The Congress found that: (1) the framers of the American Constitution, recognizing free exercise of religion as an unalienable right, secured its protection in the First Amendment to the Constitution;

(2) laws "neutral" toward religion may substantially burden religious exercise as surely as laws intended to interfere with religious exercise;

(3) governments should not substantially burden religious exercise without compelling justification;

(4) in Employment Division of Oregon v. Smith the Supreme Court virtually eliminated the requirement that the government justify burdens on religious exercise imposed by laws neutral toward religion; and

(5) the compelling interest test as set forth in Sherbert v. Verner and Wisconsin v. Yoder is a workable test for striking sensible balances between religious liberty and competing governmental interests.

http://www.pridesource.com/article.html?article=71199http://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/jmd/legacy/2014/07/24/act-pl103-141.pdfhttp://www.yourdictionary.com/compelling-interest-testhttp://prop1.org/legal/rfra.htmhttps://www.washingtonpost.com/news/acts-of-faith/wp/2015/04/01/10-things-you-need-to-know-to-really-understand-rfra-in-indiana-and-arkansas/http://www.peachpundit.com/2014/02/26/the-pros-and-cons-of-the-preservation-of-religious-freedom-act/http://www.indystar.com/story/money/2015/04/09/rfra-extends-question-can-businesses-discriminate/25532287/http://blog.constitutioncenter.org/2014/06/what-is-rfra-and-why-do-we-care/http://www.ncsl.org/research/civil-and-criminal-justice/2015-state-rfra-legislation.aspxhttp://www.advocate.com/politics/2015/03/30/original-intent-indiana-type-laws-has-been-warpedhttp://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/01/us/politics/context-for-the-debate-on-religious-freedom-measures-in-indiana-and-arkansas.html?_r=0

Are you willing to sacrifice the ability to defend minority religions?

As President Clinton said when signing the federal law, "What this law basically says is that the government should be held to a very high level of proof before it interferes with someone's free exercise of religion."- PridesSource article

-The RFRA protects everyone

- States have used this irresponsibly

-It initially protected minority religions

First Affirmative Constructive Speech:

The Religious Freedom Restoration Act protects the right of free exercise of religion. A congressional finding in the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 states that the framers of the Constitution, recognizing free exercise of religion as an unalienable right, secured its protection in the First Amendment to the Constitution. The original intent of the  Religious Freedom Restoration Act was to protect minority religions which is important to achieve freedom of religion. As explained in the Washington Post article by Howard M. Friedman, The federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act was a reaction to a 1990 case in which the Supreme Court changed the understanding that most people had of the First Amendment. In the Smith case, the court held that a state can broadly prohibit possession of hallucinogenic drugs without carving out an exemption for Native Americans who use peyote for sacramental purposes. The court said that the government did not need to have a “compelling interest” to burden free exercise rights when the burden was merely the incidental effect of applying a generally applicable law that is not directed at religious practices.

However, as explained by Friedman in the Washington Post, in 1997, in the City of Boerne case, the Supreme Court held that Congress exceeded its constitutional authority in imposing RFRA on the states. So states need to enact their own Religious Freedom Restoration Acts if they want to assure that state law does not impose substantial burdens on religious exercise.

Recently, more states have adopted Religious Freedom Laws. According to the National Conference of State Legislatures, 21 states currently have Religious Freedom Restoration Acts. These laws allow people with specific religious beliefs to be exempted from some rules that apply to everyone else if it goes against their religion. For instance, in a New York Times article by Erik Eckholm he gives the example of federal officials who could not prevent a Muslim prisoner from wearing a short beard, because the ban did not serve any overriding governmental interest. This is important as the courts will always have to balance the rights of the person against government interest. If an exemption over-burdens government the courts should not grant the exemption. In the case of Adams v Commissioner, Ms. Adams who was a strict quaker refused to pay taxes because they are used to fund the military. The court disagreed with her argument based on the the fact that collecting taxes from all citizens is, and I quote from the case a “compelling government interest”.

 Of course, there have been some controversial cases. As mentioned by the Washington Post article by Howard M. Friedman, publicity has been given to a few cases around the country. Another extreme case is the Kim Davis story; Ms. Davis refused to provide marriage licenses to homosexual couples based on her own interpretation of christianity. As Professor Katherine Franke of Columbia Law School said in an NPR interview, “All she has been asked to do with couples that come before her is to certify that they have met the state requirements for marriage, so a religious opposition to same-sex marriage is absolutely irrelevant”. She is not being asked to perform marriages.

My conclusion is that regardless of extreme cases the good overrides the bad. The Religious Freedom Laws have protected many people and their religious practices. These Acts promote religious tolerance which is an essential part of our country.

The First Amendment to the United Constitution prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion impeding the free exercise of religion, abridging the freedom of speech, infringing on the freedom of press, interfering with the right to pea

Rebuttal: So I hear that the opposing side argues that these Religious Freedom Laws are actually promoting discrimination…

Let me remind that these laws were actually put in place to fight discrimination related to religious practices.

In case they talk about discrimination against same-sex couples: In Indiana and Arkansas there are no laws prohibiting discrimination on sexual orientation. “Since there is no requirement in these states laws for bakeries or florists or caterers to treat same sex couples equally in the first place, this business owner/company does not need an exemption based on the RFRA to refuse to provide services to the same sex couple”.

Indiana and Arkansas: They do not have laws that prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation. Individuals and closely-held corporations can discriminate against same sex couples without using the RFRA to defend their decision. This has nothing to do with the RFRA, in these cases the focus should be on promoting non-discrimination laws not outlawing RFRA’s.