The famous case of Masterpiece Cakeshop fits neither criterion, then, according to Ford, as the baker belonged to the majority Christian religion and the customers weren't significantly injured by having their wedding cake request denied.
[5] Other problems include how to demonstrate whether a belief is sincere, whether it is factually informed and accurately corresponds to the situation at hand, and whether it is indeed "religious" or "moral" in its origin.
Indiana University law professor Steve Sanders said that "often there is no way to differentiate between genuine religious convictions and beliefs that are made up out of convenience....an employee who merely has a phobia toward transgender people might still claim a 'religious' exemption, and the employer would have little choice but to grant it.
M Barclay, an openly transgender deacon in the United Methodist Church,[8] described the same question as "Christians using power and privilege to target marginalized demographics like the LGBTQ community".
"[10] In April 2018, a supporter of President Trump was asked to leave a bar in New York City for wearing a "Make American Great Again" hat.
[15] In September 2019, the Arizona Supreme Court ruled that the Phoenix art studio Brush & Nib cannot be required to print wedding invitations for same-sex couples despite an existing nondiscrimination ordinance in the city.
[16] In 2023, U.S. District Judge Brantley Starr held lawyers for Southwest Airlines in contempt and ordered them to attend “religious-liberty training” from the Alliance Defending Freedom.
According to the executive order, the Faith and Opportunity Initiative will "notify the Attorney General, or his designee, of concerns raised by faith-based and community organizations about any failures of the executive branch to comply with protections of Federal law for religious liberty" and seek to "reduce...burdens on the exercise of religious convictions and legislative, regulatory, and other barriers to the full and active engagement of faith-based and community organizations in Government-funded or Government-conducted activities and programs."
[24] On January 18, 2018, the United States Department of Health and Human Services announced the creation of a new division within its existing Office for Civil Rights (OCR).
That same day, Indiana University law professor Steve Sanders criticized the new approach as having "the potential to impede access to care, insult the dignity of patients, and allow religious beliefs to override mainstream medical science.
"[27] The American Psychological Association believes that students need to learn their future "ethical obligations regarding non-discrimination" and requires broad-based diversity training "because they may grow and change in their beliefs, preferences in populations with whom they would like to work, geographic region, etc."
[28] The American Academy of Pediatrics supported repeal of Tennessee's faith-healing law allowing parents to seek "treatment by spiritual means through prayer alone" for their children.
[31] Scott Johnson, former president of the American Association for Marriage and Family Therapy, said that conscience-based exemptions from discrimination look "simply like prejudice" and that "the problem with conscience is that it can let us do evil as well as good."
Karen England, executive director of the Capitol Resource Institute, described this as "an outright, blatant assault on religious freedom.”[32] Between 2013 and 2015, the federal government granted over 30 exemptions to religious colleges who did not wish to comply with federal antidiscrimination law applying to gender identity and sexual orientation, according to a report by the Human Rights Coalition.
"[34] In 2020, the Supreme Court decided in Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue that states cannot discriminate against religious schools when allocating public funds.
At the end of President George W. Bush's administration, "a new 'conscience clause' took effect, cutting off federal funding for institutions that failed to accommodate employees' religious or moral objections.
"[37] By 2005, in at least a dozen U.S. states, pharmacists had cited their personal morality in their refusal to fill prescriptions for birth control, including "emergency contraception" to prevent a fertilized egg from implanting in the uterus.
[38] On July 8, 2020, the Supreme Court ruled in Little Sisters of the Poor Saints Peter and Paul Home v. Pennsylvania that employers and universities may opt out of the Affordable Care Act requirement for private health insurance plans to cover women's contraception without charging any "out-of-pocket cost" to the woman.
[41] Under Title X, pregnant patients must receive "nondirective pregnancy counseling" (i.e. they must be advised of their options in a factual and unbiased manner), and clinics that provide abortion services should remain eligible for funds.
[42] Physicians can cause a patient's death "actively" (for example, by administering a fatal drug) or "passively" (by withholding food, water, or medical care that would prolong life).
In the late twentieth century it became a subject of public debate in the United States in large part due to the work of Jack Kevorkian, who claimed to have assisted 130 patient suicides.
[51] In February 2019, Rachel Colvin was pressured to resign an English teaching position she'd held for ten years at Ballarat Christian College because the administration knew that she supported same-sex marriage, even though she offered to keep her beliefs private.
Transgender people "have routinely been asked to obtain an endorsement letter from a psychologist attesting to the stability of their gender identity as a prerequisite to access an endocrinologist, surgeon, or legal institution (e.g., driver's license bureau)".
After a person has taken initial major steps to reassign their gender, ongoing procedures (like hormones, electrolysis, or minor surgical corrections) may simply be considered as "maintenance."
When the person is discriminated against for their identity, the implication is that they are refused a product or service that would normally be considered entirely unrelated to the gender transition they have undergone or want to undergo.
"[67] Roger Severino, director of HHS Office of Civil Rights, in 2018 on the day that the creation of the Conscience and Religious Freedom division was announced, was asked by a journalist whether "someone who is transgender would be denied health care" under the laws in question.
[68] Two days later, a Boston Globe editorial warned that the new HHS Conscience and Religious Freedom division will "allow medical professionals and institutions who claim religious objections to deny coverage to transgender people" which "appears to open the way for a doctor or nurse to turn away a transgender individual with a broken arm – for no other reason than by their gender identity.
After public backlash, the owner posted an apology online, claiming to have recently discovered to her surprise that there is no Biblical prohibition on interracial marriage, after all.
Regardless of Christian doctrine about interracial marriage, Mississippi's 2016 religious freedom law does not mention race, and therefore it may not have protected this instance of racial discrimination.
[81] In early 2017, a four-page draft of an executive order, "Establishing a Government-Wide Initiative to Respect Religious Freedom", circulated within the new Trump administration.