Understanding the Media's Role

Running Head: CIVIL LAW
Civil Law
Name of the Student
Name of the University
Author Note

1CIVIL LAW
Essay 1
Original Intent of the Founders with regard to Religion and the first Amendment
Religion is seen to hold quite a unique position when it comes to American law. In
fact the First Amendment is one which prohibits the state authorities from passing any
kind or type of law that respects the establishment of a particular religion or which
prohibits the free exercise of any religion. Such a constitutional protection, against and for
religion is something that has been generating a great deal of controversy ever since it was
passed (Smith: 162). Disputes are often seen to arise between various factions or sections in
society over the clauses on religion in the First Amendment with the advocacy groups often
being pitted against each other in the bargain. The Supreme Court of the United States of
America is also known to hear cases on a very regular basis on the subject of religion,
especially with regard to the interpretation of clauses such as the Free Exercise Clause and
the Establishment Clause. What the 1st Amendment of the American Constitution essentially
does is to guarantee freedoms that concern religion in addition to guarantees pertaining to the
freedom of expression, the freedom to assemble as well as the right to petition when desired
(Smith: 162).
The Passage of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act by Different American States
The Religious Freedom Restoration Act was passed by the Congress as a response to
one specific decision that was made by the Supreme Court known as the Employment
Division versus Smith (1990). The Religious Freedom Restoration Act was essentially passed
by the US Congress to reverse the decision that had been taken on the part of the court during
the Smith judgment ("Federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act Overview – Findlaw 1").
The Religious Freedom Restoration Act was also meant to curb many of the state laws that
were infringing upon the religious rights of the people. However, the provisions were deemed

2CIVIL LAW
by the Supreme Court of the USA as unconstitutional. It is necessary to remember that while
the Religious Freedom Restoration Act is a piece of legislation that remains until today a
federal law, many American states have created their own unique versions of this Religious
Freedom Restoration Act. In fact as many 21 American states have adopted the different
variations of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act by legislature while another ten of them
have embraced the act by state court order (Smith: 162). The American state of Texas was
one of the key states to adopt its own variation of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.
This is largely due to the fact that Texas is one of the most business friendly states in the
country of America ("Republicans Reintroduce ‘Religious Freedom’ Bill Protecting
‘Traditional’ Marriage Supporters 1"). Any business interest or agenda is likely to move
away from the type of propaganda that is seen to promote discrimination. backgrounds, be
these Christian clients, Muslim clients, or those who hail from a Jewish or Middle Eastern
background (Uldam and Vesteguard 1)
FADA and the Congress
The First Amendment Defense Act or FADA as it is commonly known is an act that is
aimed at legalizing any type of state sanctioned discrimination (Barbour and Gerald 1). This
is a bill that will essentially keep the state judiciary from discriminating against a person
based on the person’s views regarding marriage that includes the sexual relations that have to
be reserved properly in order to ensure that such a marriage takes place and is consummated
in the desired way. What the bill is likely to do in reality is undermine the ability of the
government to enforce any of the federal protections that are already in place for the purpose
of protecting people who belong to the LGBTQ Community (Uldam and Vesteguard 1)
Extreme Decisions on Religious Discrimination Taken by the US Supreme Court

3CIVIL LAW
The Supreme Court in the country of America has very recently been in the news for
taking two big decisions that support religious discrimination in the country. The first
instance is the Supreme Court decision that was made as a part of the Masterpiece Cakeshop
conflict. As a part of this case, statements in question had been made on the part of state
commissioners on deciding whether the owner of a business who had refused to cater for a
wedding that was celebrating a same sex marriage was a person who could get some reprieve
in the form of religious accommodation under the non discrimination laws of Colorado ("In
Narrow Decision, Supreme Court Sides With Baker Who Turned Away Gay Couple" 1). At
the end of it all, the Supreme Court ended up ruling in favor of the business owner, a decision
that served a major blow to the those who were speaking out in favor of the LGBTQ
community. Another extreme decision that was taken on the part of the US Supreme Court
and which was seen to promote religious discrimination in the country, is the decision that
was taken as a part of the case known as Trump versus Hawaii, where the proposal that was
made on the part of President Trump to keep Muslims from entering the USA is something
that was stemmed from a religious discrimination claim that was made against one
immigration policy order (Barbour and Gerald 5).
Civil Liberties Issues in the USA
One of the major civil liberties issues in the USA that is likely to emerge as a result of
the recent extreme decisions that have been taken on the part of the Supreme Court on
religious discrimination and sexual discrimination is that trans-gender rights are likely to be
in jeopardy. The Supreme Court in its decision in Masterpiece Cake shop where it supported
the decision of the business owner who was refusing to cater at a same sex wedding, indicates
that the court is not likely to always be in favor of transgender people and it will not always
support transgender rights (Barbour and Gerald 5). Thus, those who belong to the LGBTQ
community will not always be in a position to seek protection under the laws of the land and