Religious Liberty Accommodations Act : The LGBTC Case Report

This newspaper article discusses how more business such as Walmart and the Apple store are beginning to call on office holders to reject the laws designed to give business the right to deny service based on one’s sexuality. This article gives an opposing view of my stance that businesses should be able to deny service. In addition, it justifies my argument that more people are becoming more excepting off the LGBT community, however only a small portion. The information from this site is accurate and had reliable information to support its research and argument. Furthermore, the article is geared toward all American people as its goal is to provide information of what corporations are doing to stop legislation denying service to the LGBT community. The corporations mentioned in the article have a huge voice and can make a large impact on government, as they hope to one day make a

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

organizations in georgia the legal right to deny services and jobs to gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people in an effort

Based on the discussion from the Williams Institute, it is evident that there continues to be a prevalence of discrimination among groups that are not viewed as culturally acceptable in our county. In this article, it is reported that people are more likely to experience hate crimes based on their sexual orientations. For instance, 44% of people reported experience physical violence (without a weapon) because of their sexual orientation, and 80% had been verbally harassed (Herek, 2009). Although the Hates Crimes Statistic Law became effective in 1990, the stigma surrounding the LGBTQ community continues to affect their everyday life. It may defer a person by identified their sexual orientation for the fear of being discriminating in the workplace,

Lawrence v. Texas: The Justification for the Decision and its Significance for the LGBTQ+ Community

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 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.

The state of Mississippi just recently signed into law that allows businesses to deny service to gay couples. This bill called HB 1523 signed into law by Governor Phil Bryant is being called the religious freedom bill. The bill now signed into law has received major backlash from the entire United States during the almost two weeks that it has been enacted. The Governor has made statements saying that the bill was signed into law to protect religious beliefs and the convictions held by the individuals associated with private businesses and organizations. Many major organizations including the federal government have spoken up about this bill claiming to stop federal funding to not supporting that state by closing stores and businesses within the state. Nothing like this has ever been enacted in this country and the harsh attacks on the Governor and state of Mississippi have not stopped. Many LGBT organizations along with civil rights unions have called the bill discriminatory to the LGBT community in the state of Mississippi. The bill allows private businesses to withhold service from the gay community due to religious beliefs, which is from a moral standpoint wrong because sexual orientation is a part of a person that is instilled into someone and is on the same level as racial discrimination. Governor Phil Bryant and the state of Mississippi has no right to say that people should be allowed to be discriminated towards because of their sexual orientation it goes

The goal of the Religious Liberty Accommodations Act is to provide everyone in Mississippi the same freedoms that are in our Constitution without the fear of being prosecuted for their religious beliefs. Therefore, I find that the Act is legal and I believe the goal of the Act are just and democratic because it does not mention discriminating against anyone. However, the LGBT community feels they will be targeted for discrimination under this law. This Act and many others like it has the country torn between doing what is socially acceptable and what is religiously acceptable, but professionally it is consistent with the values of the professional social work.

In order to be on the same page as other major cities across the United States, motions were made over a year ago in Houston to pass an equal rights, anti-discrimination ordinance known as the Houston Equal Rights Ordinance (HERO). At last a decision was made, and on November 3rd, 2015, HERO was struck down by 61 percent of the voters by referendum (Fernandez). The premise of the anti-discrimination ordinance is similar to those of other cities across the nation; to prevent discrimination on the bases of 15 different classes including race, age, gender identity, and sexual orientation. Houston’s mayor Annise Parker, who identifies as gay herself, was a strong supporter of the proposition for equal rights, and as all supporters in the Houston area agreed, it would put Houston on the map of inclusive and tolerant cities (Fernandez). On the other side of the argument is the conservative population of Houston. With the majority of political opinion in the Houston area being that of highly conservative leaning, HERO proved to be a controversial ordinance for many of these individuals. In an effort to increase support for opposing HERO, conservative politicians in the Houston area therefore took advantage of conservative ideals to promote a counter-position to the anti-discrimination laws (Ura).

A great amount of problems still exist in LGBT workplaces, rights in the sphere have evolved and there are signs for a better and brighter future for the community. “The government has announced that it will be advancing legislation to amend section 37.1 of the employment equality act, which currently allows religious—run institutions, such as schools and hospitals to discriminate against LGBT employees. But the amendment will not protect every worker, as Rob Buchanan reports.” (BUCHANAN)

Mississippi lawmakers on Tuesday called for the repeal of a controversial new law that allows businesses to refuse service to gay people based on religious objection. Ellen DeGeneres called it "the definition of discrimination," while singer Bryan Adams canceled his upcoming show in the state to show his opposition to the law.” (Reilly, 2016). Misguided people are being driven by the nose by tricky "Christian" pioneers and legislators who have a personal stake in the matter of ensuring that their assemblies and their constituents remain profoundly and honestly perplexed of the myth of the "gay person plan." Know this: If the LGBTQ people group has any sort of motivation of all, it is achieving the same essential human rights that other people appreciates. That is all. That is the plan. Try not to fall for some other clarification of it. Gay people are not after your children. They are not attempting to change over you or change you. They are not worried with being comprehended as much as they are worried with being dealt with like some other person has the privilege to be dealt with. On the off chance that you trust that any gathering

Over the past 150 years, there have been many groups who have sought the North American dream of "liberty and justice for all." Examples are:

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