns that freedom of religion is in danger. In his 1990 Ensign article “Religion in Public Life,” Dallin H. Oaks states that “we must reaffirm and even contend for religious liberty.” The best ways we can defend our freedom of religion are to ensure that our government is secular and to exercise self-government in the

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.

She upholds that her religion as an Apostolic Christian prevents her from supporting same-sex nuptials. “This is a heaven or hell issue for me and for every other Christian that believes,” she said. “This is a fight worth fighting.” (Starnes, 2015) Public-order advocates maintain the idea that an elected official has a duty to uphold to the law. Individual-rights advocates continue to support Davis, such as Liberty Counsel Attorney, Mat Staver, who said “if this country has come to this point where a judge jails someone like Kim Davis for their religious convictions – then we have lost our religious liberty.” (Starnes, 2015) The lack of tolerance for gay marriage has also been seen in Oregon where a bakery was sued for “emotional suffering” (The Guardian, 2015) because the bakery owner refused to make a cake for a gay couple. “This case is not about a wedding cake or a marriage. It is about a business’s refusal to serve someone because of their sexual orientation. Under Oregon law, that is illegal,” Oregon labor commissioner Brad Avakian said in the final order.” (The Guardian, 2015) Anna Harmon, one of the attorneys for the couple “said Avakian’s order is unconstitutional, because “the right to speak freely, to think uniquely, and to live according to our faith is the bedrock of this country.” (The Guardian,

The ability for religious people to exercise their religion in opinion and practice has been a sacred right held up since the beginning of the United States. What happens when one’s religious practices conflicts with public values? This question was integral to the Supreme Court and its rulings in the cases of Bob Jones University v. United States and Church of the Lukumi Babalu v. City of Hialeah. In Bob Jones, the university’s tax exempt status was revoked because the university’s religious beliefs were contrary to the public values of racial equality. In Lukumi Babalu, the religious beliefs of the Santeria Church in Florida about animal sacrifices were in conflict with the public values of the community. Bob Jones University lost their religious

Kim Davis has sparked the interests of thousands all over the country, and even some all over the world. In getting everyone’s attention, Kim Davis has managed to stir up quite an argument as well. Although this dispute has gotten a bit messy, underneath the crossfire of conflicting opinions, there are the underlying truths of the story. Kim Davis is a citizen of the United States, and as a U.S. citizen, Davis’s personal beliefs, and the freedom to express them, are protected by the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which states, “ Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances” (US Const. amend. I). Proponents of Davis argue that not only does she have the freedom to believe what she wants, but she has the freedom to express her beliefs as well. Though Kim Davis’s beliefs are protected by the First Amendment, the right for same-sex couples to marry is protected by section one of the Fourteenth Amendment, which states, “ No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens

The First Amendment guarantees U.S citizen with basic freedoms such as religion, speech, press, assembly and petition. In the 2010 case between Salazar and Buono, the First Amendment was put on trial in the Supreme Court Justice. The Supreme Court examined whether a religious cross, meant to honor World War I Veterans, violated the Establishment Clause in the First Amendment. Frank Buono, a former preserve employee, filed the lawsuit to get rid of the religious cross in the reserve permanently, stating that it was built on federal land thus creating a sense of favoritism of one religion over another in government. By establishing favoritism towards Christianity the U.S government violated the Establishment Clause. This paper analyzes the rhetorical situation between the governments interference within religion

Kim Davis was elected from the people to do a job as the county clerk. And when of the people changed the constitution for same sex marriage this got in the way of her religious beliefs prevented her from caring out her duties. But at the same time in The Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 in some people’s eyes she is just expressing one of her constitutional rights. If the constitution was written only based on Christian beliefs then we would be breaking other religious rights as well.

On the issue of one’s religious practices versus the law it can be a complicated issue. In the Kim Davis situation, she had held a position within government that complicated the matter with that of her own beliefs versus her duties and obligations to her job. Kim Davis while serving had decided that due to her beliefs she would be unable follow through with giving out same-sex licenses to marriage couples, however, her decision to do is not fair as her personal opinion on the issue conflicts with what could be in the law books. For example, it is normal for Kim Davis to personally not believe in same-sex marriage and condemn it, but to use her views in denying people potential legal rights that they have while occupying a legal position herself

While ensuring religious freedoms that will encompass the right of their belief and to express it, while the government can’t make preference to either or (ACLU.org, 2015). Then we have the 14th Amendment of the Constitution which states the individual is assured freedoms and protection of citizenship, due process and equal safeguard under the law. However, for this scenario the focus will be equal protection under the law (US.Constitution.net, 2010).

Since the beginning of human civilization, there continues to be a strong relationship between the state and their chosen religious institution. According to an interpretation of an anecdote of Thomas Jefferson, “He didn’t say he say he believed in the Christian God; he evaded that point. But Jefferson did agree with what all his colleagues in the founding thought that a people cannot maintain liberty without religion” (Novak, M., 2006). While the relationship is inevitable as it is used to unify a population, true government should seek as diminished a relationship as possible. While religious freedom is essential to what America was founded on, it cannot infiltrate our governmental systems

The Religious Freedom Restoration Act, passed in 1993, allows for any business to be entitled to an exemption from applicable laws as long as it can be proven to be due to one’s religious belief. (Rivkin, David & Whelan, 2012). In simpler terms, it means that a business owner or church has the right to discriminate in the form of not providing pro-choice rights to female employees, to deny patronage to their businesses to gay/lesbian couples and to not offer the aforementioned employee benefits because of their sexual orientation. However, bear in mind, in order to deny these individuals, their particular rights, one merely has to cite the new RFRA act. In order to support the statements made previously, please see examples below:

In April, 2015 Brian Klawiter, The owner of a Michigan truck repair shop publicly announced on social media that he 's a Christian and "would not hesitate to refuse service to an openly gay person or persons" because of his views on religion and morality. Klawiter and private business owners like him who refuse service often argue that they’re practicing their first amendment right of freedom of expression, where they’re expressing their opinion on an issue by refusing to serve certain individuals . Even though such argument might seem reasonable on the surface, using your right of freedom of expression as an excuse to hate and discriminate is simply unacceptable in the 21st century. The exercise of freedoms such as the freedom of expression comes with duties and responsibilities, and according to Article 10 of the Human right act (1998), “the exercise of these freedoms may be subjected to restrictions and penalties and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, public safety or health and morals.” And unfortunately in the state of Michigan, Klawiter has the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason even though such action is a clear violation of human rights. Michigan law allows him to discriminate against anyone for any reason he chooses.

“If business owners in Arizona wanted to deny service to gays, they could do so in most of the state under current law.” In the same respect, people in support feel that even if a business were to deny service to a person, there would be plenty of other businesses willing to serve them. Another common belief is that these laws are similar to Jim Crow laws, and have pre civil right movement ideals. Supporters of the bill argue that Jim Crow laws are forced discrimination laws, and the new laws are nothing more than the ability to deny to violate religious beliefs. They believe that religious practices and discrimination do not go hand in hand with one another, and that the ability to practice your religion freely is the most important aspect at play.

All humans are entitled to certain individual freedoms; we all know that, so it’s nothing new. However, the freedom of religion, along with many other rights, ae things that I see being abused very often and that, to me, is a massive issue. Various corporations, like Hobby Lobby and Chick Fil-A, are using these individual rights or freedoms as reasons to deny services to anyone they see fit. These companies shouldn’t have the right to deny service to anyone with unjust cause, even if it coincides with their religion. This is because civil rights apply to individuals, not to corporations as a whole.

There has been much debate on whether or not the United States has been doing the right thing by keeping church and state as separate entities rather than keeping them entwined as had been the standard for centuries prior to the country’s founding. The list of influences this law could affect is substantial, ranging from the workplace to school functions. Even the way people decorate their offices and houses has come into question from time to time. However, remarkably, every person has a different style of argument and a different way of looking at the available facts. I intend to compare two very different argument styles on both sides of this issue, and how two capable writers use completely different methods of research,