The First Amendment of the Constitution includes the Free Exercise Clause, which prohibits government interference with a person’s religious practice. The clause applies only to the action against the government, not to private employers (Miller, 2014, p.21-22). The creators of the Constitution understood that religious freedom was a significant subject that required its incorporation into the Bill of Rights. Religion can be a controversial subject due to the copious philosophies, and the passion people cherish. One passion arose with the introduction of House Bill 1632, in the Indiana General Assembly. The Religious Freedom Restoration Act is to ensure that a person’s exercise of religion cannot be substantially burdened (Indiana, 2015).
…show more content…
Smith that involves two men smoking peyote at a religious ritual and being fired from work, evoked a reaction within the country. In response to the verdict, Congress and President Clinton enacted the federal RFRA in 1993, which included “Governments should not substantially burden religious exercise without compelling justification.” In 1997, the Supreme Court ruled that the law did not apply in the States because Congress neglected to inform them how to enforce RFRA; it only applies to federal cases (Bombay, 2014). That initiated States to adopt their own religious legislation. There are now twenty States with some sort of religious freedom law, and others considering variations (Schwartz, 2015). In Indiana, State Representative(s) Timothy Wesco and Jeffery Thompson authored House Bill 1632 to establish religious freedom within the state. The proposed law was controversial with Sec. 7, which included describing a “person” as a partnership, a limited liability company, a corporation, a company, a firm, a society, a joint-stock company, an unincorporated association, or another entity that may be sued (Indiana, 2015). This statement allowed a business to refuse service based upon their religious convictions. Governor Pence signed the Religious Freedom Restoration Act into law on March 26, …show more content…
How illogical. It is quizzical to me that companies would even want to publicize its religious beliefs for fear of offending other faiths such as the Christians, Muslims, Hindu or Jewish devotions. There are exceptions, Chick-fil-a’s owner spoke of his disapproval of gay marriage because of his faith. As a gay man, I am aware of what has been done to restrict the rights of men and women that embrace same-sex marriage. Everyone is permitted in the United States to have their own principles, whether people agree or have a different viewpoint. We are all entitled to the freedom to choose. Mr. Dan Cathy’s pronouncement not to support gay marriage is his right, just as it is my right as a gay man to eat at Chick-fil-a. When a state government attempts to manipulate the federal law to the conservative viewpoint restricting a person from buying flowers or baking a wedding cake, it is venomous. If I went into a bakery, and they told me they would rather not craft a cake for two men, I would be disappointed but I would not sue. I have to respect that people have negative perceptions, and we have the prerogative to seek other alternatives. The original RFRA was protection for businesses to decline performing services for the LGBT community, or to reject any individual and not be concerned with legal
Smith that involves two men smoking peyote at a religious ritual and being fired from work, evoked a reaction within the country. In response to the verdict, Congress and President Clinton enacted the federal RFRA in 1993, which included “Governments should not substantially burden religious exercise without compelling justification.” In 1997, the Supreme Court ruled that the law did not apply in the States because Congress neglected to inform them how to enforce RFRA; it only applies to federal cases (Bombay, 2014). That initiated States to adopt their own religious legislation. There are now twenty States with some sort of religious freedom law, and others considering variations (Schwartz, 2015). In Indiana, State Representative(s) Timothy Wesco and Jeffery Thompson authored House Bill 1632 to establish religious freedom within the state. The proposed law was controversial with Sec. 7, which included describing a “person” as a partnership, a limited liability company, a corporation, a company, a firm, a society, a joint-stock company, an unincorporated association, or another entity that may be sued (Indiana, 2015). This statement allowed a business to refuse service based upon their religious convictions. Governor Pence signed the Religious Freedom Restoration Act into law on March 26, …show more content…
How illogical. It is quizzical to me that companies would even want to publicize its religious beliefs for fear of offending other faiths such as the Christians, Muslims, Hindu or Jewish devotions. There are exceptions, Chick-fil-a’s owner spoke of his disapproval of gay marriage because of his faith. As a gay man, I am aware of what has been done to restrict the rights of men and women that embrace same-sex marriage. Everyone is permitted in the United States to have their own principles, whether people agree or have a different viewpoint. We are all entitled to the freedom to choose. Mr. Dan Cathy’s pronouncement not to support gay marriage is his right, just as it is my right as a gay man to eat at Chick-fil-a. When a state government attempts to manipulate the federal law to the conservative viewpoint restricting a person from buying flowers or baking a wedding cake, it is venomous. If I went into a bakery, and they told me they would rather not craft a cake for two men, I would be disappointed but I would not sue. I have to respect that people have negative perceptions, and we have the prerogative to seek other alternatives. The original RFRA was protection for businesses to decline performing services for the LGBT community, or to reject any individual and not be concerned with legal