Friday, June 6, 2014

Prompt No. 1 Religious Freedom

Religious Freedom: The First Amendment grants us the right to "freely practice" our religious views (and NOT to practice any as the case may be) and guarantees that the government will not establish an official religion. So, these two components pretty much establish what we call a "wall of separation" between the government and we the people and our religious or non-religious beliefs. Now, do you think the government should protect a person's religious freedom, if part of that religious freedom means potentially discriminating against another person because that person somehow is against their relgion? So for example, like referenced in the article, should a business owner have the right to refuse service to a black or gay person because for some reason their "blackness" or homosexuality is in direct to their religious beliefs? It's a tough one. Remember, rule NO. 1 is respect. Any and all opinions are welcome, but express them respectfully and logically. Happy Writing! ALSO , please make sure to identify yourself. If I don't know who you are, I can't give you credit. Rebelo

76 comments:

Unknown said...

Yes, the First Amendment gives us the right to freely practice religion however there are still certain restrictions placed that do not allow you to do certain things for the sake of religion such as sacrificing humans. This is not an exception to the rule but refusing service is. I believe that businesses should not be able to discriminate based on religious views however this is one of their rights as a business, to refuse service to an individual for any reason. We have all seen the signs ‘No shoes, no shirts, no service’ and most of us believe that this is a reasonable expectation from the business owner even though it discriminates against shirtless and shoeless people. Just because we do not personally agree with their view doesn’t mean that they do not have the right. The government should protect all religion equally, even if one discriminates against another. It isn’t their job to change people’s views, their job is to uphold the law. - Devin Smith

Unknown said...

To add on to what Devin had said, the First Amendment does give us the right to practice our religious preference, but in some cases there are restrictions. For example, gay marriage shouldn’t even be a problem because the First Amendment that we have the right to exercise our religious beliefs, but it has been illegal to marry under the same sex for a long period of time and in many states is still illegal in many states todays. In the business world, it would be defined as morally wrong to hire or not to because of the type of religious beliefs that they so choose to exercise.
I believe that the government should protect a person’s religious freedom because even though it may discriminate on others, everyone should have their own view on what they believe and shouldn’t be forced to believe in something that they don’t. If they have a belief that no black people should be hired than so be it, but understand that I don’t believe that it is right to discriminate on others, but I do believe that America is a free country and that everyone is entitled to their beliefs. If there would be a way to end discrimination in America then that would be great, but discrimination has become an American mainstream throughout the years of this nation’s existence.

ReginaAndres97 said...

"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."This amendment gave us a lot of the freedoms we have today. Without this, Americans would not have as many rights as they have today. It gave us freedom of speech, religion, press and the right to petition peacefully, but althought this is good it can also cause problems , for exampe "beliefs" may required human or animal sacrifices, so that would be murder, so yes in my opinion there should be certain limitations., as for marrying your same sex, there shouldn't and it shall not be illegal because. if the first amendment gives you freedom , than why are you prohibited from marring whoever you want , even thought it's not hurting anyone.
-Regina Andres

Unknown said...

Having the right to practice our own religious views is the same as having the right of speech. Freedom of speech has its limits though; it is not acceptable to talk negatively to another person or a group. Going off of this, freedom of practicing any or no religion is only acceptable when it does not negatively impact another person’s religious belief. As a Christian myself, my religion does not accept same-sex marriage, but discriminating them for having a different gender is hate, and Christianity doesn’t teach us to hate others, it teaches us to love our neighbor. A government that protects its people’s privacy, speech, and the right to bear arms, should also protect an individual’s practice of religion, but should also protect individual’s from being discriminated by others. Race, color, and religion don’t label us, the only label we have is that we are all human and not accepting another person or group, or hating them is like hating yourself.
-Bronsin Benyamin

Unknown said...

Although the First Amendment gives us religious freedom, that doesn't mean that it's okay to attack other people for their beliefs. If, in the example mentioned, the business owner was in fact discriminatory against blacks and homosexuals, he should not be biased when he decides to hire someone. Someone should be hired based on their skills and competency. There are laws that prohibit job discrimination.
Unfortunately, those laws are not always enforced. The business owner could give false reasons as to why he didn't want to hire certain people, and there would be no way of proving that it's just because he discriminates.
Going back on topic, I don't believe that the government should protect religious organizations that discriminate. It goes against the original reason that the United States was founded in the first place: people wanted to be accepted and tolerated by their nation. Only religions that are tolerant and accepting should be protected by the government.

-Elena Miller

lplascencia66 said...

People do have the right to believe in what they want but there should be certain restrictions. They should not be able to not hire someone because of those beliefs. They don't have to like that person but if they are qualified they should rightfully get the job. When a person gets hired it should be because they are the best qualified for that job, not because the previous person before was gay or of a certain race. That is where the limit should believe what you want,but don't discriminate when hiring someone. -Luis Plascencia

Unknown said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Unknown said...

The government should protect a person’s religious freedom such as the right to worship his/her God, but the government should not protect his/her extreme beliefs like discrimination against a black or a gay person. It is not fair if the government treats a person better than another one just because of the religious freedom. I don’t think that is called religious freedom; it is called discrimination. The business owners just use their religious freedom as a reason for them to not serve the people they hate. Although same sex marriage is not allowed to some religions, there are no religions that teach people to hate the others because of their race or gender. If a black or gay people do not intend to harm the business owners or their business, why do they not serve those people? Why should government protect the people who discriminate against other people? Therefore, I don’t think the government should protect a person's religious freedom, if part of that religious freedom is discriminating against another person because of his/her race or gender. -Minh Truong

Unknown said...

I think that the government should protect the religious views and practices of all of it's citizens. Even if some of these views are considered discriminatory, they should still be protected if they are not infringing upon the rights of other citizens and their views. In terms of not serving someone due to some prejudice, that should be up to the owner of the establishment. If his views forbid him from serving certain people, then so be it. However, if the views of the religion include infringing upon the rights of any individual, or harming them in anyway, then they are no longer protected as a "right" (you should always be aloud to speak your mind, but you should never be aloud to take away the rights of someone else). Some may argue that the individual being discriminated against has the right to be served, and they are correct. Let's say I'm the bigot business owner, me not serving them is not infringing upon that right of theirs because they can take their business elsewhere. I can't, and shouldn't be able to prevent them from being served by anyone else. So really what it gets down to is, are the views directly stating that you should infringe upon another persons rights. If not, then they should be protected by the government. If the views of the bigot do happen to inflict harm or infringe upon the rights of an individual, then they should never be protected. - Ed Maxwell

Unknown said...

While there is the "wall of separation" between the government and religion I feel that it is important that the government takes certain steps in making sure no persons of a certain religion be discriminated in a workplace. An example of discrimination in the workplace would be when my mom applied for a job as yard duty at an elementary school. This was a few months after the September Eleven attacks and the school felt that it would be in the school's best interest to keep the school safe for the time being. If my mom had attempted to apply without her head wear and without her last name being "Ahmad" she would have most likely been able to get the job. People may argue that the school had every right to be afraid after such an attack, however in that very same year on February second a man named William Stankewicz went into an elementary school and injured thirteen people including students. Stankewicz was also a teacher and yet the were hiring other without a second glance. If the government became more involved the discrimination would fade away and people would be able to get more involved within our society.

Franalvacad said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Franalvacad said...

Religion is always a double-edged sword. What could seem obvious to one might be offensive and daft to the other. As for the first amendment, it protects the freedom to have our own religion, not the religion itself. What I mean by that is that a Muslim man will have the same rights and equality under the law as a Christian woman. When there is conflict between the two is when things get out of hand. In this case, if we only look at what the first amendment provides, the business owner did unfortunately have the whole right to do it. He has the freedom of speech and religion and he used it. However, under other laws such as the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the man should not have done that, since acts like those outlaw discrimination. But as we know, there might be a law that makes killing illegal but that doesn’t stop people from murdering. Going back to the question of when the government should step in. As soon as the person is rejected or discriminated, it doesn’t become an issue of religious freedom as much as it becomes an issue of a person being discriminated. The government should then step in and protect the one discriminated. It was obviously wrong for the man to do it, since he is provoking a conflict that should be restricted, but, again, looking only at what the first amendment says, he wasn’t wrong in expressing his rights. As for the righteousness of this, well, it’s very little. Rejecting would be morally wrong since most major religions practice a “Love thy neighbor” sense of interaction. So even rejecting the Homosexual or the black would probably go against the man’s religion.
-Francisco Alvarez (Chile)

Gabbie said...

A person's religious beliefs may suggest that someone is beneath them but religious beliefs cannot interfere with laws. The owner of a store, restaurant, etc. can refuse service based on religious belief because they have the legal right to do so, but no one can murder, rape, assault or otherwise harm a person because their religion gives them the right to do so. The law does not give them the right to do so. Everyone has the right to practice, or not practice their religion in a peaceful manner. Once the practice becomes destructive it is no longer their right and is not protected by the first amendment.

Naomi J. Y. Beirne-Tokudomi said...

I believe that the First Amendment, should protect the right to freedom of religion. However, if another proves discriminatory or tries to impede on another belief system's independence, the government, whether it be federal, state, or local level, should intervene as the offending party would be causing a disturbance to peace.
While I do believe that people should be allowed to practice their beliefs(provided that they're not killing or eating other people, or causing harm to many), if they can't respect someone for who they are;racially, culturally, politically, or whatever else; they are treading on other people's rights. If they are intolerant, we should send them deep into the South or let them start a new colony elsewhere.

P6 markos said...

The First Amendment gives citizens freedom of religion,speech and the press, and the right to assembly and petition. When having freedom of speech it doesn't me people can go on philippic attacks about other people's beliefs. The government should protect religious freedoms that don't discriminate against other people. There are religions in which they don't support certain things such as homosexuality in Christianity, but Christians don't openly go out and discriminate against people who are homosexual. For example in the business owner scenario the business owner denies service to a person based on their skin color and sexuality. This isn't right because the business owner's religious views are infringing another person's rights. If this happens his religion isn't protected by the first amendment. Religion becomes a very controversial issue in government, yet the final idea is that if a religion isn't infringing someone's individual rights, it should be protected by the government, but if a religion is infringing someone's individual rights, it shouldn't be protected. -Markos Kassahun

Unknown said...

I believe that there should be a “wall of separation” between government and religion. It helps to control ideas that might have a negative effect on todays society, but it is made clear that certain regulations are to be made in cases like this. People should be hired on their abilities and skills presented and not on their skin color or religion. The workplace is the first place where these kinds of acts should not have to be dealt with. Everybody should have an equal chance to receive a job. Denying them that right because they are a certain skin color or believe in a certain religion, should not be tolerated. This is one of the reasons that society is falling apart in the U.S. While we say that we are all about acceptance, things like this are happening all over the United States. We’re all talk and no bark. ~Steven Guzman

Unknown said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Unknown said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Unknown said...

I believe that the government and religion should be separated, but the government should protect a person's religious beliefs. However, if someones religious beliefs due to religious freedom can be potentially discriminating to others, than I believe the government should get involved. While I believe people should have the right to express their religion freely, religion should not interfere with the rights of others. Religious freedom should not get in the way of other people’s rights and if the religion does this, then it shouldn’t be protected by the government. For example, the that scenario with the business owner refusing to serve black or gay people due to religious beliefs, than I believe the government should get involved due to the rights of other people getting infringed upon.
- Anthony Hoang

Unknown said...

Everyone have the right of freedom of speech and freedom of religious under the First Amendment. The right to freedom of religious allows individuals to express themselves and what they believe in without interference or constraint by the government. The First Amendment does protect religious beliefs and practices from government interference but no matters what, there are some restrictions. I believe the government should protect a person's religious freedom because by supporting religious freedom we will builds a foundation for progress and stability. People should be look on their skill and experience not the color of their skin or religion. People should be considered equal and chosen for their qualifications. - Nhi Nguyen

Unknown said...

Yes, I believe the government should protect a person's religious freedom because there shouldn't be any discrimination between other human beings. Everyone should be considered equal with the same rights as in the First Amendment. However, if there are discrimination between others, the government should intervene, like the example specified that the business owner having the right to refuse service to a black or gay person directly due to their religious beliefs. Having this kind of discrimination should be dealt with. Just because of the person's skin color, religion or beliefs should not even be an acceptance to refuse them. Everyone has the right to acquire a job based on their skills and qualities rather than their religious beliefs.
- Richard Ting

Unknown said...

The government should protect every person's religion, beliefs, and practices. Though there should be limits to people. If a person uses religion as an excuse to refuse service, that is called discrimination. A big issue today is gay marriage, many people argue that it is a wrong thing because God says it is wrong. In my opinion that is discrimination. Gay marriage should be protected under the 1st Amendment because they have the right to exercise their own beliefs. We are all equal and we are all the same beneath. As I said before, the government should protect every person's religion, but the people should have their limits.

Thomas Hoang said...

I agree with the context of the First Amendment that there should a separation between religion and government to ensure our right of religious freedom is protected. However, there are limitations on far the government should protect an individual's personal beliefs. In the case of discrimination against another person's beliefs, its reasonable that the government should intervene and protect accordingly to the case. As a Buddhist, it would be unjust if I was denied service from restaurant just because of my religion or race.So, it is expected from the government that all religions should be respected equally, but when a person's right is being infringed, the government should get involved to preserve the peace.

Unknown said...

The First Amendment gives every one the right to believe in what they want. I don't see anything wrong with that. Part of being free is having the right to your own religion. In my opinion, the only time there is a problem with that is when it hurts someone else.
I'm not a religious person, I personally don't believe in going to church. But that doesn't mean I'm offended when people go to church. Every one is entitled to their own opinion, and I respect that. I'm also not gay, that doesn't mean I don't believe in gay marriage. Just because someone is gay and you don't believe it's right, doesn't mean they shouldn't be aloud to get married. Every one has the right to get married. It may not be correct in your religion, but it might be in theirs. I don't think that the government should be aloud to stop gay people from getting married just because it doesn't follow certain religions. That is why there is a separation between church and state. The First Amendment allows people to believe in whatever religion they want to believe, just as long as it doesn't infringe on others religious beliefs. -Jensen Bergvall

Unknown said...

I believe that the government should protect people’s religious views and practices, just like how it is stated in the 1st Amendment. However, the government should only intervene if these religious views are harmful to others. Even though this amendment gives a person the freedom to practice or not to practice religion, it should be restricted. Basing off the business owner refusing to give service to a black or gay person based on his beliefs is when government should take action. There is no reason why your belief should reflect on how poorly you treat others, because if anything it should help you treat people equally. Basing your decisions on whether or not your customer is gay or a race you dislike isn’t right and should be looked into.
-Melvin Chu

Unknown said...

I agree with there being a "wall of separation" when it comes to religion and government because if they were to go hand in hand I believe that it would only cause issues. I say this because there are so many different religions in the world and given the fact that such a large number of people migrate to the U.S they bring their culture and religion. If there is a variety of religions within our own government making decisions and coming to conclusions would be very difficult. People can personally believe what they want but when it comes to their job they should not make biased decisions because of their religious beliefs. They should do what is best for the people at all times. Honestly about people and discrimination the government can't force someone to stop just like Devin S. said the signs saying 'No shoes, no shirt, no service' is pretty much discriminating people who don't have those resources and they have the right to say no. The government should just do their job to the best of their ability.
-Yadira Frutos

Jessica Dinges said...

"The wall of separation" between the Government and the people and our beliefs is not something I can say exists. In both the Constitution of the United States and the Pledge of Allegiance "God" is mentioned. These two things having been written by white men meaning that the God mentioned is probably referring to either the Christian or Catholic religions. With the history of these two religions being the most practiced in our country and the past and current situation of terrorism, I can't even saying the Government is protecting our right of freedom of religion for everyone completely.
Everyone is allowed their own beliefs and opinions, and it is the job of the Government to be unbiased towards it all, allowing everyone the freedom to practise any religion, worship any god, and believe in anything they so please. The freedom of religion is something personal for most people and the Government should have no right to interfere with that. So long as nothing illegal has occurred and everything stays within the laws of the Government in the practice of a religion the Government should allow people to live the way they want and not the way they are wanted too.
Jessica Dinges

Jonathan Chavez said...

Now it is my understanding that the 1st ammendment is to protect and to retain respect for others religions. Now with this in our mind, let us understand what the governments responsibility is to the people. It is the governments job to protect the people and their rights, now in the case that its is against a persons religion to serve or help or whatever, then I believe that it's not right of that individual to refuse service on the grounds of their ethnic or sexual orientation, and since it's the responsibility of the government to protect the rights of the people, then it's only natural that is right for the government to prohibit such an act. For people to refuse service on grounds of this type starts a precedent that it's more important to allow such behavior than to protect the rights of all citizens, which would lead to ANARCHY... I could be wrong, but I doubt it.(Charles Barkly)

Sara Gonzalez said...

I also believe that there is a "wall of seperation" between the government and the people when it comes to religion in the United States. It may be easier for the government to not become involved when there are issues involving religion or someone being discriminated becuase of other people´s beliefs. Regardless of this the First Amendment protects and allows people to practice their beliefs freely, therefore if someone is being discriminated they are not truly being protected. Regardless of our beliefs we do not have the right to discriminate others. I do not think that the government should defend or protect any kind of buisnness or person that is discrmintaing others because of their beliefs. Many religions ofcourse do not believe in homosexuality which they have a right to stick to. But this does not give them the right to refuse service to a gay person. The government should only allow poeple to believe and practice whatever they want to a certain extent. When discrimination begins to take place I believe it is necessary for the government to become involved. -Sara Gonzalez

Michael Gelagay said...

I completely agree with Devin and Bronsin's viewpoint. Devin brings up the point that the government's job should solely be on protecting all religions equally. If the government were to penalize or to arrest people, and specifically, businesses, for refusing to serve people based on their race, religion, or gender preference, then they would be discriminating people as well. To Bronsin's point, I am a Christian as well. It is against our religion to marry someone of the same sex. It is just looked down upon, as it is not written in the Bible that way. But the Bible also taught us to not hate or discriminate other people. We need to keep in mind that we, the people of our beautiful nation, can't monitor and judge how we view everyone. If we did that, we would have discriminatory fights every single day. The government should stick to protecting our individual rights, but also not penalize people for having their own beliefs. If they did, they would directly go violate the part of the First Amendment, that allows us to have free speech.
- Michael Gelagay

Unknown said...

The government should protect a person's religious freedom even if they are discriminatory. However, even if their practices enforce discriminatory actions, it shouldn't be imposed on others. An employer should be looking for skills needed for the job, not for a person's race, sexuality or religion. For example, the Westboro Baptist Church has their own beliefs, their 'religion' discriminates against homosexuals(For the record, I do NOT support this group. AT ALL.) and they have the right to do so. However, it is NOT okay when they start imposing their beliefs on others. Religion should not seek the individual, the individual should seek religion.

Unknown said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Unknown said...

It is true that the first Amendment gives people freedom of speech and to practice their religion, and it is true as long as it doesn't undermine our basic civil rights. The first Amendment should not be used as a pretext to discriminate against other people's ethnicities, beliefs and their way of life. For example in the bussiness owner case they trampling civil rights by questioning their way of life, their race or ethnicity and it is form of discrimination and discrimination is never right.
-Maryam Mostafavi

Unknown said...

The government should protect the religious freedom of a person even if it discriminates other people for being different. If a person were a homosexual or black and was refused service ,like in the example, it would be morally wrong but it is legal. Some religions are against same-sex marriage but do not hate the people for being different. If the government protects freedom of speech and the right to bear arms, then a person's religious beliefs should be fully protected as well regardless if it discriminates against a certain group of people..

Unknown said...

The first amendment gives us the rights to practice our religion. Government should protect this, but I do not believe that it should allow people to use it in a form to discriminate others. In the example given, people should not be denied a job because of the way they express their freedom to be who they are. Within religion, it may state that homosexuality is "wrong," but I highly doubt that it says to discriminate or act upon it possibly resulting in a hate crime. Bronsin proves this by bringing his religion as a sampling. I believe that it is by choice to discriminate someone and people should not blame their religions for their actions. People should be hired because they are qualified for that job, not because of their personal choices that should be outside the business environment. I agree with Elena's statement on how hard it would be to begin figuring out if a person is discriminatory. The laws against this are a good way to start, but also difficult to enforce. I believe the best solution is to educate. Educate people to simply not hate, but to accept differences.

-Cynthia Voly

Unknown said...

It is true that the first Amendment gives people freedom of speech and to practice their religion, and it is true as long as it doesn't undermine our basic civil rights. The first Amendment should not be used as an excuse to use discrimination against other people's ethnicities, beliefs and their way of life. For example in the bussiness owner case they forget about civil rights and question people like what their race or ethnicity is and also question their way of life and that is a form of discrimination and discrimination is never right, nor will it ever be right in my opinion.

-Louis Bellido

Unknown said...

The first amendment is amoung the most powerful of our amendments and it is clear that people are free to express any religious view they would like,but government should be able to come in whenever a lack of civil rights are at stake due to a specific religion. As a first world power and superpower at that the U.S should also go above and beyond what is inscribed in the law by demonstrating a strong moral conscience. So to allow discrimination for any reason even religion should not be allowed weather or not its specifically written just from a moral point of view government should be able to interject into religious affairs from as far as distance as possible just enough to establish that for no reason will discrimination be allowed in this country.Our diverse citizenships and freedoms is what cause people to want to come to the U.S but it needs to be clear that you can say I don't want you here or think it,but government should never allow even under a religious pretext for an actual action far enough to put up a sign or something similar to take place. When words turn to action that is the line where government should be able to step in without having to worry about political correctness. -Ugonna Chukwu

Unknown said...

I believe the First Amendment is one of the most important Amendments in America because we are a nation made up of many mixed cultures. This law is necessary to protect the people’s individual beliefs but I do agree it should come with its limitations. Just like Jensen said, everyone is entitled to their own opinion yet that shouldn’t allow people to discriminate by any means. I think that when it comes to religion, having a religion should be as acceptable as not having a religion. And neither side should look down on the other or treat them differently for their own personal belief. Discrimination of any kind should not be allowed not only because it is against someone’s beliefs but also because it is just morally wrong. I also agree with Cynthia when it comes to figuring out a solution. Because this is such a controversial issue, I think the best first step to take would be educating people to be less discriminatory.
-Nicole Chellew

Unknown said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Unknown said...

We live in a society where an employer would be more likely hire a person with the same religious beliefs as themselves, rather than a person with the right qualifications and skills for the job whom may have entirely different religious views from the employer themselves. I have always questioned why they ask for your race/ethnicity when filling out a job application. Many say it's for statistical purposes, but some companies and corporations, especially larger ones, are required to hire a certain number or percentage of minority workers by law, so that "discrimination" doesn't take place. This process is called affirmative action. No one can be certain that those in charge of hiring are using the question of ethnicity in an affirmative way. Although the First Amendment is one of the most important Amendment's in our constitution, I do believe that the government should protect us from discrimination and allow religious freedom to an extent. A workplace should not allowed to fire a woman due to the fact that she became pregnant before marriage or deny a person for a certain job position simply because they are a part of the LGBT community. Religious freedom in America today means that we all have the right religious freedom, but this does not give us the right to use our religion to discriminate against and impose those beliefs on others who do not share them. -Drew Valadez

Huong Le said...

In the example stated, the government should not provide protection to the business owner because they are actively discriminating against others. The First Amendment does protect religious practices, but once it infringes on the rights of others then the government should step in. There's also the question of whether it's even really religiously based, and if said owner actually believed in the practice or (like others have stated) simply using it as a means for discrimination based on their own personal opinions. Realistically for the gay customer, the owner cannot possibly differentiate every person that comes through their door as gay or not. As for customers of "color", that's just so subjective that in my opinion just has to go back to personal opinion and cannot be backed up by religion. I could be wrong, but there isn't a religion that I've ever heard of that differentiates people solely on the color of their skin or one that specifically denies service to gay people. The religions that we all know today reach out to everyone all over the world not matter what. If the owner is refusing service to a person of color due to the religion, then what about another person of color in the same religion? Religion is what you choose to believe in, not an exclusive club that you're chosen to be in. Even then, in the end, your actions are solely on yourself. There may be some things they won't accept within their own religion, such as Christianity and same-sex marriage, and that's perfectly okay because it's their belief, but that still doesn't give any excuse to discriminate in the workplace. ~Huong Le

Unknown said...


I believe that the First Amendment is a very important Amendment because it respect all religions and cultures of the people in this country. The Government should only intervene if they feel that those views are harmful to other citizens. There should be certain restrictions that comes with this Amendment. When the business owner refused to give service to the Black and Gay Person, because of his beliefs, that is when the Government should have taken action. Having and practicing your beliefs is fine and it is respected but, there is no reason to be disrespectful and treat others in a horrible manner. Any type of “business” that discriminates or pick and chooses who they offer their service to should have to answer to the Government. I understand that some people have beliefs that contradict homosexuality or people of color and of course no one is telling them that they can’t think that way, but this still doesn’t not give them the power to refuse service to a black or gay person, discrimination should not be tolerated.

-Sham Abrha

Jmolmud96 said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Jmolmud96 said...

I agree with Francisco when he says that when a person treats someone on there appearance or background in a discriminatory manner then it is no longer a matter of religion rather a matter of someone being discriminated. The first amendment does grant the right of religion to all and that means every citizen but for example If I follow a religion where I believe that every person with a mental disability is born out of sin and should not be on this earth, that would not violate any laws, it would just make people angry more than anything, but if I lead a group of followers attacking a single mentally handicapped citizen then this is no longer a matter of freedom of religion as it is a matter of threatening a citizen of their life. However, under the example where a man refuses to give work to a man because the religion the boss follows condemns the race or the sexual orientation of said applicant then under amendment 1 then then the rights of the business owners religion is protected but also as Francisco said that the worker would be protected under the Civil Rights act of 1964 so in the end both could be right but at the same time both could be wrong. In my personal opinion I think a worker should be judged by his or her skills alone rather then they're gender, race, or sexual orientation. Sometimes laws are made for a specific reason and I'm sure our founding fathers did not mean to use freedom of religion in these terms in the first amendment but as time goes on however circumstances change and we need to adapt to how they effect new ideas around our society.


~Jack Molmud

Unknown said...

The first amendment states that American people are allowed the freedom to abide by their own beliefs, whatever they may be. It is truly a virtue to freely practice any religion in the United States, but limitations should be enforced in the event of that right being used to pursue hateful/discriminatory crimes upon individuals. With that being said, it’s tricky to decipher was is an act of hate or an act of logic. For example, a person is not qualified for a job is going up for a position against someone who is qualified. It’d be logical for the most qualified to be given the job since the business owner would be benefitting their company. In another case, if the person overly qualified was black/gay/etc and the unqualified person was white and gets the job, that has potential of being an act of hate. There’s a very fine line that could be drawn in these types of situations and that could be up for debate. However, to not allow service SPECIFICALLY STATED because they conflict with the owner’s religious/personal preferences, that’s discriminating and should not be tolerated. This is direct infringement upon the rights of an individual for a reason that has nothing to do with their personality or character but something like being gay or black. That’s discrimination. While it’s morally wrong for this to happen, the government backs upon that act since it’s lies under the first amendment for “freedom of speech.” I personally believe that the government should step in when these hateful acts are being ensued because the constitution says that it’s acceptable to be able to PRACTICE religion, but not disturb the peace with it. Some may argue that it’s okay to let that happen because they are saying their opinion, which is correct. Despite that fact, the minute we allow these “little” acts of discrimination go, how will this benefit us as a society if we allow hateful things to go untouched?

Hate isn’t something that’s genetically embedded into our systems, it’s learned through exposure. I believe as a progressive society, we should push the idea of acceptance rather than indifference. It is as acceptable to believe in one god as it is to believe in two or ten. It is as acceptable to love your gender as it is to love the opposite. We the people should not be apologetic to crimes of indifference and discrimination. Unless that idea is inputted into our system, the government will not comply. You have to ask yourselves this: do you want to live in a society where someone is refused a right because of the color of their skin or the preference of their religion? No? Do something. Act upon it. Unless we do something, discrimination will continue and we will not progress.

Unknown said...

The amendments we have in the United States were meant to give the people freedom, but also provide us with protection. Given the First Amendment, it grants us the freedom to have our own beliefs. For whatever the belief may be, the government should protect a person’s religious practices. The first amendment is to protect and give people equality, but the use of the first amendment is not for discriminating others. That is why there should be a limit in which the government can protect. Regarding a solution, like what Nicole and Cynthia have mentioned, the first step and maybe the only thing we can do is to further educate people to not discriminate.
-Pammela Wilson

Unknown said...

The First Amendment gives us the right to practice our religions freely, but it does not give someone the right to discriminate others. We are allowed to express ourselves freely, but we are resticted from acting upon those beiefs. If we were allowed to act in such a way, than it could turn out to be similar to the religious war being fought for the control of Jerusalem. Every religion has conflicting views. The First Amendment helps prevent things like this from occuring. Like Devin has said before, there are certain restrictions placed on us to prevents us from taking certain actions for just the sake of their religion. The government should protect all religions equally, but they can't completely stop discrimination. I was taught at a Christian school and in those classes I learned that what they are taught is that they should be accepting everyone no matter who they are and treat them well, but there are some who contradict these teachings. This is caused by misinterpretation or being taught in a different way. Only the people can do something like stop discrimination. The government is to establish and enforce their laws. They cannot forcefully change people's views. -Jonathan Greene

Unknown said...

Yes, I agree with the First Amendment. I believe that our government should protect our religious freedom which means that they don't interfere with our practices. The only time that they should have to intervene would be like in the example, where an independent entity like a business somehow interferes with a persons' natural rights. Those rights include all of us being treated equally because we are all born human, regardless of color or sexual orientation because those things we can not control. So when an individual is being treated different because of those things, it is called discrimination and our government should not allow it. In conclusion, I do believe that one's religious freedom should be protected as long as their religious practices include treating everyone fairly.

Unknown said...

No, the constitution gives us the right to practice our religion not to use it as an excuse to discriminate. The constitution was written so that the government would not form a religion and so that we would have the freedom to go to the church of our choice on Sundays. We need to accept that the constitution was written in a period of time that doesn’t parallel our time, we have to interpret the wording and apply it to our modern time. I don’t believe that saying you cannot use a religion as a bases to discriminate would change the true meaning of the first amendment. After all it was written to protect people against religious discrimination. Corey Gutierrez

Jasmine Johal said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Jasmine Johal said...

When mentioning religion and government in the same sentence many different viewpoints come about. The First Amendment gives us the right to practice our religion freely and in that case the “wall of separation” is good because people should not be told what the government feels they need to believe. However, when discrimination from different religions is acted on the government needs to climb the wall. If a person is denied a job due to religion, race, or sexuality the government needs to acknowledge this as wrong. Although we may not all agree on certain people’s discriminatory views, they should be able to have their own religious views but shouldn’t be able to act upon them. Once the beliefs become destructive a line has to be drawn.
-Jasmine Johal

Unknown said...

In the First Amendment, you are granted the right to practice whatever religion you please. However, businesses can’t discriminate due to religious beliefs. For example a business can’t discriminate due to sexual preference, or race. What you decide to practice in your church, synagogue, temple, or home, is granted to you in the First Amendment. This does not give a business or corporation the right to discriminate due to race, religion, or sexual preference. As a business you are obligated not to discriminate against individuals or groups for any reason, even including any religion you may practice.

-Isaiah AL

Unknown said...

The First Amendment allows for we the people to freely practice (or not practice) the religion of our choice without government interference. These are rights which should be protected by the government. However if these exercises become discriminatory towards another individual on the basis of race, sexuality, gender, etc. such as in the above example provided by Ms. Rebelo, then the government should protect the victim’s/customer’s rights. Others have mentioned that most if not all religions teach a principle of love and forgiveness towards everyone, and it’s true that the government cannot force one’s ideals to change. No matter what our beliefs, however, there is a difference between freely exercising one’s religion and being discriminatory. So long as one’s religious beliefs aren’t directly harming others or infringing upon their basic rights (in this case being served), the government has no reason to intervene.

Unknown said...

Government and religion should be separate, but at the same time the government should be able to protect one's religious views. If an owner of a restaurant doesn't want to serve someone because of their views, then that should be respected because it is up to the owner to decide who he serves to. However, if the owner were to become violent and abusive towards that person, something must be done to stop that. At that point it is no longer about viewpoints but the man is simply being violent and that is unacceptable. The government should not be able to prevent a person from expressing their views and should protect our viewpoints so that we can have discussions about these things, unlike in other countries where if you don't agree with the popular opinion you are shunned. As long as everyone is protected equally, there is no problem with the government protecting our religious views.
-Varun Kaushal

Unknown said...

Although the first amendment would protect the business owner and his right to refuse service to anyone that his religion find "inferior' or not worthy, the customer is protected by the fourteenth amendment and the civil rights act for fair and equal service. However if this is a private company and is not at all controlled by the U.S. government, the owner has the right to serve or not serve any one and the customer has no choice but to accept it the way it is, because if the owner completely owns that land and does not owe any debt to the U.S. government he can execute any rules he feels fit.

Unknown said...

The First Amendment recognizes the right of a persons own religious freedom for privately owned estates. For example a home or personal business can refuse service or entrance based on the owners religious beliefs. A government or city owned building like a court house or city hall can not refuse service like private businesses can. For a government institution to refuse service for any reason other then safety it is considered discrimination. This act is against the law because the government does not have the authority to act on sexual, racial, gender, and religious beliefs. In my opinion this is a fair way of looking at the First Amendment right.
~Katherine Neal

Unknown said...

The government is relied and expected to defend a person’s religious views because the first amendment allows us to freely practice religious beliefs. However, the government shouldn’t side with a person who discriminates others based on religious or even personal reasons. If a business owner denies service to a customer because of their homosexuality, race, religion, etc. he or she will have to accept the consequences that range from public criticism to government decision. There are limitations and extents of how discrimination is displayed and if violence occurs we depend on the government to protect and take the side of the victim. The first amendment does not defend discrimination, but grants us free practice of religious views.

Unknown said...

Yes, a business owner should have the right to exclusively deny service to anyone. It is their right to do so even though their view may be wrong. There are signs throughout multiple restaurants that state they have the right to refuse service to anyone. As long as the owner doesn't begin to demean the person nor shout insults and other profanities but rather politely refuse to give service, it is considered legal. The only way the government may have a legal reason to step in and shut the owner down is if they're refusing to hire people due to their race/religion. Otherwise, it's completely legal to refuse service.

-Luis Godinez

Unknown said...

Religion and Government should be two different topics that are separate. The first amendment grants us with freedom of religion, which we should all know that we have the right to follow which ever religion we want or not follow one at all. If we mix the government into this, one or another will be loosing if they protect ones beliefs and not the other ones. There are business that discriminate customers due to their religious beliefs or sexual orientation. In my opinion i believe that the religion we follow we should leave at home,church and not bring into the business world and discriminate because even the constitution states that, "All men are created equal."

-Hermila A.

Unknown said...

We live in the United States, the melting pot of the world, with over three hundred different religions and denominations; the government should be able to protect people’s religious beliefs. However, like Nicole mentioned, this religious protection should have its limitations. The First Amendment should be able to protect a person’s religious practice or beliefs, however, when this practice includes discriminating against others because of their race or sexuality, a line should be drawn. The First Amendment was put in place to ensure religious protection and a more equal treatment for the people of the United States, not as a weapon for discrimination. -Vicky Le

Samantha Salazar said...

Although it is the duty of the government to protect its people it should play no role in religious issues. Religion is a personal belief that should be kept to a person’s private life. Religion should not be used as an excuse to permit or prohibit something. With the example of the business owner no he/she should not have the right to refuse service to anyone because that customer somehow offends their personal belief. The customer did not intentionally set out to upset the owner therefore they are not at fault. In a case like this the government should step in because of discrimination and the owner would have no legitimate defense as their religion is not a viable excuse. The government should allow religious freedom but it should also emphasize that a person’s religion should only affect their own life and no one else’s.
-Samantha Salazar

Unknown said...

The “wall of separation” is placed to keep religion from interfering with the work of the government that affect a people who are classified more than just by their religious belief or disbelief. In the case of protecting the people’s religious rights, the government should extend its power in protecting those who are discriminated. Discrimination is the action that denies social participation or human rights to categories of people based on prejudice therefore the government should act whenever discrimination is taking place. Using the example, the government should be protecting the customers of the business not the business owner for although they are practicing the First Amendment they are also infringing on the human rights of the other people. Religion is a set of beliefs and rules that a person chooses to live by, but no matter the religion you believe in or not all follow the same principle to be kind and respect the thoughts of others. In the work place there is no need for the presence religion to interfere with how a person should treat other as an inferior being.

Unknown said...

I agree with the First Amendment and its recognition that everyone should have the freedom to freely practice their religion. Yes i believe a business owner has the right to refuse service to anyone because it is based on their views even if it has to do with their religion, though their views may upset people business owners have the proirity over anyone else. In my opinion the government should only be involved in extremem cases of religioous discrimination such as discrimination of a whole race or becasue of a persons sexual preferance because thats something you are born with and to be judged and discriminated on something you cant change shouldnt be judged. In colclusion I do think a persons religious preference should be protected by the government becasue a persons religion shouldnt be judged upon and as long as eveyone is respected equally i agree a persons religion should be protected

-Elizabeth Pearce

Unknown said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Unknown said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Unknown said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Unknown said...

Yes, the government should always protect an individuals belief towards religion. Protecting someone's religious freedom is not only the moral thing to do but, it is also a natural right. Though, letting the government protect their religion in some cases it does. In 2001 there was the most tragic event in U.S history. 9/11 changed a lot of mindset of a lot of alot of people in the United States. Due to the the event it unfortunately created stereotypes and discrimination for the people who believe in Islamic beliefs in a a negative way. In dome jobs or companies, they would not allow their Muslim own employees to wear Hijabs. The hijabs are usually worn on women who made a religious commitment. So by not allowing the hijabs it would violate the first amendment. Even though allowing the government to protect the religios rights, it will be breaking the first amendment, everyone should have their own religious preferences and people should respect other religions no only in the United States, but in every country.

-David Awolowo

Unknown said...

Religious freedom is a basic human right. The government should never stop protecting a persons freedom of religion. Yes, I do believe a restaurant owner should be allowed to deny service to anyone they choose even if it insults that person. If a person were to walk around with a swastika on their arm and shout insults that demean peoples, it should be allowed because that is their right as a human being. It only becomes a problem when that person starts to physically harm another individual. With religious freedom there are going to be people who are discriminated against. Would we rather live in a country where individuals are forced to practice one belief or a country that gives its individuals the liberty to exercise their personal beliefs? The freedom of people believing in their own separate religions may cause conflict and discrimination, but that is the only solution that stays true to our rights.

Unknown said...

I agree with the majority of my fellow classmates on this topic: religion is an issue the government should not concern itself with. In the First Amendment, it gives each and everyone of us the freedom to practice our respective religious beliefs without fear of discrimination. So then where does it say that religious discrimination is okay, in the fine print? Even though this is a minor problem, it could be a gateway for other possibilities to occur to bend the rules of other amendments. In general, the goverment and religion should never be involved with eachother. Whenever they meet, something wrong and unfair follows. The best example of this is either the Salem Witch Trials or the Spanish Inquisition.

-Evan Conry

Unknown said...

I think the government would need to protect others if someone is discrimination someone else's religion because like Pammela said the United States amendments are suppose to protect us and give us freedom. Even though they can speak freely on what they think about someone's religion. The incident on 9/11 changed everybody's point of view on people's religion. Many people were disgusted at the fact on what happen. A lot of people judge someone upon there looks and that usually happens with what they're wearing because of there religion and the different style since it's not American like. People still have there opinion on these type of things, but they don't have the power nor say on how things should go for them.

Unknown said...

I believe that the government should protect a person's religion But to my understanding the First amendment only protects your believes doesn't exactly or fully allow you to practice it completely. In some cultures around the world it is in fact a part of their religion to practice animal or even human sacrifices.I agree with what Mia said about 9/11, after that many peoples' point of views changed because of the incident and as a result of that people seem to be very judgmental and stereotypical believing that just because a person is Muslim or Arab that they are automatically a terrorist. But in the end people shouldn't be bothered by a person's religion thats why the First Amendment was created in the first place to protect people so they may feel comfortable believing and practicing any religion.Therefore i believe the government should protect a person's religious freedom. I also agree with Daniel that a person should not be discriminated simply because of they do or do not believe in. I was raised in a Catholic family, but i personally do have my disbeliefs on God. Discrimination is just like racism in my opinion, and i have came to realize that although i'd like to think that one day we all will live in a world where there is not discrimination or racism, that it's most likely never to happen. Discrimination is going to remain one of the major problems in this nation
-Sabrina Vargas (out of the country)

P5 Miriam J said...

I think it depends on the way that it's been used.For once religious sects required sacrifices, that would need a restriction because we don't want nobody getting killed .Also speech, some media takes there freedom of speech to far by creating false accusations. Also when hiring someone they should be hired by there capacity of doing the job not their beliefs, that should stay at home.
-Miriam Juarez (Sorry for posting late, I had no internet access and was out of state.)

Unknown said...

Being an atheist, I believe in the separation of the U.S. government and religious organizations. The U.S. was founded on the whole ideology for the future of this country to be tolerant of all different religions. But as history and present day society show us, most of these religious "tolerant" citizens tend to not accept religions that differ to their own. A scenario similar to the one given is my case, given that I am atheist, most of the population tends to look down on me. But that doesn't mean the government should interfere with said religous party and their beliefs of me. It's their beliefs and as long as they don't interfere with my personal life, or the customers from the example (which is a good reason for the government to interfere), then nothing should be done, it's their choice.
-Christian Trujano

Unknown said...

The government should protect every person equally. For instance, a private business owner has the right to refuse service to any individual for any reason. If a private business owner decides to refuse service to an individual because they are a certain race, gender etc., it may not be a good business practice, but he/she has the right to do so. However, if a business owner does decided to discriminate against people, he/she is losing potential and/or more returning costustomers, which is losing money, and we'll business. Not to mention it is unprofessional. But if a business is designed to serve the general public, then the business cannot discriminate against anyone.
- Keilah Nijmeh

Unknown said...

I think everyone should be free to believe whatever they want as long as it doesn't affect others. Beliefs should stay as beliefs. People are allowed to have their little believesies as long as my rights are not attacked. - Antonio Alvarado

Brandon Kong said...

I do believe that all peoples' religions should be protected under the First Amendment. However, there are several issues that could all arise concerning this protection. A root of this would be a common problem faced in several religions. This problem is in the way older religions are often practiced. Many of these religions have elements to them which can be offensive or discriminatory. The problem is that many people who practice them follow them the same way as they were followed many years ago. So long as members of a particular religious belief do not jeopardize people's rights there should be no issue. In the case of the shop owner, he/she should realize that there will be a variety of people who come into their business. If someone who follows something that they oppose comes along they should approach the situation with realization that what they do will affect their business and profit. -Brandon Kong