Introduction
No business should be allowed to deny service to a certain group or groups. Being attractive to the opposite sex isn’t a religion or race, nor should a certain race or religion be treated different. They are still equal humans. It is unfair. Even to an extent a boycott was needed.
In 1978 American Religious Freedom Act was created to protect Native Americans (Finney). In 1993 Religious Freedom Restoration Act was create to “substantially burdening a person’s exercise of religion” (H.R. 1308 – Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993). In 2007 Religious Freedom Act was created “to protect freedom of speech exercise” (H.R. 1431 (110th): Workplace Religion Freedom Act of…2007). In 2015 Religious Freedom Act is being fought for till
…show more content…
this day, to stop business not supporting service to any religious groups. The biggest religious groups today? LGBT (lesbians, gays, bisexuals, and transsexuals). Freedom America is known as the land of freedom, yet some aren’t equally treated the same.
Mississippi introduce a new law in April 2015; “Mississippi governor signs law allowing business to refuse service to gay people” (Berman). Mississippi is officially an anti-LGBT state (Berman). This is unequal and unfair. In the First Amendment Defense Act it states: “rights to freedom of religion and freedom of expression” (First Amendment). An Act to protect, but still inequality is still present. According to “Freedom of Religion” and “The Right of Justice” people have the right of religion they choose (First Amendment).
Everyone should have the freedom of doing whatever business settlements they want and not have their religious beliefs be the way or even consider about.
Unconstitutional
Unsurprisingly, the Religious Freedom Act is unconstitutional (Alsup). With only some states actually passing this law. Only twenty-one states attempt to passes the law. Those states not all but including: Arkansas, Colorado, Georgia, Hawaii, Indiana, Maine, Michigan, Montana, Nevada, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, West Virginia, and Wyoming. The act failed in four states to pass. With it only being constitutional in Alabama and Indiana (2015 State Religious Freedom Restoration
…show more content…
Legislation). In 1997 Boerne v. Flores, the Supreme Court reflected The Religious Freedom Act violations (Boerne v. Flores). Where as in the City of Boerne it was constitutional taking power over the government. Setting out equality (Boerne v. Flores). If freedom got constituted nineteen years ago, why would it be hard to do now? The people of America deserve better service than this. Just to think, you might be unconstitutional. Religious Groups Not only does the Religious Freedom Act protects LGBT but it protects all different exercise groups.
In 2016 Muslims get treated differently. Islam attack bomb, attack Paris, so the people of the world being arrogant like always, they attack any groups “related” to Islam. Even to the point, bring refugees to the country is a problem. Even though they are innocent people who just trying to find a safe home.
The Religious Freedom Act was first created to protect people who are religious. People who have different lifestyles than the ideal one. This meaning they should get equal service or help. Some people ignore other just because of their religious beliefs, as though that should be a problem. All religious buy and pay bills the same way as any other American.
Bad Beliefs
Some people on this planet have bad beliefs as well. Some including domestic violence, public safety, and education (F. McGrath). In some schools if religious freedom beliefs is passed, some teachers could have a belief against gay children, they can actually deny to teach them (F. McGrath). There can be some men that believe in domestic violence and end up to beating their wives and children (F. McGrath). There are many people who believe in guns. Which is found constantly. That meaning that they can bring their guns out in public, in front of
families. The Religious Freedom Act could actually bring conflict to our country. Making the same amount of problems that we have now. Making the law constitutional would make new religious beliefs to appear. People could make up their own beliefs and could get away with it. Our world could end in bruises and wounds. If business is allowed to all groups it could cause violence with customers inside stores. If racial problems still exists today in convention stores and business settlements, so will religion groups. We evolve around stereo types so that means not everything will be acceptable. Conclusion In 1791 The Bill of Rights was law. It states: “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…” (Bill of Rights). The Freedom of Religious Act supports that, because one law written 225 years ago still can’t protect all people of America (Bill of Rights). Any religious group deserve all service. If they are willing to take their time and money, they should get full service despite their beliefs. A belief doesn’t make anyone different. All people go to stores, all buy the same materials as others-no difference. No business should be allowed to deny service to a certain group or groups.
The first Amendment of the United States Constitution says; “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.”[1] Our fore fathers felt that this statement was plain enough for all to understand, however quite often the United States government deems it necessary to make laws to better define those rights that are stated in the Constitution. Today the framers would be both encouraged and discouraged by our modern interpretation the First Amendment the United States Constitution.
Citizens of America can choose their religion, they can also choose what they want to say, through freedom of speech. These rights can sometimes be disrespected by others who do not have the same beliefs or opinions. For example, if a company does not want to provide service to someone based on a different belief
Throughout American history, we have seen the United States become more progressive in their social issues, such as the abolishment of slavery, women’s suffrage, and the Civil Rights Movement. But as time has passed, we have encountered another group that is being discriminated against: homosexuals. Some states try their best to give equal rights to homosexuals so that they are respected as equally as everyone else. But in many states, such as Kansas and Arizona, private companies and businesses are given the right to turn down homosexual couples if it interferes with their religious beliefs. These two states also included places like hospitals where homosexuals can be denied from medical attention. These laws are very inhumane and are very hurtful to a large population of people today. But what if the people in states such as Kansas and Arizona think it is okay to have these laws instilled?
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." These opening words of the First Amendment of the Constitution set forth a guarantee of religious freedom in the United States. The Establishment clause was intended to accomplish this end by, in the words of Thomas Jefferson, creating a "wall of separation between Church and State." The First Amendment prevented the government from interfering in it's citizens religious lives. It did not, however, prevent the federal government from engaging in it's own.
“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.” (First Amendment Center, 2008)
Throughout history, America has faced disagreements that led to various complications, one of them being religious freedom. Americans claimed to have always supported religious freedom and that the First Amendment backed that up. However, according to David Sehat, this was only a myth. The myth he argued that there was a moral establishment that constrained religious liberty, therefore American religious freedom was only a myth. Sehat overstated this claim because there have been many historic measures that have shown American religious liberty, such as the Second Great Awakening, the emergence of new religious movements, and religious liberty court cases.
An American’s right to religious worship is valued tremendously, thus making the first Amendment ve...
The incorporation of the 14th Amendment in regards to Civil Liberties is one of the longest and most important constitutional debates of all time. Though the 14th Amendment was adopted in 1868, the Supreme Court rendered their first interpretation of its scope five years later. The Court supported the Privileges and Immunities Clause by a narrow 5-4 vote. This clause was later thought to be the regular basis of enforcing individual citizen’s rights and civil liberties. The development in understanding and the provision for protection of one such liberty, freedom of religion, has changed throughout the history of the United States. Evidence of this can be seen not only in the role government has played but also through several court cases.
What is freedom of religion? Today people speak freely about their own views over specific topics regarding what they believe and what they think is the truth. Along with everything in life, there are limits and laws that the government of the United States have established. Freedom of religion originated is taught in schools that the Pilgrims traveled to America because they were trying to find freedom, unlike in England where they were not allowed to live out their own beliefs. The Puritans came to America shortly after as well as many others have done and continue to do from all over the globe. However, colonies were being established before they started ...
Congress decided in Employment Division v. Smith. "the Supreme Court virtually eliminated the requirement that the government justify burdens on religious exercise imposed by laws neutral toward religion and the compelling interest test as set forth in prior Federal court rulings is a workable test for striking sensible balances between religious liberty and competing prior governmental interests."(Religious Freedom, Map of the RFRA). In other words, the government did not have to have a reason to impose laws against religious acts. Thus the purpose of this act was “to restore the compelling interest test as set forth in Sherbert v. Verner, 374 U.S. 398 (1963) and Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205 (1972) and to guarantee its application in all cases where free exercise of religion is substantially burdened. ”(Religious Freedom, Map of the RFRA)
No other independent enlightenment in the world allows individual independence to the United States of America. American courts, especially the Supreme Court, have improved a set of lawful policies that comprehensively shelter all types of the power of appearance. When it comes to appraising the level to which people take benefit of the occasion to convey believes, many members of culture can be accountable for misusing the boundary of the First Amendment through openly offending others through racism or obscenity (Karen O’Connor & Larry J. Sabato 2006). America is what it is because of the Bill of rights and the Constitution of the United States of America. The ratification of the Constitution warranted that religious dissimilarity would continue to develop in the United States. American has enhanced a different nature toward the power of word throughout history.
basic civil rights protections for GLBT people.” (Currah, Minter p.9) Many of the LGBT population feel like their personal freedoms and liberties have been violated as lawmakers in some states and countries infringe on their personal rights. Passings of legislature that marginalizes the LGBT population is not only unjust and inhumane but it causes sociological and societal implications that question that persons beliefs about themselves leading to the dangerous climate facing the group from within themselves and the population around
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or the press, or the right of peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for the redress of grievances” (United States Constitution).
Florida’s, Texas’s and Kentucky’s new proposed bathroom laws have “caused fear and dismay among transgender people around the country” (Tannehill). Kentucky laws are more focused on the school systems but Florida 's and Texas’s laws treat transgenders as if they were criminals. Both of these states have regulations that will give transgenders civil and or criminal charges for using the bathroom they identify with (Tannehill). A transgender could be charged a fine for using the wrong bathroom and “people who report a transgender people in the bathroom to claim civil damages, for example a bounty” (Tannehill). Florida and Texas are trying to look out for the best interest of the majority population, however, “we all have to use the bathroom, but these laws would seemingly force transgender people to choose between fines and jail, risking horrific violence or leaving the state” (Tannehill). These laws have been seen as unreasonable to the transgender community and have been fought by the ACLU lawyer Joshua Block, “We’re talking about people who also have their sense of privacy and modesty, and who are not going to want to have everyone see an anatomical part of themselves that they feel should never have been there in the first place,” (Marcus). It has also been found that it’s illegal for employers to carry out such rules, “The Equal Employment
“Provisions of the International Religious Freedom Act.” Facts On File Issues and Controversies. Jan 21 2000:18.