Why Skok Should Be Banned

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 LGBT community in the United States has always had massive difficulty fitting into our society. For many years they put up with constant mistreatment and other forms of abuse coming from the those who do not agree with their lifestyle. They have for long advocated for the acceptance of their existence and punishment for crimes committed against them. One of the hardest battles the community has had to face was the right to marry in a society that still holds the values of a traditional relationship which is between a male and female. The struggle was quite harsh but it all paid off by 2015 when the supreme court granted gay couples the right to marry. This historical decision did not go without outcry and criticisms. Most of the dissatisfaction came from those who hold very religious values and beliefs that claims homosexuality is a sin. Religion has always been a part of the American way of life since the nation's founding and with that homosexuality has been demonized throughout our society. Now that gay couple possess the legal rights to have a marriage license, religious companies and/or stores are now denying service to LGBT couples as they believe it sinful on their behalf to even take part. Many people gay or straight who fought for gay rights believe these is pure discrimination and that stores should not have the right to deny service for any customer for any reason. However, this belief is unconstitutional and goes

In the early days of the American government, there was a long struggle between the federalist, and the anti-federalist about the ratification of a constitution for a young nation. During that time, slavery was a source of labor, and commerce for our thirteen states, but this didn’t sit well with these human properties, because they wanted their grievances to be answered. Once it was clear that African-Americans were people who deserve the same rights as others too, it sparked the voices from women who were properties of their spouses. In continuation of all these dilemmas, there was a hidden developing conflict for homosexual rights. The rights that Americans think they are entitled too, must be answered,

“The government has jurisdiction over when, where, and how people exercise their free speech rights. But, government cannot control content” (ACLU). For instance, when “a Ku Klux Klan (KKK) group from South Carolina, the Loyal White Knights, protested the removal of a statue [Confederate General Robert E. Lee] in Charlottesville, they were issued a permit to peacefully protest” (Difazio). Many Loyal White Knights wore robes resembling wizards and even held high confederate flags. Do they have free speech rights? Yes, but the government made a grave mistake by granting an assembly permit to one of America’s most infamous and oldest hate groups. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. 1 once said, “Hate begets hate; violence begets violence; toughness begets a greater toughness. We must meet the forces of hate with the power of love” (Washington State University). Although the KKK group appeared to have no ill intentions, their means of

In 1942, the amendment was challenged by Chaplinsky whether if people should be able to freely offend others in public. The supreme court concluded to ban ''fighting words,'' which means that one can no longer intend to provoke hatred or violence. Nazi flag is illegal in Germany, despite their democratic government and their Freedom of Expression doctrine, because of the hateful message of the flag. If enough people agreed that the flag spread racism, the flag is violating the freedom of speech's

There have been many cases over the years regarding people objecting to things based on their religious beliefs. By doing so, these people are sometimes in violation of federal or state laws that protect people’s rights and prevent discrimination. An example of this is when Bob Smith refused to rent out his banquet hall to Adam and Steve, a gay couple who wanted to get married there. Bob, a California resident, refused to rent out the banquet hall because Adam and Steve’s gay wedding went against his religious beliefs and he found their lifestyle to be immoral and ungodly. This case brings up several legal, moral and philosophical issues that will be discussed in the following paragraphs.

Freedom is a delicate balance. A society can only support an individual’s rights so long as that individual does not infringe on the rights of another. In regards to hate speech, it is hard to understand why one person’s (or group’s) right to freedom of expression should override the right of a group not to have hateful things said about them. This is a notion that I will look further into during my research, especially in both countries to determine the reasoning and arguments that have been made in prior years.

In the year 1969, the Supreme Court decided on a case that challenged free expression called Brandenburg v. Ohio. This case was about Brandenburg, a leader of the Ku Klux Klan, speaking at a Klan rally and later televising the event. Brandenburg was charged under the Ohio’s criminal syndicalism law in the tense that his rally

“The Culture War is a clash of ideas about what one believes to be true, and others with different viewpoints” (The Cultural War). In each political election held, one is given the impression that it is almost as if it is a duel between the liberals of the left and the conservatives of the right, with each side desiring differing and contravening approaches to the treatment of the United States. This “war for the soul of America” seems as if it will not end anytime soon, leaving both sides empty handed from implementing their beliefs and practices into society. For example, homosexuality has been immensely disputed between liberals and conservatives. Due to the two spectrums being nowhere in relation to each other, a victor cannot be determined, and unless the liberals and conservatives can shape their agendas to appease their opponent, there never will be.

Same-sex couples are becoming increasingly popular in our society and advocates have been pushing for social justice to abolish sexual discrimination. America has been misled by opponents of the Religious Freedom Restoration Acts who claim a business' right to religious freedom to turn away gay customers is discrimination and bigotry, and we need to return to the biblical view of homosexuality as what it really is: sin. This paper will cover religious freedom and the advancement of gay rights in society today as it pertains to the opposing arguments of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act passed recently in Indiana.

On June 26, 2015 the Supreme Court ruled that marriage is a fundamental right. This historic ruling opened up a world of opportunities to America’s gay and lesbian communities, but there are still many organizations that resist this change in culture. There are some people in America who are morally against the practice of homosexual relations and they do not wish to support a life style that goes against their religious beliefs. These people invoke the First Amendment and desire to be exempt from serving the gay community. However, religious exemption cannot be extended to allow people to deny their fellow citizens their right to practice their own religions and their fundamental rights to life, liberty and property. We must be color blind

The United states aim to protect US citizens on every constitutional level, mostly surrounding fairness and equality. Women's equality and gay rights are just two of many controversial topics that changed the course of US civil liberty. The advance of gay civil rights, in particular, plays up the nation’s stand on liberalism. It is apparent the US wants nothing to do with cultural or religious norms that stifle constitutional rights to citizens. For example, gays are explicitly denounced in the Bible, however, civil rights laws protect homosexual

When the National Socialist Party of America (NSPA), a professed Nazi group, applied for a permit to demonstrate in the highly Jewish city of Skokie, the town refused to grant the permit. NSPA took their case to the county court which granted them the ability to peacefully protest

Citizen’s rights to express what he feels must have some limitations because he may deny what has happened in the past and may try to diminish its impacts. In the article the authors explain that the people who were supporting the jail term of David who denied that the holocaust didn’t happen were afraid that it may minimize the effect of the horrible genocide made by the Nazi’s and may open a new way for it to occur again. They say, “The law had been formulated because the Austrians took seriously the old victim those who fail to remember history are condemned to repeat it” (1). This shows that not having limitations on the freedom of speech can make a horrible accident to happen again by the people who refuse to acknowledge it. In addition, not having limitations on the freedom of speech can also threaten a nation’s national security, for instance, a person who is anti-government may gather up people and make them revolt against their government even though that many people’s views on the

One of the leading principles behind the American vision of a free society is the concept of free speech and the application of this in everyday life plays as a major component to the governing processes. When people are able to express their opinions in a respectful manner, it can convert others in their way of thinking, raise awareness to an overlooked issue, and express minority and majority concerns alike. Resistance to laws is necessary in a growing and changing society, as it forces every constituent to reconsider their values and to judge the law at the given time based primarily on the majority’s disposition. Resistance is the Yin to the Yang of the legislative process, especially so in a free state, because without it, a statist environment like that of Nazi Germany in the 1940’s can arise and amass such a great extent of control that the freedom to express a dissenting opinion can be completely stripped from an individual.