Since this is a relatively recent topic, I feel the need to say my opinion on the matter of the Religious Freedom Redemption Act.
Do I support the right for religion to have their freedoms? Yes. Our country was founded on such principles and that is one of the sole things that makes our country unique.
Do I agree with the Indiana "religious Freedom Redemption" law? Not completely. I understand where the law comes from and can recognize how this may help, but I feel like in today's society it will be used more for an act of discrimination than anything else.
For those of you unaware of what this law is, essentially it states that if you have a religious burden that is restricted by law, assuming that your case is sincere, a court may exempt you from the law so that you may practice your freedoms of religion.
I believe that this law will benefit society greatly by allowing religious groups to freely practice certain parts of their religion that they may not have been able to practice in the past (i.e. refusing to work on a Sunday without the fear losing your job), however, I also believe that it will hurt society greatly if this law is used by people against other people who may be against their religion. The reason this Act (which is not new) is stirring such a wave, is because whether you agree with it or not, one of the only people groups to still be acceptably discriminated against is the LGBT community. If people tried to use this Act against any other people group, it would never pass in a court of law.
Example 1, lets just assume that a member of the Christian Identity owns a coffee shop in Indiana. If he were to go to court using RFRA as his reason to ban Black Americans from shopping at his store, America would be outraged. Naturally, his claim would be rejected and, although it would go against his religious beliefs, he would have to sell to Black Americans.
Example 2, February 19, 2015, with the help of religious freedom, a Michigan pediatrician refused to see a 6 month old patient because the child had 2 moms. No government action has been taken - in fact, it barely made the news.
Example 3, Yesterday, an unnamed restaurant owner admitted on the radio that in the past he had lied to LGBT people so as to get them out of his store and is now thrilled that he can "by law" refuse to serve them because he doesn't "...want people like that in [his] store."
We all deserve religious freedom, but if you having religious freedom comes with the cost of me losing my basic human rights, then I won't support it. "A person's a person no matter how small."
Do I support the right for religion to have their freedoms? Yes. Our country was founded on such principles and that is one of the sole things that makes our country unique.
Do I agree with the Indiana "religious Freedom Redemption" law? Not completely. I understand where the law comes from and can recognize how this may help, but I feel like in today's society it will be used more for an act of discrimination than anything else.
For those of you unaware of what this law is, essentially it states that if you have a religious burden that is restricted by law, assuming that your case is sincere, a court may exempt you from the law so that you may practice your freedoms of religion.
I believe that this law will benefit society greatly by allowing religious groups to freely practice certain parts of their religion that they may not have been able to practice in the past (i.e. refusing to work on a Sunday without the fear losing your job), however, I also believe that it will hurt society greatly if this law is used by people against other people who may be against their religion. The reason this Act (which is not new) is stirring such a wave, is because whether you agree with it or not, one of the only people groups to still be acceptably discriminated against is the LGBT community. If people tried to use this Act against any other people group, it would never pass in a court of law.
Example 1, lets just assume that a member of the Christian Identity owns a coffee shop in Indiana. If he were to go to court using RFRA as his reason to ban Black Americans from shopping at his store, America would be outraged. Naturally, his claim would be rejected and, although it would go against his religious beliefs, he would have to sell to Black Americans.
Example 2, February 19, 2015, with the help of religious freedom, a Michigan pediatrician refused to see a 6 month old patient because the child had 2 moms. No government action has been taken - in fact, it barely made the news.
Example 3, Yesterday, an unnamed restaurant owner admitted on the radio that in the past he had lied to LGBT people so as to get them out of his store and is now thrilled that he can "by law" refuse to serve them because he doesn't "...want people like that in [his] store."
We all deserve religious freedom, but if you having religious freedom comes with the cost of me losing my basic human rights, then I won't support it. "A person's a person no matter how small."