In 1993 the federal government passed the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act. The law was intended to protect Native Americans in danger of losing their jobs because of religious ceremonies that involved the illegal drug peyote. In 1997 the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that Congress overstepped its bounds in passing RFRA in 1993, and that the law applied only to federal laws, not to those passed by the states. Since then 22 U.S. states have passed their own versions of the “religious freedom” laws. Supporters of the law argue that the government shouldn’t force religiou…
Read more46% Yes |
54% No |
35% Yes |
51% No |
5% Yes, but only for small businesses |
3% No, all customers deserve to be treated equally |
3% Yes, any business should be able to deny service for any reason |
|
2% Yes, but the owner must post a sign stating their beliefs and what they refuse |
See how support for each position on “Religious Freedom Act” has changed over time for 10.6m America voters.
Loading data...
Loading chart...
See how importance of “Religious Freedom Act” has changed over time for 10.6m America voters.
Loading data...
Loading chart...
Unique answers from America users whose views extended beyond the provided choices.
@8HJR3JT4yrs4Y
No, but they may deny a requested service that goes against their beliefs
@8DRTPH84yrs4Y
No, all customers deserve to be treated equally & they signed up for a job where they would have to interact with all people, which includes someone who disagrees with you& your beliefs
@9C9QDCC11mos11MO
No, but they should have the right to refuse a requested service
@5L48S8Z3yrs3Y
There's a fine line here - refusing service at a restaurant to a gay couple is not okay. Requesting a different seat on an airplane because you're forbidden to touch women you're not related to should be accommodated.
@5L8MPRK3yrs3Y
Yes so long as the denial is based solely upon the request and not the customer. I would not expect a devout religious baker to consent to baking "dick" cakes.
@4YSDTVQ3yrs3Y
It depends whether they're against the person and their beliefs or the thing they're asking- saying no because someone's gay would be bad, saying no because someone's asking you to carve a swastika in a locket and you're Jewish (or a decent human being) is acceptable
Stay up-to-date on the most recent “Religious Freedom Act” news articles, updated frequently.
@ISIDEWITH1mo1MO
The Online Harms Act, or Bill C-63 increases the potential penalties from five years to life imprisonment. It also increases the penalty for the willful promotion of hatred (a dangerously ill-defined crime) from two years to five years. The proposed changes constitute a doubling down on Canada’s commitment to reducing free speech for citizens despite criticism from many in the civil liberties community.There is also a chilling option for house arrest if a judge believes a defendant “will commit” an offense. In other words, if a judge thinks that a citizen will be undeterred and try to speak freely again.Justice Minister Arif Virani employed the same hysteria to convince citizens to surrender their freedoms to the government. He expressed how terrified he was with the potential of free speech, stating that he is “terrified of the dangers that lurk on the internet for our children.”It is not likely to end there. Today the rationale is genocide. However, once the new penalties are in place, a host of other groups will demand similar treatment for those with opposing views on their own causes. This law already increased the penalties for anything deemed hateful speech.The law comes after Canada blocked a Russian dissident from becoming a citizen because of her violation of Russian anti-free speech laws. In a telling act, the government said that the same conduct (i.e., free speech) could be a crime in Canada. Indeed, it may now be punished even more harshly.
@BobolinkEliana3mos3MO
The school board in North Dakota's largest city decided to stop reciting the Pledge of Allegiance at their meetings, prompting a Republican lawmaker to vow to push for a voucher program that would allow public money to pay for private school tuition.The Fargo School Board voted 7-2 Wednesday to…
@FreedomEva5mos5MO
In the age of social media, do employers have the right to fire employees for their political views? Free speech expert Genevieve Lakier says the rules are changing before our eyes.The situation is making Genevieve Lakier, a professor of law at the University of Chicago whose work is focused on the changing meaning of freedom of speech in the United States, very nervous.“It feels like the new McCarthyism,” said Lakier, who’s one of the leading legal scholars on matters of free speech.So far, most of the firings appear to have been for expressing pro-Palestinian views — the U.S.-based advocacy organization Palestine Legal reports that they’ve responded to over 260 cases of people’s “livelihoods or careers” being targeted. But the fact that these firings have been due in large part to social media posts and the widespread broadcasting of personal political beliefs means that the trend may not stay on one issue or one side of a dispute for long; Lakier says that we are watching the relationship between free expression and employment shift in real time.
Explore other topics that are important to America voters.
@ISIDEWITH6mos6MO
Active 21hrs ago
