![]() ![]() On March 10, the federal government returned the eagle feathers to Soto. Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s decision and sent the case back to that court after finding the government’s action would violate the federal RFRA. Soto and Russell sued the federal government, but a federal district court ruled in favor of the government, rejecting the two men’s First Amendment assertions and their claims under the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act, the same 1993 statute that Indiana legislators used in developing their new state law.īut last August, the 5th U.S. The feds said no, because he wasn’t from a recognized tribe. Soto, however, petitioned the federal Interior Department to return his feathers. Russell, who is married to Soto’s sister, isn’t American Indian and agreed to pay a fine, according to court papers and the America Bar Association Journal. KATY BATDORFF/MLIVE.COM/Landovīut a federal Fish and Wildlife Service agent found his tribe wasn’t federally recognized, and Soto surrendered his feathers. He cited a religious freedom law and eventually won their return, but he is still fighting the government on possible future seizures. Lipan Apache Robert Soto saw his eagle feathers seized by U.S. The feathers are sacred to Native Americans. Soto, a Lipan Apache, asserted he was participating in an Indian religious ceremony. In 2006, Robert Soto and Michael Russell attended an American Indian powwow while in possession of eagle feathers, in violation of the federal Eagle Protection Act, which outlaws the killing of bald and golden eagles and even picking their feathers off the ground. ![]() ![]() He was a Native American with eagle feathers at a religious gathering of tribes. Here are some of the more interesting cases arising from the federal and state laws, touching upon an array of religious matters from a knife carried by an IRS accountant to a tea from the Amazon:Īn unrecognized tribe and its eagle feathers “There is reason to doubt whether these state-level religious liberty provisions truly provide meaningful protections for religious believers,” wrote Wayne State University law professor Christopher Lund in a 2010 analysis, when there were only 16 states with such laws. Nonetheless, claims under those state RFRAs are “exceedingly rare,” and victories involved mostly religious minorities, not Christian denominations, experts say. So far, 20 states have some version of the religious liberty law, and the legal controversies have grown, too. Religious Freedom Restoration Act became law in 1993, designed to prohibit the federal government from “substantially burdening” a person’s exercise of religion. Such state laws have been growing ever since the U.S. Through litigation, advocacy, and public education, the ACLU works to defend religious liberty and ensure that no one is discriminated against or denied services because of someone else’s religious beliefs.The United States has seemingly erupted this week about what it means to live your religion, especially in Indiana, where its new Religious Freedom Restoration Act faces a firestorm from critics who say it uses faith as a pretext to discriminate against gay people. Religious freedom in America means that we all have a right to our religious beliefs, but this does not give us the right to use our religion to discriminate against and impose those beliefs on others who do not share them. In those cases, we recognized that requiring integration was not about violating religious liberty it was about ensuring fairness. We saw religiously affiliated universities refuse to admit students who engaged in interracial dating. In the 1960s, we saw objections to laws requiring integration in restaurants because of sincerely held beliefs that God wanted the races to be separate. Instances of institutions and individuals claiming a right to discriminate in the name of religion are not new. While the situations may differ, one thing remains the same: Religion is being used as an excuse to discriminate against and harm others. Bridal salons, photo studios, and reception halls closing their doors to same-sex couples planning their weddings.Pharmacies turning away women seeking to fill birth control prescriptions.Graduate students, training to be social workers, refusing to counsel gay people.Business owners refusing to provide insurance coverage for contraception for their employees.Religiously affiliated schools firing women because they became pregnant while not married.The discrimination takes many forms, including the following: With increasing frequency, we are seeing individuals and institutions claiming a right to discriminate-by refusing to provide services to women and LGBT people-based on religious objections. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |