RFA Argumentative Essay

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.

The fight for religious freedom in America is tough for people who do not participate in the religion known as Christianity. Since America is a large and culturally diverse land, the United States of America’s government has to be religiously tolerant to every belief system. Throughout America's lifespan, the subject matter “Freedom of Religion” has increasingly gained attention from the American Act. Thecitizens. In order to protect the religious liberties of American citizens the government has put into place a free exercise clause in the year of 1878, this allowed American citizens to practice religion freely in America. However, many issues have risen and promoted the creation of America's Religious Freedom Act.The largest issue surrounding religious freedom in

Many families encounter the worst of sports related injuries, such as being paralyzed or even death upon playing. The NCHSAA should be more cautious upon high school athletics and make it a safer environment towards all contenders within the divisions. It is not the NCHSAA fault upon injuries, but they can make the biggest improvement upon sports to try and prevent many risky injuries. Kids will go through the pain of an injury, not to only sit and get ready to play again, but to learn an important lesson.

Because of this funding, more women are being recognized as victims and have equal access to help regardless of race, ethnicity, sexual orientation and immigration status. Hence, in addition to saving lives, VAWA 2013, saves money by reducing or even preventing future violence as well as related social costs.

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

I do not believe anyone was expecting the SCOTUS to take up the decision to hear the DAPA and DACA Expansion Executive Order to occur so fast. This is going to have political consequences in my opinion.

The Burwell v. Hobby Lobby ruling essentially ensures that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 applies to closely-held corporations; in this case, the corporation in question is owned and operated by a single family. (The RFRA was an act passed by Congress in 1993 to protect religious values (244); however, due to it being a direct alteration of the First Amendment (197), the Supreme Court decided to partially remove the RFRA, keeping federal rights of protection.) The owners of Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. argued that the contraceptive mandate of the Affordable Care Act “imposes a substantial burden on religious exercise”, which is in direct contradiction with the RFRA; their defiance of the ACA would have netted them as much as half a billion dollars per year in fines and penalties.

The article from New York Times in which Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal is an attempt to legitimize that RFRA plays an important place in protecting the free exercise of religion of people and the power to authorize or prohibit same sex marriage rest on the states police powers under the 10th Amendment. While a majority of Americans nowadays sympathize with gay people and equality marriage it is a more difficult questions to address in the context

Religious rights of the individual have always been an issue because of the very diverse world we live in. This causes issues for the courts who then have to make a decision in regards to something very personal to people. In the case of Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores the issue lies in the religious rights of a private corporation not wanting to provide certain forms of birth control because it violates their personal beliefs as devout Christians. The Supreme Court should not have ruled in favor of Hobby Lobby because this sets the precedent of allowing certain individuals to be exempt from laws and regulations imposed on other corporations. But not every justice agrees, Ginsburg

The RFRA essentially prohibits the “Government [from] substantially burden[ing] a person’s exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability” unless the Government “demonstrates that application of the burden to the person is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling government interest.” Although they have been renewed, the RFRA has progressed passed the “balancing of interests” test and compelling state interest test in the Sherbert and Yoder cases and required a “least restrictive means of furthering that compelling state interest.”

Redefine Neutrality is another great suggestion. For example, Oregon's law against peyote is neutral because it applies to every one of every religion. But the entirety of the Oregon law is not neutral. “It criminalized peyote; a mind-altering substance used ritually by a vulnerable minority religion, but did not criminalize alcohol, a mind-altering substance used ritually by more numerous, more politically powerful groups (Catholics and Jews)” (Dorf, 2014). Replace RFRA with a more solid, equality-centered law. This law would allow the courts to adequately defend the rights of religious

… HHS and the dissent nonetheless argue that RFRA does not cover Conestoga, Hobby Lobby and Mardel because they cannot ‘exercise … religion.’ … [What is] also flawed is the claim that [the] RFRA offers no protection because it only codified pre-Smith Free Exercise Clause precedents…

Mississippi is one of 28, that lacks a non-discrimination protections for individuals on the grounds of sexual orientation or gender identity. Ironically, even as nearly 200 anti-LGBT bills have been proposed in states across the country, supporters of religious freedom laws have argued that religious objectors to same-sex marriage not LGBT individuals are the ones who need protection from government discrimination (Lockhart, 2016). A central tenet of the American way of life is individual freedom. We should be able to make our own decisions about our private affairs without interference from far-right religious organizations that seek to impose a narrow interpretation of the Bible on everyone. Religious groups are able to take tax payers dollars, but also have the right to discriminate in hiring. Thus, organizations could take public funds to run a social program, and then refuse to hire qualified applicants for being the wrong religion, transgender, or

In my findings on Mississippi’s Religious Liberty Accommodations, the Act refers to the U.S. Constitution and various principles of anti-discrimination laws. The first amendment of the U.S. Constitution established the right to freely exercise religious beliefs, and according to the Act, “the right to freedom of religion undergirds the very origin and existence of the United States” (Hodge, 2006). In addition, the Act highlights principles of international law, such as those outlined in the United Nations (UN) Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which identify religious freedom as a universal human right.