Unruh Civil Rights Case Summary

In this article, “Kentucky Clerk Ordered to Jail for Refusing to Issue Gay Marriage License” the author James Higdon focuses on the recent topic of gay marriage. Higdon’s story relates to a Kentucky woman named Kim Davis. Davis was arrested September 3, 2015 because she refused to issue marriage license to a gay couple. “Under questioning from her attorney, Davis went on to express her opposition to same-sex marriage, which she said was ‘not of God’ and contrary to natural law and therefore not something that she could condone” (Higdon). This quote shows that Davis refused to issue marriage licenses because of her religious beliefs. Davis’s religious beliefs are so strong that she continued to fight with the law and the court judge

The events of the murders of the Civil Right workers in Mississippi drew the attention of the nation to the repression in the South, and enforced the need for the cease of the white supremacy group most involved in intimidation and fear, the KKK. The murders marked the final chapter of the secret KKK organisation and influential fear tactics on the African American nation, as well as expelling their ideologies and campaign against civil rights. The Freedom Summer Civil Rights murders, detailed in Appendix 3, were perhaps the most brutal lynchings to occur in the Civil Right Movement performed by the Ku Klux Klan. The killings brought interest from higher authorities and personalities to expose the Philadelphia KKK and halt their campaign against Civil Rights. A day after

The legal battle in the fight of gay rights tests the application of the fourteenth amendment’s equal protection clause that states “No state shall …deny any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws (CITE). Our country was founded on the principle that all people should be treated equally. Everyone should be guaranteed the same freedoms and rights no matter what gender, ethnicity or sexual orientation. One group that has historically and continuously been discriminated against is homosexuals. Author Jeff Jordan in his article “Is it Wrong to Discriminate on the Basis of Homosexuality?” defends the claim that there are situations in which it is morally

The fight to legalize same-sex marriage has been a long, dramatic fight that has taken place over the past several decades. It is believed to have emerged during the 1960’s counterculture movement. Since then Americans have used the right to petition (216) and the right to assemble (216) as well as more serious methods to push for equality for persons identifying as homosexuals. In 1972, in the case of Richard John Baker v. Gerald

Bills are being passed in America that allows religious people to refuse services to same-sex couples because of religious beliefs. According to the article, “The Great Secession,” religious business owners have declined to provide services for gay weddings and commitment services because it goes against their religious beliefs (Rauch 19). Religious business owners believe that they have the right to refuse services to homosexuals, which is true because it is their divine right as an American citizen.

The state of North Carolina passed to prohibited local government in the stat form passing their own measure to protect people from discrimination based on their sexual preference. The laws was similar to religious freedom laws passed by other states. These laws were a safeguard the free practice of religion, which we all know is protected by the Frist Amendment. The authors of this article wants readers to understand that people should be able to live comfortably without feeling guilty about the choices they make. This article makes a claim about how being part of the LGBT community is a violation of many people religious

One of the most prevalent oppositions to the creation and advancement of the LGBTQIA Rights Movement is the Religious Right. Many religions, including Catholicism and Christianity and all its denominations, disbelieve in what the movement stands for. Same-sex relationships and individuals that do not fit gender binaries go against their beliefs, so there is very little acceptance of the movement amongst religions groups. According to these religions, homosexuality is a sin; it does not support procreation, so therefore it must be “unnatural” and “wrong.” This particular school of thought is often referred to as the New Natural Law

The issue made big headlines recently, when the state of Indiana passed its Religious Freedom Restoration Act. Gay rights activists immediately protested that the law was just a way to legalize discrimination against gays: any business owner could now refuse to serve them simply by citing a religious objection.

Most people in today's society have come to the consensus that what they believe is superior to what others believe. When gay marriage was first legalized in all states, Christians believed that their religious freedom was under attack, “Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal called it the beginning of ‘an all out assault against the religious freedom rights of Christians,’” (Weinman 42). One may find it hard to believe that by giving a specific group of Americans the freedom that this country promised them could somehow intrude upon another groups rights is absurd. Some of these Christians felt so strongly that in two-thousand nine and wrote a document called “The Manhattan Declaration” which “framed opposition to gay rights and abortion in religious liberty terms” more thoroughly explained by Sarah Posner, “basically saying that any expansion of those rights or insurance of those rights for other people was an infringement on religious freedom,” (Weinman 42). This all shows that before any issues of baking cakes for gay wedding came about people felt that by gay marriage even being legalized, it interfered with their religious rights. In the current court case “Mr.(Jack) Phillips… said he would not use his talents to convey a message of support for same-sex

The continuous development of the political and legal systems in the U.S. has put the significant conflict between LGBT rights and religious freedom to the center of public attention. The key concern is whether a business should be exempt from gay rights ordinances based on religious reasons. Senior counsels Gregory Baylor and Gregory Lipper had their debate last Monday regarding the legal and ethical implications of the two rights in the business world.

One big concern in the US today is about gay marriage, particularly in relation to religious freedom. A recent event that occurred this year may serve as an example between the two civil rights that often are in conflict with each other—the case of Kim Davis denying same-sex couples marriage licenses on the claim that she is fulfilling God’s will based on her particular religion. After reading about Kim Davis’s case from different viewpoints I gathered that sometimes some civil rights need to have limitations so not to infringe on other constitutional civil rights. This is to say that even though a civil right, like religious freedom, should be acknowledged and expressed in America, does not mean that those expressing

Same-sex marriage rights have traditionally been legally prohibited in the United States as it was seen as a denigrate to the sanctity of marriage, against the word of God, and is naturally abnormal (Alex King). This law deprives same-sex couples from rights that have been granted for opposite-sex couples, which is clearly a denial of a fundamental freedom and equal rights to same-sex couples. Although same-sex marriage caused no harm to people in society, same-sex couples had to obey this law throughout the past and conform to such unjust laws. This is only one example of people obliged to obey unjust laws. The limits of conformity and law reforming have been a subject brought up repeatedly be new generations, hence it attracted some of the

However this is countered by the fact that whilst allowing same sex marriage may be violating the beliefs of those who are religiously opposed, the discrimination is violating the beliefs of those who are believe same-sex marriage should be allowed. This argument also doesn’t take into account those who wish to adhere to their religion, through marriage and the raising of children, whilst in a same sex relationship. In the perseverance of a secular state should we not also take into account those who do not follow a set religion or even those who may be religious yet not adhere to the belief that same-sex marriage inherently challenges their doctrines? A balanced society should not bend to the wills of one group at the sacrifice of others, even if the aforementioned group is a vocal majority. This has long been an obstacle in the realm of human rights law and Donnelly touches on this

In today’s society, various laws and societal expectations have made it increasingly difficult for Christians to carry out their faith. When one’s faith is compromised, they are called to turn the other cheek and follow the Lord. However, when the government puts laws into place that challenge Christian beliefs, it is not easy to decide, if the choice is necessary, whether one should break the law or follow God. One of the most prevalent issues in recent news that counters Christian beliefs is gay marriage. Recently, marriage between two people of the same sex has become legal in the United States of America. However, this completely contradicts the Christian definition of marriage. A situation that has occurred multiple times over the past few years is Christian owners of various types of companies denying service to people who are celebrating a same-sex marriage. Although it may be a very difficult decision to make, these companies, such as bakeries and florists are making the right decision for their faith. Two national cases where this situation has occurred are the Kleins, owners of Sweet Cakes Bakery, and Barronelle Stutzman, the owner of Arlene’s Flowers.

One of the most important controversies surrounding the United States Supreme Court’s ruling on Gay Marriage, is not whether or not they should be denied because of state legislation, but can people refuse to provide service to gays and gay couples based on religious ground? This simple question has been brought up in multiple lawsuits and protests. Many conservatives and Republicans say yes, reason? It is best explained by Reverend Bill Owens “The politicians and the courts have tried to take God out of this country, this country was founded on Godly principles. We will not stand back and be silenced.”