A Deeper Look Into Indiana 's Law

David Barton’s Original Intent: The Courts, The Constitution, and Religion, breaks down the significance of how religion was intended in the First Amendment and its effect on the phrase, “Separation of Church and State.” Barton well illustrates how the founding fathers incorporated the position of religion into the First Amendment. Barton explains how the House Judiciary Committee believes, “The founders did respect other religions; however, they neither promoted pluralism nor intended that the First Amendment do so” (175). They continue to discuss how the founding fathers were all Christians and they expect it to remain that way in the lives of the citizens. In Barton’s views of the First Amendment, he believes it has changed dramastically

When a person takes steps toward the commission of a crime and has a specific intent to commit the crime, but for unforeseen reasons is unable to complete the crime the person has committed the crime of Attempt (Jirard, 2009). In the case of the State of Indiana versus Donald J. Haines, emergency personnel including two police officers [Dennis and Hayworth] along with emergency medical technicians [Garvey and Robinson] responded to Mr. Haines’s apartment for a report of a possible suicide that just occurred. When officers Dennis and Hayworth arrived at Haines’s apartment they discovered him lying face down in a pool of blood. Officer Dennis noticed that both of Haines’s wrists were cut and were bleeding. When Haines heard the paramedics he stood up, and began screaming at Dennis that he has AIDS and that he should be left to die. Dennis advised Haines that he was there to help him, and Haines told Dennis that he wanted to fuck him so that he could give him AIDS. Haines than told Dennis that he was going to utilize his wounds to spray blood on him, and began to jerk back and forth causing his infected blood to get into Dennis’ mouth and eyes. Haines told Dennis that he could not deal with having AIDS, but that he was going to make him deal with it.

The following day after the case was presented to the Supreme Justices, the Dallas Morning News paper gave a few remarks about how “the federal government stood alongside the state of Mississippi in the Supreme Court and pleaded for delay in further desegregation…”1 The use of the federal government in this situation is to have the reader sympathize with Mississippi and is even followed by “pleaded” to further the sympathy. “The government shared the frustrations of black school children…”1 is written to try to balance out the biased opinion but when ‘children’ is used instead of students, it creates a belittling picture of their opposition. The administration’s chief civil rights lawyer, Jerris Leonard, was quoted saying that both the North and South had made “’substantial breakthroughs’ in desegregation of schools… but that

Reno, R.R. "Defending religious liberty." First Things: A Monthly Journal of Religion and Public Life 225 (2012): 3+. Academic OneFile. Web. 3 Mar. 2015.

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 Question: Has the Plaintiff, Linda D. Daugherty, included the operative facts for cause of action in her claim against the Defendants, Casual Lifestyles Realty, Inc. and Rauleigh J. Ringer, or has said Plaintiff insufficiently stated the facts, therefore making indefinite allegations and validating the move for a more definite statement? Or, is it that, the mechanisms of discovery could be an open alternative to the Defendants, which would aid in gathering any information needed for the defense to frame a response to said Plaintiff, therefore invalidating the Motion pursuant to Rule 12(E) of Indiana Rules of Trial Procedure?

In response to the Supreme Court’s ruling in the Santa Fe Independent School District V. Doe (SFISD V. Doe) case, Chief Justice Rehnquist commented, “It [the ruling] bristles with hostility to all things religious in public life” (“United”). Separating religion and state has always been a matter of concern for the United States, as shown by the Establishment Clause in the First Amendment of our constitution. Although there have been many cases revolving around the relationship between the church and the state, SFISD V. Doe is among the most notable. By examining the background, reflecting on the decision, and analyzing the impact of the SFISD V. Doe case,

Application/Analysis: The court agrees that the state has a legitimate interest in protecting its citizens from fraud, but in this instance, the court takes issue with the fact that a sole authority, the secretary of the Public Welfare Council, can decide what is considered a valid religion. The court states that the secretary “is empowered to determine whether the cause is a

Even when the Constitution establishes a separation between church and state, traces of religion can still be found in public and government environments, such as the Pledge of Allegiance containing the words ‘under God’, American currency having ‘In God we trust’ and other such events and places. Consequently, this prevalence of Christian ideology violates all Americans’ first amendment right to freedom of and from religion and has a negative impact all citizens as it conflicts with their individual beliefs, religious or not.

During the 1970s the court reviewed the constitutionality of compelled exemptions for religiously motivated conduct (1673). In Wisconsin v. Yoder the Court held that there was an important state interest in universal education but the law to compel students to go to school infringed on the free exercised rights. Chief Justice Burger, “lauded the virtues of the Amish and their social practices. In Employment Division v. Smith, the Court held that the use of peyote for religious purposes does not protect the persons from a denial of unemployment benefits. Justice Scalia stated, “We have never held that an individual’s religious beliefs excuse him from compliance with an otherwise valid law prohibiting conduct that the State is free to regulate” (1676).

The book “Judicial Tyranny The New Kings of America?” is a compilation of articles and speeches. It is compiled by Mark Sutherland and includes writings from famed Christian personality James C. Dobson Chief Justice Roy Moore, Ambassador Alan Keyes, U.s Attorney General Ed Meese, among others. The book is a call to political action. It is aimed at Christian readers and the writers all argue that Christian politics equals constitutional purism. It is specifically meant to invoke constitutional responses and activism. Each chapter, twenty in all, are a few pages long and systematically decry the current judicial system and explain the lack of constitutional basis for their current level of power.

In Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. the Supreme Court of the United States “must decide in these cases whether [RFRA] permits [HHS] to demand that three closely held corporations provide health insurance coverage for methods of contraception that violate the sincerely held religious beliefs of the companies’ owners” (1). In outlining the issues for the decision, the Court must first decide whether or not corporations can sue under RFRA then employ the Sherbet test as was reinstated through RFRA to determine whether or not there exists a substantial burden on the free exercise of religion as established in the 1st amendment, and whether or not the interests of the government outweigh such a burden. While the question of a slippery slope is not directly raised by the lawsuit, both the majority and the dissent consider it to determine the effects of the decisions being made. In response to the first question of corporate personhood, the majority argues that because “a corporation is simply a form of organization used by human beings” that “allowing [the companies] to assert RFRA claims protects the religious liberty of the [owners]” (7-8). The dissent, disagreed, believing that allowing corporations to sue under RFRA creates the potential for large corporations to seek exemption from many more laws while citing immeasurable religious beliefs. Although both opinions agreed that providing the contested contraceptives is a compelling government interest, the majority believes

Comparing Competing Explanations of the Link Between White Evangelicals and Conservative Politics in the United States” and “Intimate Choice, Public Threats – LGBTQ Rights Under a Trump Administration” didn’t use any historical information as a precursor to the article and it did not enhance the understanding of the topic. When reading these articles, I found that I had harder time understanding the information and getting myself to the end of the article with knowledge that I had gained from reading. After reading the articles that included the history I realized that it was an integral section of the writing that made the information more logical and communicated more

State 'Religious Liberty' laws pushed by long-time anti-LGBT groups. (2016, March). Liberty Press, 22(7), 13. Retrieved from

In a hypothetical scenario in which same-sex marriage and religious freedom are brought to a legal confrontation, the constitutional rights of both plaintiffs and defendants bring forth a nationwide debate on civil liberties and rights—yet it is easy to mistake one for the other. In this scenario, after lesbian couples Donna and Theodora married in the state of Massachusetts instead of North Carolina (Theodora’s home state), both decided to move to North Carolina in the city of Clinton where they found jobs to financially support one another. However, when both couples contacted a local bakery shop for a wedding cake, they were denied by the shop’s owner who cited North Carolina’s recently enacted law that allows businesses to refuse the patronage of homosexuals when the business owners themselves have a religious objection to homosexuality and same-sex marriage. When Donna and Theodora tried to hire a photographer for when they planned to recite their wedding vows, the photographer refused—with the issue of religious freedom again been cited in her arguments. Although this initially didn’t come as a surprise to Donna and Theodora, Donna was more concerned about the maid of honor, Bernice, a transgender person being able to use the women’s restroom. Because Bernice was born male, under the rules of House Bill 2—more formally addressed as the Public Facilities Privacy and Security Act (aka “the bathroom bill”)—that would exclude Bernice from using the bathroom of her choice