Is the Trump Administration Using Religion to Allow Discrimination?

The federal government directive was issued today by Attorney General Jeff Sessions, who had been tasked by Trump to head a "review" of religious liberty protections, after pressure from anti-LGBT lobbying groups.

"The President has instructed me to issue guidance interpreting relgious liberty protections in federal law".

"There is no religious exemption from basic human dignity", said Vanita Gupta, president and CEO of The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights. It could also have an impact on pending legal disputes across the country.

Among other thing, the guidance adopts certain aspects of the so-called First Amendment Defense Act (FADA)-a key legislative priority of the Religious Right- as administration policy. "It also encompasses religious observance and practice".

Faith-based groups and members of Congress alike applauded Sessions' memo, expressing optimism that his guidance might help correct recent infringements on the religious rights of Americans.

This second point - that individuals do not have to remove themselves from civil society in order to retain their right to religious freedom - could also have implications in several high-profile lawsuits, largely revolving around the freedom of service providers such as florists, cake bakers, and photographers to decline same-sex weddings, based on their religious beliefs about marriage.

The free exercise of religion includes the right to act or not to act in accordance with one's religious beliefs.

He additionally explained that the government can not compel a person or organization to act contrary to their religion, stating that "a government action that bans an aspect of an adherent's religious observance or practice, compels an act inconsistent with that observance or practice, will qualify as a substantial burden on the exercise of religion". But the 17-page appendix setting forth the DOJ's analysis of federal "religious liberty" law devotes just one short paragraph to the Establishment Clause.

These principles recognize religious freedom as "an important, fundamental right" expressly protected by the Constitution and by federal law.

Officers recover 23 guns from Las Vegas shooter's hotel room
They said that Danley, who is Australian, had arrived in the Philippines more than a week before the shooting. Earlier it was reported that the shooter brought to the hotel room Mandalay Bay not more than 16 firearms.

Under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), the federal government can enforce laws that impose a significant burden on religious exercise only if it has a compelling interest, and if the regulation/law/requirement is narrowly tailored to serve that interest.

Government may not restrict or compel actions because of the belief they display.

The guidance also asserts that religious exemptions should be provided in cases in which the exemption could deprive a third party of a "benefit". The document takes a firm stand in insisting that RFRA be taken seriously and interpreted robustly.

"Religious adherents will often be required to draw lines in the application of their religious beliefs, and government is not competent to assess the reasonableness of such lines drawn, nor would it be appropriate for government to do so", reads the guidance, adding that the federal government may not force employers' to be complicit in violating an organization's religious precepts.

James Lankford, a Republican from Oklahoma, criticized ABC News for its coverage of the group in July, after ABC News reported that Sessions delivered a closed-door address to the group at their Summit on Religious Liberty in California, where he suggested, according to a text of the speech later published by the conservative website The Federalist, religion was "under attack".

Generally, the federal government may not condition federal grants or contracts on the religious organization altering its religious character, beliefs, or activities.

A second memo by the attorney general directs implementation of the guidance within the Department of Justice. So courts have ruled this way. The church had initially been turned away because of its religious affiliation.

It is a nakedly political choice to declare that denying coverage is within the scope of one's religious freedom rights after all, and Sessions' attempt to cast this conclusion as the product of the neutral application of legal principles is misleading and disingenuous.

The fight over the proper role of religious liberty in the nation is far from over, however.