The First Amendment protects your ability to exercise your rights under the freedom of religion, but what happens when discrimination is mixed in? An example of this is the Supreme Court case Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, in July 2012, when Charlie Craig and David Mullins decided to go to Masterpiece Cakeshop and wanted the owner, Jack Phillips, to design a cake for their wedding. Philips declined to make the cake based on the fact that he does not make wedding cakes for a same-sex wedding because of his religion. This raised the question can a business owner decline service to someone. The couple ended up filing charges of discrimination because they felt the owner violated the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act (CADA). Which makes What makes this case interesting is that the smaller courts ruled in favor of the couple say that this was discrimination. The United States Supreme Court reversed their ruling with a 7-2 vote siding with the baker. Stating that this violated the free exercise clause which is the right practice religion.
Another similar court case was Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores the family that owns Hobby Lobby shaped their business around the Christian faith, believing that using any contraception is immoral and goes against their religion and under the Affordable Care Act they were forced to cover contraceptives. So on September 12th, 2012 Hobby Lobby, sued the secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services based on how covering contraceptives violate their right to the Free Exercise Clause and the Religious Freedom Restoration act (RAFA). This also bought the question should you be able to decline services to someone based The Supreme Court ruled 5-4 in favor of Hobby Lobby because of RAFA and how it is used in cases like this.
The big issue with whether you are able to decline services to someone or not is that no matter the outcome someone will be upset. I believe that in some cases you should not be allowed to decline service to someone because discrimination is a big issue and companies should not be able to pick and choose their customers. In both cases above the Supreme Court ruled that you can decline service to someone based on the free exercise clause in the first amendment. In some ways, I disagree with this because a company shouldn’t deny a woman the right to contraceptives, but I also can see it from the company’s point of view, but they should make it known that they don’t cover contraceptives.
“Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores.” Oyez, 25 Feb. 2019, http://www.oyez.org/cases/2013/13-354.
“Civil Rights in the Twenty-First Century.” African American Almanac, edited by Brigham Narins, 10th ed., Gale, 2009. Student Resources In Context, https://link.galegroup.com/apps/doc/EJ2135010022/SUIC?u=mono131514&sid=SUIC&xid=9f454ce1. Accessed 25 Feb. 2019.
“Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission.” Oyez, 25 Feb. 2019, http://www.oyez.org/cases/2017/16-111.
Free exercise of religion has been an ongoing issue the American society has yet to find a resolution for. Leading a Christian prayer before a football game has been one of those situations where it is very difficult to classify it as a first amendment right to freely practice your own religion, or if it is imposing on other people. There is not much difference in opinions of students on if they simply pray for team unity, or if they pray for religious reasons; 52% say it is for team unity and 48% say it is for religious reasons according to an article written by the Omniscient. The survey just represents how hard this issue is to classify as one thing or the other, and how to resolve this tension.
There is also a fine line with the authority of a student leading a prayer or a coach leading one. A student has less authority to the situation because they aren’t the ones leading the team and who everyone looks up to, however, with the coach leading in prayer some may feel compelled or forced to participate in the prayer because that is their coach and they may feel like it is their duty to follow what he or she says, even if they may not believe in what they are saying. A student, Quade Zimmerman, who is not a Christian and is on a football team that prays before every game, responded to this idea and said himself that “We make it a choice if it’s the players, but not if it’s the coach. He has more authority, so he gets to say what goes and what doesn’t.”
The number of people who believe Christian prayer should be allowed at schools is dwindling, so that gives people, who previously were extremely outnumbered, an opportunity to speak up. There has always been students and other people attending the games who have been feeling left out or inferior because their other teammates and other attendees are praying, but that they are less of a minority, the battles are getting more intense, and more prevalent in our society. An anonymous student explained this feeling of inferiorness to his fellow teammates by saying “While they are praying I quietly stand to the side because I don’t believe in what they are praying about and I feel like I shouldn’t participate. Sometimes I feel like the team is judging me and that is very difficult.” Nobody should have to feel like they are at the bottom of the totem pole on a team that is supposed to be unified and working together, which is why we need a solution to this ongoing issue.
Recommendations made by the US Supreme Court have been to allow students to pray individually, and not have a specifically led prayer that leaves other students of different religions feeling left out and judged. Finally, although people argue that a coach leading a prayer before a football game is harmless and only brings unity to the team,how can a team be unified if there are students standing off to the side and feeling lesser than their fellow football players? This is why we, as a nation, need to have individual prayer before sports games, so everyone can practice their own prayer for their own religion and still bring unity to the teams by all of the students feeling welcomed and loved.
Freedom of religion, according to the 1st Amendment, states that everyone has the right to practice his or her own religion, or no religion at all. The Establishment Clause of the 1st Amendment also prohibits government from promoting or encouraging religion in any way. So where does the line cross in schools with religion, considering teachers are considered government staff, but students aren’t? With there being such an indefinite rule or law regarding student prayer and what is considered only student encouraged or school encourage. There has been multiple cases trying to clear up what is unconstitutional. Such as the Engel v. Vitale case in 1962, where the school was challenged for authorizing a short, voluntary prayer for recitation at the beginning of the school day. This was a nondenominational prayer, meaning it did have an official religion. The court ruled that the government had no right to draft a formal prayer in which it did violated the First Amendment. Although this does allow the students to exercise their religious rights voluntarily, it is still the government setting aside a time in which encourages religious practices. In other cases such as North Carolina prayer in public school where “a period of silence not to exceed one minute in duration shall be observed and silence maintained; prayer by individuals on voluntary basis is allowed.” This is the way many schools have gotten around putting religion in schools, but only until someone finds a way that it goes against their own rights. Loosening restrictions on prayer in schools for the students will violate the 1st Amendment in the end. No matter how the schools try to weave around the indefinite laws and rules, someone will find a way that it violates their rights and intertwines government and religion.
“North Carolina Prayer In Public Schools Laws – Findlaw.” Findlaw. N. p., 2018. Web. 26 Sept. 2018. https://statelaws.findlaw.com/north-carolina-law/north-carolina-prayer-in-public-schools-laws.html
“Engel v. Vitale.” Oyez, 25 Sep. 2018 www.oyez.org/cases/1961/468.
“Introduction To The Establishment Clause Of The First Amendment.” Law2.umkc.edu. N. p., 2018. Web. 26 Sept. 2018. http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/estabinto.htm
“Constitutional Amendment On School Prayer.” American Civil Liberties Union. N. p., 2018. Web. 26 Sept. 2018. https://www.aclu.org/other/constitutional-amendment-school-prayer
Do, What et al. “The First Amendment In Schools: Resource Guide: Religious Expression In The Public Schools.” National Coalition Against Censorship. N. p., 2018. Web. 26 Sept. 2018. https://ncac.org/resource/the-first-amendment-in-schools-resource-guide-religious-expression-in-the-public-schools
The Fighting Words doctrine under the first amendment is defined as a limitation to the freedom of speech, as protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. But what are the limits that can be pushed before you cross the line over the gray area, and infringe upon others? Is protesting an example of inciting hate speech and fighting words? Under the fighting words doctrine, fightings words are split into two types of speech that are not protected, words that by their very utterance inflict injury, and speech that incites an immediate breach of the peace. This doctrine comes forth after the Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire case. This case was when Chaplinsky was immediately breaching the peace, and inciting utterance to inflict injury towards police officers, he was arrested. The Supreme Court decided to uphold the arrest, and therefore making the doctrine, originally the Chaplinsky clause, eventually they called it the the Fighting Words doctrine. In Topeka, Kansas, members of the Westboro Baptist Church like to protest at soldiers funerals, protesting the LGBTQ community, and blaming them for the soldiers deaths.
On February 1, 1949, in Chicago the Father Arthur Terminiello delivered a speech to his congregation where he bashed many different political groups, and racial groups, condemning his group to gather and riot. He was arrested for disturbing the peace, and for inciting a riot. It was because of his words that caused protest, and riots. Even though the court ruled in a 5 to 4 favor of Terminello, he still caused both a nuisance, and disrupted the peace. I think that inciting protests, and disrupting the peace should not be protected under the 1st Amendment. You should not get protection under the 1st amendment for disrupting everyday life for other people.
For many years being allowed to say a quick prayer before the big game is what hypes up the boys before they play. Whether it is just the fact that they feel protected after they say a prayer, or they just want that boost of confidence, like somebody else might have a say in the turning events of the game. Whatever reason they have for wanting to say that prayer they should be allowed to. Then why can’t they? The supreme court ruled in a 6-3 vote that said students of a public school couldn’t lead a prayer before going out on the field (1) It wasn’t the fact that the students were praying that the supreme court had an issue with, their issue was with the broadcasting of the praying. Saying that it broke the first amendment. That it violated the separation that was needed between religion and government. However, according to an attorney in Cincinnati, it is only not allowed when the coach calls the prayer. If for instance, the team members all decide to hold a prayer they are legally allowed to and protected to do so. (2) It’s no different than being required to allow Muslim people their prayer time in school. If a Muslim child who as a part of their religion needs to pray 5 times a day, the school cannot deny them the right to do so. they are protected under freedom of religion and cannot be discriminated because of that religion. (3) I believe that we should allow students to pray before a game if it’s something that they as a team feel they should do and all of them agree on praying. If it’s what’s giving some players the right vote of confidence they need we shouldn’t be the ones denying them of that.
Cincinnati.com. N. p., 2018. Web. 1 Oct. 2018. https://www.cincinnati.com/story/news/2018/09/05/prayer-public-schools-must-student-led-voluntarily/1192954002/
“Newshour Extra: School Prayer.” Pbs.org. N. p., 2018. Web. 1 Oct. 2018.https://www.pbs.org/newshour/spc/extra/features/jan-june00/prayerdecision.html
Hart, Holland. “Prayer Breaks Present Difficult Religious Accommodation Issue.” Employers’ Lawyers Blog. N. p., 2016. Web. 1 Oct. 2018.Hart, H. Hart, Holland. “Prayer Breaks Present Difficult Religious Accommodation Issue.” Employers’ Lawyers Blog. N. p., 2016. Web. 1 Oct. 2018.
Freedom of speech is one of the most important rights that we as Americans have. In the United States, the First Amendment guarantees free speech, though the United States, places limits on this freedom. In a series of landmark cases, the U.S. Supreme Court has helped to define what types of speech are—and aren’t—protected under U.S. law. According to The New York Times, CNN and USA Today the Westboro Baptist Church has been protesting military funerals for many years. The Church has gained national attention from the press because many of these views are considered to be very extreme and hate related. The Westboro Baptist Church is recognized as one of the most well known hate groups in the world. Its primary message is that God hates the United States and is punishing the country for its acceptance of homosexuality. The Church chooses to protest the funerals of fallen soldiers to make the point that in their opinion soldiers are dying as part of God’s punishment for this country’s sins.
Do you think the 1st Amendment should protect the Westboro Baptist Church or should it be an exception and not allow the church to protest veterans funerals? I believe that the 1st amendment should protect the Westboro Baptist Church because if the court did rule against the church it would go against the first amendment directly. Since the protesters were protesting legally they can say whatever they want as long as it is within the law. That may seem harsh but, in reality the funeral attendees were never actually close enough to even see the protests, The father of Marine Lance Corporal Matthew Snyder said in a statement from CNN that, as he passed the protest he only saw the tops of the Westboro Baptist Church’s signs. However, he was exposed to the signs and to the Church’s message when he saw the protest covered by the evening news; and later when he searched online to see what they had to say about his son. In conclusion I am with the law and the 1st Amendment that everything the Westboro Baptist Church had done is legal and is not punishable by the law. Although I do not agree with what the church did I think it was very disrespectful of the family and of America itself to protest at a funeral and say those horrible things.
- Funeral Protests: Selected Federal Laws and Constitutional IssuesKathleen Ann Ruane Legislative Attorney March 22, 2011Anon
Fas.org. N. p., 2018. Web. 14 Feb. 2018.
“Westboro Baptist Church.” Huffingtonpost.com. N. p., 2018. Web. 14 Feb. 2018.
Huffpost has an entire section devoted to the westboro baptist church and is constantly updating it with recent news.
Breaking News, Analysis, Politics, Blogs, News Photos, Video, Tech Reviews – TIME.com
“Breaking News, Analysis, Politics, Blogs, News Photos, Video, Tech Reviews – TIME.Com.” TIME.com. N. p., 2011. Web. 14 Feb. 2018.