On June 26, 2013, the U.S. Supreme Court issued two highly anticipated rulings in same-sex marriage cases. First, the Court ruled that the federal government has to legally recognize the marriages of same-sex couples in those states that have legalized them. In a second decision, the Court declined to hear an appeal in defense of a California ballot initiative that had banned same-sex marriage on grounds that the nongovernmental party bringing the appeal lacked standing. For reasons discussed below, both decisions represent incremental steps that will ultimately lead the Court to consider whether same-sex marriage should be a right nationwide.
The similarity between the persecutions of Muslims in 2013, alleged Communists in 1950, and those believed to be witches in 1692 is a perceived threat to the traditional conservative Christian culture of the American people.
On September 19, a bipartisan group introduced a bill in the U.S. House of Representatives that would prevent the federal government from discriminating through the tax code against individual religious believers who hold the principle that marriage is a union of one man and one woman. According to bill author, Rep. Raul Labrador (R-ID)H.R. 3133, the “Marriage and Religious Freedom Act,” “will ensure tolerance for individuals and organizations that affirm traditional marriage, protecting them from adverse federal action.” The bill is co-sponsored by Rep. Steve Scalise, Chairman of the Republican Study Committee, Rep. Mike McIntyre (D-NC), and Rep. Dan Lipinski (D-IL).
By David Hamstra – It is tempting to resolve the question in favor of one or the other depending on what our moral intuitions tell us about the way the world should be, but to do so, as I will argue later, is to impose upon the weak the vision of morality held by the powerful, putting our society on a trajectory towards totalitarianism. Instead, I want to propose an principled way to approach these cases that will hopefully allow those on either side to find common ground.
Yesterday, the New Mexico Supreme Court ruled that the First Amendment does not protect a photographer's decision not to photograph a same-sex commitment ceremony even if it would violate the photographer's deeply held religious beliefs.
On Friday, March 22, Kentucky Governor Steve Beshear (D) vetoed a religious freedom Bill (HB 279) claiming that the bill would “cause serious unintentional consequences that could threaten public safety, health care, and individuals' civil rights.” The legislature is expected to override the veto.
The Human Rights Council, an organization of people who reject religion, has issued a report that indicates atheists face severe discrimination and persecution because of their beliefs in many nations around the world.
The U.S. Supreme Court has scheduled two days of oral arguments on two separate but related cases beginning on March 26, 2013. The Court will be hearing arguments on California's Proposition 8 which amended the state constitution to disallow same-sex marriage is constitutional and the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA).
On December 17, 2012 Senator John Kerry (D-MA) introduced “The Workplace Religious Freedom Act of 2013” (S.3686) which would Amend Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to prohibit employment discrimination on the basis of religion specifically in the areas of “garb, grooming, and scheduling.”
By Jason Hines – n Illinois appellate court rendered an interesting decision last week.[1] The court upheld a lower court ruling that Illinois pharmacists do not have to sell "Plan B" pills to customers if they have religious objections to the use of the product. "Plan B" is the brand name of a drug that can prevent pregnancy if taken […]
“In America, it is against the law to fire an employee for expressing his religious beliefs—especially when that expression takes place at church. This kind of religious intolerance by an employer has no place in today’s workforce.”
— Andrew Coffman, Liberty Institute, Attorney for Eric Walsh
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe by RSS
