The Religious Freedom Restoration Act

We must jealously guard our own freedom of belief and practice in our own private lives. However, when we feel that public policy is in some way infringing on our religious beliefs, we need to take a step back and ensure that we are not merely uncomfortable with others exercising their own freedom of speech and religion to criticize our views. In the “Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom,” Thomas Jefferson said,

Religious Freedom Restoration Act passed in Indiana is one example just a way to legalize discrimination against gays: any business owner could now refuse to serve them simply by citing a religious objection. Why do laws like these get pass. Its because of religious congressmen and women who put their beliefs in the bible on religion over the laws they are supposed to uphold and protect. Luckily some of these laws have been proven to be unconstitutional under the supreme court but only after years of activist fighting them.

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.

Thomas Jefferson and James Madison cowrote "The Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom" in 1786 in an effort to end state funded religion. The struffle was fought by religious leaders who requested a state tax to fund their institutions. They feared that without a state tax moral fabric of society would disintegrate. This bill ended the feud between religion and state, and created the precedent for religious freedom in the United States. "Conventional wisdom teaches that secularization was an essential ingredient in the cultural background for liberal democracy. To have liberal pluralistic democracy, it is said, we in the West first had to break away from the religious worldviews that were characteristic of pre-modern feudalism, aristocracy, and monarchy" (Mcconnell, 2003, p.943).

To start off we should know what the “First Amendment Defense Act” is. The First Amendment Defense Act, in short: “Prohibits the federal government from taking discriminatory action against a person on the basis that such person believes or acts in accordance with a religious belief or moral conviction that: (1) marriage is or should be recognized as the union of one man and one woman, or (2) sexual relations are properly reserved to such a marriage.” ( first link )

A family who resides in Indiana displays their concern, “As a mother, I am here to protect, provide for, and nurture my children – that’s always my priority.” Recently, when in search for a pediatrician to care for their girls, they were in fear that someone might not provide the service because two moms were raising the girls ("What is RFRA?")." In this case, can a person really deny this service due to their religious belief? Provided that, yes, a "for profit" business can reject such services. “A person whose exercise of religion has been substantially burdened, or is likely to be substantially burdened, by a violation of this chapter may assert the violation or impending violation as a claim or defense in a judicial or administrative proceeding, regardless of whether the state or any other governmental entity is a party to the proceeding (Senate Bill 568).” Given that, a "for-profit can deny service to a homosexual or a person with a different religion.

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

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.

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.”

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

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)

The act of defining religion has been a contentious issue in a wide variety of situations, particularly in the United States. The US is a nation that prides itself on religious inclusivity and freedom. There are consequences to this belief and tenant. Through the social, legal and moral structures of the United States, defining religion has become imperative. In The Impossibility of Religious Freedom, Winifred Sullivan outlines the legal implications of defining religion in the United States. In order for religious freedom to be protected by the American state, religion must be clearly defined. As a result, religious theory must be used to maintain some semblance of religious freedom in the United States. Likewise, Josh Dubler’s Down in

The Religious Liberty Accommodations Act will insure everyone is entitled to their own religious beliefs while protecting them from government sanctions or prosecution. The Act itself will be part of the 2016 laws in the state of Mississippi and will require complaints of discrimination to be made up to two years after the effective date of the Act. The Act will not provide any resources other than the protection of religious freedom. The Act is established and enforced only in the state of Mississippi and all citizens of Mississippi are mandated to follow this policy. The way Mississippi will implement this Act is by ensuring that the First Amendment is their top priority and that no one should be punished because of their religious beliefs.

In the 2016 Mississippi legislative session, we saw one of the worst pieces of discriminatory legislation in the country pass both houses and swiftly signed by the governor. HB 1523, dubbed the “Religious Liberty Accommodations Act,” allows individuals, religious organizations and private associations to use religion to discriminate against lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and queer (LGBTQ) Mississippians in some of the most important aspects of their lives, including at work, at school, in their family life and more. The Jackson City Council had to make it clear that everyone is welcome and should feel safe in our capitol city, the largest city in our state. That is why on June 14, 2016, the Jackson City Council unanimously passed a