The Religious Freedom Restoration Act

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).

When talking about the First Amendment, the law protects us from freedom of speech and free exercise of religion and it also stops Congress from making any new law to prohibit free speech and free exercise. The case involving a Christian printer who refused to print gay pride T-shirts. The printer declined the printing job for T-shirts promoting a gay pride festival on religious grounds, but he did offer the customer to help them find other local printers to do the work for the same price. Based on the information that was provided the printer had a history of rejecting other orders for shirts promoting sexually explicit material/actions and violence.

In the United States Constitution, the First Amendment states that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances” (Gold). Historically, as demonstrated in cases such as Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier, the U.S. Supreme Court, as well as the government in general, has well-upheld this amendment, but starting sometime in the second half of the 20th century, they are slowly embracing it less and less, as demonstrated in cases such as Texas v. Johnson. The recent hostility towards the First Amendment demonstrates that its rights

Without this in place many institutions like schools and jobs could strip away one's religious values by forcing them to not comply with them. This would mean that a person could receive unfair treatment because they did not want to comply with a boss or overseer rules. A good Example of this is in school is where they try to separate church and state. They do this by taking out prayer and teaching of creationism in school. If the religious freedom Act and free exercise clause was not in place this restriction could spread further than just school and work.

coming over from previous mother country, England. In fact it was so important it was part of the very 1st amendment, including freedom of speech, and freedom of the press. Since then it has been a struggle to determine whether or not certain instances would qualify as hindering the 1st’s claim to the right of Religion. An important case where that occurred is the Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye V.S. City of Hialeah (1993). In the case the city of Hialeah is targeting a specific group based on their religious views. On the other side of the fence the church group argues that the state laws are going against the first amendment right to religion.

“When "religious freedom" gets invoked in the United States, it can be a mixed bag. It can be a term legitimately be used to describe the right of Americans to express their faith how they choose and associate accordingly, provided they don’t violate the rights of others. Or it could be invoked

The controversial and historic precedent set by the high court has once and for all removed the burden of providing contraceptives to employees by corporations. One of the many challenges of this paper is to delineate between the 1993 Congressional Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) and the First Amendment Free Exercise Claus as both were paramount to the most recent ruling. Thankfully, establishing what is applicable to whom and why has become less arduous concerning religious views but conversely has the potential for further infringements.

Religious rights of the individual have always been an issue because of the very diverse world we live in. This causes issues for the courts who then have to make a decision in regards to something very personal to people. In the case of Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores the issue lies in the religious rights of a private corporation not wanting to provide certain forms of birth control because it violates their personal beliefs as devout Christians. The Supreme Court should not have ruled in favor of Hobby Lobby because this sets the precedent of allowing certain individuals to be exempt from laws and regulations imposed on other corporations. But not every justice agrees, Ginsburg

The First Amendment of the United States Constitution grants United States Citizens the right to freedom of religion (Horwitz 1). According to Supreme Court interpretation, the primary purpose of this amendment is to prevent government interference with the practice of religion. Since the 1950's this amendment has been slowly worn away, resulting in the government limiting its citizens' rights to freely pray, worship, and even proselytize. While various laws are often struck down in the Supreme Court, this process takes time and damage is done to freedom while awaiting the decision.

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 Religious Freedom Restoration Act was set in place for the sake of protecting people’s freedoms. Some claim that the Greens ignored the freedoms of their employees by not providing contraceptives. However, just because Hobby Lobby and Mardels employees cannot have their contraceptives paid for does not mean they cannot access those resources. Contraceptives are freely accessible. The only thing prohibited by this ruling is that the corporations will not pay for their employees to access it.

“In Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., a five-Justice majority held that the contraception mandate of the Affordable Care Act failed to satisfy the strict scrutiny that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) requires of federal laws that burden religious exercise (Gedicks 1).” Burwell means the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). In this case of Hobby Lobby versus Burwell, it is accused that the government has violated the plaintiff’s constitutional rights. Hobby Lobby refused to provide insurance that covers birth control because it violates their religious beliefs. It is said that the government “shall not substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion (Burwell v. Hobby Lobby, INC)” unless the government

This argument is based on information found on oyez.org. In 1963 a federal program, Higher Education Facilities, created grants for educational institutions. These institutions were sponsored by local churches. The grant specifically said the new buildings could have no religious associations for twenty years. After the twenty year period, the building could be used for any purpose the church needed it to. The grant attempted to neutralize the moral background that may influence the college students in the new building. In 1970 a law suit was filed. The sponsors believed if they were sponsoring these educational institutions, they should be able to use the building for religious reasons. In 1971 the court decided the twenty year wait for the building to be able to be used for any recreational purpose was unconstitutional. The court argued grants are considered federal aid; therefore, the federal government has no right to intervene with religious purpose. The first amendment claims the federal government cannot deny anyone of practicing religion anywhere including in a granted building. The court also said since the money was not used to fund religious activity the building was like any other building. The court believed college students would be able to decide with their own opinions on rather to attend these church services. The services were not mandatory to attend. Also, the court decided the period

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.