Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA)

The Religious Freedom Restoration Act, or RFRA for short, defines what could be called the substantial burden rule, stating “Government shall not substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability”. This rule has been applied to other cases about first amendment religious rights in the context of businesses, such as Burwell v. Hobby Lobby, and actually arose from a Oregon v. Smith, a similar case to Jones v. Massachutsets. In the Smith case, it was stated by the court in an instance of termination from a job for religious reasons that the

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.

In 1964 the Civil Rights Act Title VII was passed. This law prohibited employers from discriminating in employment based on race, color, religion, sex, and national origin (AAUW, 2016). The Act enforces that it is the obligation of the employer utilize reasonable accommodation for the religious practices of employees after the informs what his or her particular religious needs. The employer has a right to refuse a specific need if an undue hardship can be proven (LLI, 1992).

Government-appointed officials can face controversy throughout their careers concerning their religious liberties. In this country, there are different points of view on how constitutional rights, specifically First Amendment right, should play into their jobs. While these officials still have basic rights as citizens, they are restricted within their duties, especially in the cases of completing public services for individual citizens. In his article “12 Rules for Mixing Religion and Politics”, Peter Montgomery stated, “As individuals, public officials and public employees enjoy the same religious liberty protections as all Americans… However, a public official has no right to cite religious beliefs as a reason for failing to uphold the duties of their office or for discriminating against some constituents….” Considering this, public officials are free to express

This signified that reproductive healthcare services were not covered through a cost-sharing mechanism. The main petitioner of this case, David A. Zubik is a bishop of the Roman Catholic Church of Pittsburg, Pennsylvania and argues that (along with multiple other religious organizations) the contraceptive coverage mandate of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) violates the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) passed by Congress in 1993. This is so as the ACA mandate requires these organizations to provide contraceptive services, services that oppose the beliefs of certain branches of Christianity, specifically Catholicism. A specific of the ACA is that there is indeed an accommodation for these non profit religious organizations; these organizations may notify their insurers or the government (which will in turn notify the insurer) of their objection to the provision and the insurer must then arrange and pay for the contraceptive coverage separately. The accommodation was designed to ensure that employees would receive contraception coverage but the nonprofit employers with religious

Under the ministerial exception of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act and Free Exercise and Establishment Clauses of the First Amendment, can a religiously affiliated organization, such as religious schools, discriminate based on religion when hiring employees, such as teachers, including those who deal with non-religious tasks, such as teaching a secular subject?

The First Amendment of the United States Constitution grants United States Citizens the right to freedom of religion (Horwitz 1). According to Supreme Court interpretation, the primary purpose of this amendment is to prevent government interference with the practice of religion. Since the 1950's this amendment has been slowly worn away, resulting in the government limiting its citizens' rights to freely pray, worship, and even proselytize. While various laws are often struck down in the Supreme Court, this process takes time and damage is done to freedom while awaiting the decision.

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 2012 a pastor was disinvited to a national day of prayer because of his religious views and in 2012 a judge postponed proceedings for 9/11 plotters because of

The American Religious Freedom Act is a federal law of the Congress of the United States of America (abbreviated as AIRFA) united in 1978. It was created to protect and preserve the cultural practices of the American Indians. This includes visiting their sacred land, possessing sacred objects and carrying out rituals. This Act is based on the first amendment that gives the right to express and practice free religion, of course this act needed the US police to stop interfering and invading sacred territory.(The American Indian Religious Freedom Act 1978)

Local Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) are controversial in nature, because while they pretend to use the excuse to protect the free exercise of religion, intrinsically it is an avenue to attack same sex marriages which have been ruled constitutional by most circuit appellate courts in the United States. Currently the Supreme Court is hearing the cases that might ultimately decide the faith of marriage equality. United States v. Windsor opened the door for most federal appellate jurisdictions and some states to rule that prohibiting same-sex marriage was constitutional, on the basis of the 14th Amendment equal protection clause. Despite this decision, the right to marriage is not an explicit protection addressed by the Constitution, and is often seen as a right delegated to the States under the 10th Amendment. On the other hand the free exercise clause is part of the First Amendment, and protects people from doing things that violate their religious principle, for example a Christian doctor from performing an abortion.

This argument is based on information found on oyez.org. In 1963 a federal program, Higher Education Facilities, created grants for educational institutions. These institutions were sponsored by local churches. The grant specifically said the new buildings could have no religious associations for twenty years. After the twenty year period, the building could be used for any purpose the church needed it to. The grant attempted to neutralize the moral background that may influence the college students in the new building. In 1970 a law suit was filed. The sponsors believed if they were sponsoring these educational institutions, they should be able to use the building for religious reasons. In 1971 the court decided the twenty year wait for the building to be able to be used for any recreational purpose was unconstitutional. The court argued grants are considered federal aid; therefore, the federal government has no right to intervene with religious purpose. The first amendment claims the federal government cannot deny anyone of practicing religion anywhere including in a granted building. The court also said since the money was not used to fund religious activity the building was like any other building. The court believed college students would be able to decide with their own opinions on rather to attend these church services. The services were not mandatory to attend. Also, the court decided the period

Religion is something that anyone should be able to express freely and without worry of persecution or consequence. The PRISM program searches through, “Church, synagogue, and mosque

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

If you woke up tomorrow and found yourself part of a minority group that was treated like a second class citizens and denied civil rights how would you feel? Every day in the United States minority groups are denied basic rights that ever other U.S. citizen is grated. These rights are determined by the United States government that is influenced by religious beliefs, even though our country was founded with the belief of separation of church and state.