The Religious Freedom Act of Indiana State

The paper aims to define the viable aspects that qualify the RFA as detrimental legislation that should be met with quick policy adjustment. The approach ensures business relations, social interactions and fundamental human rights enshrined in the American constitution will find recognition. Essential issues addresses are the relationships with the gays and lesbians, as well as the accompanying discriminatory annotations that people label on Indiana’s RFA. Keywords: Religious Freedom Act (RFA), the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), Human rights, American Constitution, First Amendment, LGBT rights, gays and lesbians. Introduction The Federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) of 1993 gives the foundation of the Religious Freedom Act (RFA) of Indiana in 2015. Occurrences in other states like Illinois has pointed out mixed implications of the religious rights on business and economy, social and political relationships.

Essentially, the RFA is a dangerous weapon and may in the long term threaten social inclusivity and spur discrimination barely on the reason of self-conscience determined by the religious rights in Indiana. Implications on Business activities Stephen (1) observes that business relationships are quickly fading because business people have made strict decisions about the social and cultural connections with their customers. Indiana’s RFA provides a defense to sole proprietors and employers who use their religious beliefs to decline service to customers, and importantly, the same-sex married couples. The Supreme Court’s decision on the Hobby Lobby case establishes the reason for the introduction of the discriminatory RFA in Indiana. Significantly, the RFA is a disaster to the business economy of Indiana.

However, Helfman (31) argues that “if the history of religious practice in this nation is to go by, the constitutional debate on [same sex] is settled. ” Additionally, Helfman maintains that “it is at best a benign mistake-at worst, cynical opportunism—to condemn RFRAs as mere pretexts for the violation of civil rights. ” Helfman’s proposition is based on the reason that the government is unable to make any decision that infringes on the rights of citizens. Moreover, the government is seen to have limited authority to encroach on the religious liberty. This argument solidifies the negative connotation of religious freedom because it fundamentally conflicts with the socially and politically determined principles of justice. On the contrary, Marshall’s analysis of the conflict between religious laws and constitutional rights from the background of Supreme Court decisions since the 1960s poses a big reason to accept religious freedom laws.

Furthermore, Marshall recognizes that religious laws are about anything, ranging from dressing mode, working style, and employment relations, provision of hospitality services, and even wages to pay (69). Significantly, internalizing aspects of religion is not adequate to crystallize on specific characteristics that make up religious law. Marshall argues from the lens of religious exemptions, where he says “the religious [laws] were necessary to protect minorities from majoritarian actions that unfairly disadvantaged [believers]” (72). Essentially, as the debate about the matter becomes more intense with differing opinions, people become aligned to their preferred social and economic orientations, which conversely translates to widening the gap between the two sections of the society. Therefore, the RFA ensures people are more at ease to make decisions about whom they associate.

On the contrary, Horwitz mentions that because tolerance is a necessity in fostering relationships, it is essential for religious and non-religious people to appreciate the diversity in the society. According to Horwitz, tolerance is key to understanding the aspects of Indiana’s RFA. Tolerance “means accepting our differences and allowing others to engage in behavior that we might dislike but that does not harm third parties” (11). "The Religious- Liberty War. " Commentary, vol. 139, no. 5, May 2015, pp. EBSCOhost, muncie. " Freeman: Ideas on Liberty, Summer2015, p. EBSCOhost, muncie. libproxy. ivytech. edu/login?url=https://search. libproxy. ivytech. edu/docview/2062633968?accountid=41067. Ramona, HOSU. "Equality or Religious Freedom? The Indiana RFRA. 8d5849056c94dc4b2e60c6b756e18a7&site=eds-live. Ravitch, Frank S. "Competing freedoms: freedom of religion and freedom of sexual and reproductive liberty in pluralistic societies.