Local Religious Freedom Restoration Act

Prior to the Second World War, religious places remained untouched as they were mainly located in rural areas. However, the period after the Second World War was characterized by an increase in population, corporate farming, a more vibrant timber industry as well as an expanded recreational industry. This change resulted in less respect for the public land, and the situation was made worse by the proliferation of state and federal agencies that have no respect for the public land. It thus becomes difficult for the Native Indians to have access to shrines as the politicians’ promulgated rules that disregarded public land particularly places of worship. One such narrow-minded law that has failed to achieve its ultimate goal is the American Indian Religious Freedom Act that was enacted in 1978. The law made it clear the government efforts of protecting the religious rights of the American Indians not only to express their belief but also to practice this believes through traditional religion. However, this law faced major blows especially on the corridors of justice where the Court viewed the Congress’ action in enacting the American Indian Religious Freedom Act as efforts of the government to establish a state religion.

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 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.

Individuals in America possess many freedoms that individuals in foreign countries like China, South Korea, and Afghanistan do not have access to. The liberties granted by the First Amendment gives people the right to express their personal and religious beliefs without interference from the Government. The protection given to the people by the First Amendment stops the Government from becoming too strong or monarchical, a fear that comes from the oppressive rule of Great Britain that the Founding Fathers desperately wanted to avoid happening again. The preservation of individuals expressing their political, religious, or personal beliefs is an important right of American citizens that should not be overlooked. A recent illustration of the First Amendment in use for individuals can be seen with the Supreme Court case Obergefell v. Hodges in 2015. The Court ruling directly impacts individuals by giving people the legal right to have same-sex marriages.

The advancement of the Fourteenth Amendment, as indicated by Eric Foner in “Our Living Constitution”, speaks on how to concede a protected right to security and to keep the administration from forcing on that privilege is the foundation to this decision. Granting without acknowledging that society has considered same sex relations as immoral it does not follow that this is a sufficient

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

Hodges, the Supreme Court adjudges the banning of same-sex marriage as violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court clearly establishes that marriage is a fundamental right because marriage is “decisions among the most intimate that an individual can make” (Obergefell v. Hodges, 12) and that individual autonomy should be protected under liberty. The Court also reasons that same-sex couples have the rights to enjoy intimate association that come with marriage. Because the Due Process Clause protects liberty of the citizens and rights to marriage is one of the fundamental liberties, prohibition of same-sex marriage violates the Due Process Clause. For Equal Protection Clause, the Court states that “same-sex couples are denied all the benefits afforded to opposite-sex couples and are barred from exercising a fundamental right” (Obergefell v. Hodges, 17). Because it is solely the sexual preference of the same-sex couples that deprives them of these benefits, the Court argues that the prohibition of same-sex marriage is unconstitutional under the Equal Protection

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

The law was proposed to allow Indiana business owners the right to free exercise of their religion, so “Indiana business [could] cite their religious freedom as a legal defense” in instances that might seem discriminatory to individuals (Payne 1). However, many critics saw this act as a way for business to discriminate specifically against the LGBT community (Payne 1). Sport organizations like the NCAA and NBA as well as popular musicians were quick to voice the intolerance and discrimination they believed the RFRA allowed, and assured the public that “inclusiveness” was an important value for them (Payne 1). Senator Ted Cruz, as well as presidential candidates Marco Rubio have offered their support to Mike Pence’s law (Payne

The First Amendment to the Constitution prevents the government from impeding the free exercise of religion, disavowing intervention when a religion disagrees with the policies of government. This fundamental liberty has recently come under attack in response to the Supreme Court ruling on same-sex marriage in June, 2015. In response, individual states and the federal government have passed religious freedom laws protecting religious liberty for business owners. The free exercise of religion is a fundamental liberty that should not be abridged by government, and the implementation of religious freedom statutes is necessary to protect the values of the First Amendment.

Multiple groups of same sex couples sued their state agencies in four different states Ohio, Tennessee, Michigan, and Kentucky to challenge the constitutionality of those four states ‘ban on same sex marriage. The plaintiffs of each case argued that the states’ statues violated the Equal Protection Clause and their Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. One plaintiff group also brought up claims under the Civil Rights Act. The Trial court found in favor to all of the plaintiffs cases. The U.S. Court of Appeals reversed and held that the states’ ban on same sex marriage and refusal

The Court further noted the relationship between the liberty of the Due Process Clause and the equality of the Equal Protection Clause and determined that same-sex marriage bans violates the latter. Concluding that the liberty and equality of same-sex couples was significantly burdened, the Court struck down same-sex marriage bans for violating both clauses, holding that same-sex couples may exercise the fundamental right to marry in all fifty states. Due to the "substantial and continuing harm" and the "instability and uncertainty" caused by state marriage laws varying with regard to same-sex couples, and because respondent states had conceded that a ruling requiring them to marry same-sex couples would undermine their refusal to hold valid same-sex marriages performed in other states, the Court also held that states must recognize same-sex marriages legally performed in other

The petitioners were two men whose same-sex partners had died and fourteen same-sex couples who all brought cases in their respective District Courts challenging either the denial of their right to marry or the right to have their marriage performed elsewhere recognized in their own state. The cases were heard in Michigan, Kentucky, Ohio and Tennessee, each of which defines marriage as between a woman and a man. In each case, the relevant District Court found in favor of the petitioner. Each of the respondents, who were state officials responsible

“RFRA was intended to provide protection for free exercise rights... to federal laws that substantially burden religious exercise. RFRA was not intended to create blanket exemptions to laws that protect against discrimination,"

A public official allowing the deputy clerk to sign a same-sex marriage license does not violate the “Lemon Test”. However, making adherence to a religion can prohibit religion. Justice O’Connor concurred, that the Establishment Clause can prohibit in two principle ways and “One is excessive *688 entanglement with religious institutions, which may interfere with the independence of the institutions, give the institutions access to government or governmental powers not fully shared by nonadherent of the religion, and foster the creation of political constituencies defined along religious lines. E. g., Larkin v. Grendel 's Den, Inc., 459 U. S. 116 (1982)” (Lynch 688). When all things considered, to avoid entanglement between the state and church, and to affirm a religious right, RFRA claims will require some measures from the endorsement test. Importantly, when applying RFRA to Byrd’s case there was no entanglement between the state and church; Byrd’s refusal to sign same-sex marriage license was not impermissibly used to influence his religion; neither was he trying to avoid the government interference with religion. However, for a RFRA claims; it is required some measures from the endorsement test because of the growing increase of religion into the workplace. Providing that only the endorsement test will protect the religious rights of any one who is in the political community.