Speech

For my debate class I will have to write a 4 minute opening speech that I argue on the pro side on how  U.S. Laws Adequately Protect Religious Rights there are some evidence my partner and I wrote in the docs that you can use but would recommend using other reliable sources 

Oct 14. Resolved: Do U.S. Laws Adequately Protect Religious Rights?

Pro: Alexandria Cardwell & Nathan Franco

Con: Ethan Patrick & Ben Grunberg

Nathan,

So what I’ve done so far is write down some pros and cons I noticed when I was reading the CQ
research brief and from here I expect we will get some ideas for our 3 contentions and then we
will figure out who’s doing what parts of the debate. I outlined the debate order below so we can
fill that in as we go. I am using highlighting to differentiate between different points so if there’s a
point that can be made in the pro and refuted with a point in the con i highlighted them in the
same color so if the other team uses it we will have something to contrast it. This is just a super
brief outline without any other sources so we can get an idea of what we are debating and some
form of organization idk tho. I also think we will definitely need to use court case examples for
this topic and will probably need to do some like definitions or explanations before we go into it
as a formality.

CQ Researcher Brief Name: Religious Freedom

● Pro:
○ Critics say by citing religious faith as a reason to refuse to serve people or

recognize their legal rights is a violation of the constitution (1)
○ US District Judge David Bunning found the state was not restricting Davis’

religious activities or beliefs; it was asking her to fulfill her duties as an elected
official because her religious convictions cannot excuse her from performing the
duties that she took an oath to perform as Rowan County clerk (3)

○ Government is accommodating to religious faith, particularly Christianity (3)
○ Rev. Barry Lynn, head of Americans United for Separation of Church and State,

a nonprofit group based in Washington that works to preserve church-state
separation, believes the Supreme Court, the federal government and the states
have bent over backward to accommodate religious beliefs particularly those of
conservative Christians (4)

○ “I think what’s happening is, majority Christian religions are losing their position of
privilege, and we’re shifting to a position of greater religious equality,” says
Frederick Gedicks, a law professor at Brigham Young University in Provo, Utah,
and an expert on the intersection of law and religion. (5)

○ Many experts in law and religion say Davis’ role, not just as a government
employee but as an elected official, meant she had a clear responsibility to follow
the nation’s laws. (5)

○ But others say ensuring that all members of the public are legally served at a
government office is a compelling state interest. “You can believe anything you
want about matters of faith and the existence of God or Gods or no God,” says
Lynn of Americans United for Separation of Church and State. “What you can’t
do is expect that your right to practice what you believe always prevails when it
comes into conflict with someone else’s legitimate claim to their rights.” Some
legal analysts also say that allowing claims such as Davis’ to prevail would
violate the Establishment Clause in the First Amendment. “By claiming ‘God’s
Authority’ as the basis for denying the license – rather than any man made law –
Davis effectively established her religion her religion in the Rowan County clerk’s
office and imposed on the religious liberty of those who hold other (or no) faith,”
wrote Randal John Meyer, a legal associate at the Center for Constitutional
Studies at the Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank in Washington. (6)

○ Texas, Louisiana, and North Carolina have announced they will allow elected
officials to opt out of issuing licenses or performing weddings to which they have
a religious objection, but will require that other officials be available to perform
these duties – an accommodation they say protects the religious liberty of the
officials AND the rights of those who wish to be married (6)

○ In a similar case in Gresham, Ore., the state labor commissioner ruled that Sweet
Cakes by Melissa, a bakery that refused to cater a same-sex wedding because of
the owner’s religious beliefs, had violated a state law barring businesses from
discriminating or refusing service based on sexual orientation, age, race, sex,
disability or religion. The commissioner ordered the bakery’s owners to pay the
couple $135,000 in damages. (7)

○ Oregon, Colorado, and New Mexico among 21 other states with
anti-discrimination laws that include sexual orientation. To make exceptions to
those laws to accommodate religious belief would set a troubling precedent, says
Robert Tutte, a professor of law and religion at George Washington University in
Washington D.C., who compares the current debate to earlier civil rights battles
over racial equality. “Do we really want a business to say, sorry, for religious
reasons, we can’t serve women who aren’t accompanied by men; we cannot
serve people of a particular faith?” Tuttle asks. “Public accomodation laws were
important achievements of the civil rights era, and to start creating exceptions to
them, even if people have deeply held religious beliefs, raises the serious
problem of a slippery slope. (7)

○ However, Louise Melling, director of the American Civil liberties Union Center for
Liberty in New York City, says a compelling societal interest is at stake. “This isn’t
just about cake: this is about equality,” Melling says. “What does it mean if I go
into a store and get sent away because of who I am? Everytime I walk into a
store from then on I think I’m going to have a different feeling- will I be served,
will I be treated fairly?” (7-8)

○ Melling notes that earlier generations cited religion to defend discrimination,
including racial and sexual discrimination. Many advocates of slavery and later,

racial segregation quoted the Bible to justify their actions, and some faiths still
believe God grants men authority over women, she points out. “If we reject
religious exemptions in the context of other models of discriminagion why would
we do differently here? Melling asks. (8)

○ Granting business owners a religious right to turn away gay and lesbian couples
undercuts the basic premise of the Supreme Court ruling on same-sex marriage,
says Melling. “The court is saying, ‘We are going to have a rule that says you are
embraced in our society instead of being treated like an outcast.’ This really
undermines that notion.” (8)

○ Brigham Young’s Gedicks agrees that “conceptually and legally, if you’re offering
services to the public, you should adhere to public values, and same-sex
marriage is now legal and a public value.” (8)

○ Public opinion surveys indicate that most Americans are less sympathetic to the
claim of religious liberty in such cases. A 2015 poll by the Public Religion
Research Institute, a nonpartisan organization in Washington that studies public
opinion on religious issues, found that 60 percent of Americans “oppose allowing
a small business owner to refuse products or services to gay and lesbian people,
even if doing so violates their religious beliefs,” while 34 percent support such a
policy. (8)

○ Critics of the ruling believe Congress never intended the act to apply to
businesses or to deprive individuals of legal, government-mandated services. It
was intended, they say, to protect the individual practice of religion, from
government interference. (9)

○ Borchelt counters this would amount to regulating women to a “separate [health
care] system. Its not fair, and it probably wouldn’t work for a lot of women.
“Several of the proposals, she says, would require women to arrange their own
contraceptive care and to even bear upfront costs. “The whole reason the birth
control mandate was put into place,” she says, “was to help women who couldn’t
afford those upfront costs.” (9)

○ Hobby Lobby was willing to provide other contraceptives through its health plan
○ In response to complaints from the University of Notre Dame in Indiana and other

religiously affiliated institutions, the Obama administration offered an
accommodation through which these institutions could opt out of paying for
contraception by submitting a form that notified the government of their objection.
Their health insurance companies would still provide contraceptives to their
employees, but the institution would no longer by supporting it. (9)

○ Borchelt disagrees, arguing that the accommodation removes the employer from
the process by providing contraceptives. “The insurance company provides it
directly to the employee and they [the employee] aren’t paying for it,” she says.
“Yes, it’s the same insurance company, but the employer has been carved out of
the process. If there’s any connection, it’s so attenuated and so indirect that to

say the provision of birth control services is a violation of their beliefs is
incredible.” (9)

Con:

○ Government actions have gone beyond neutrality in religion to hostility toward it,
with some Christians complaining about a “war on Christmas” or government
forcing them to compromise their beliefs (3)

○ Muslims have reported a sharp increase in vandalism and threats to mosques,
while some commentators, including two of the leading republican presidential
candidates, donald trump and ben carson, have disparaged the religion as
incompatible with American beliefs (3) – ​If brought up, we can argue that the
voice of 2 is not representative of the entire united states legal system

○ William Burgess, senior staff attorney at the council of American-Islamic
Relations, a Washington-based gorup that works to educate the public about
Islam, says the traditional American vision of religious liberty establishes the right
to religious expression but acknowledges limits to that practice. Religious liberty
“starts with the freedom to believe whatever you like to believe,” he says.
“There’s absolutely freedom of practice. The protection for the actual practices of
religion- attendance at services, religious dress – need to be quite strong. But in
areas where they impact third parties, religious liberty may need to be limited to
make way for other values.” (4)

○ Despite conservative christians’ recent successes in the Supreme Court, many
still say government directives threaten religious liberty (4)

○ But defenders of Davis and other public officials say the right of government
workers to express their religious beliefs deserves consideration regardless of
their position. “Public officials, whether they’re an employee or whether they’re an
elected official, don’t lose their constitutional rights when they take office or
employment,” says Staver, founder of Liberty counsel, which represented Davis
in Federal Court. (5)

○ Stanley Fish, a law professor at Florida international university, said those who
say Davis is free to practice her religion in other ways – such as attending church
and doing charitable work – ignore that many religions, including Christianity in its
traditional interpretation, demand an obedience to their beliefs that does not allow
for exceptions. “She cannot cast off the tenets of her religion when they conflict
with worldly mandates,” Fish wrote of Davis. She cannot, that is, exercise her
religion intermittently, on weekends and sacred holidays, and dance to secular
tunes for the rest of time.”(5-6)

○ Kentucky is one of 21 states with a state Religious Freedom Restoration Act,
modeled after a 1993 federal law that says the government “should not
substantially burden religious exercise without compelling justification.”
Kentucky’s act says the government at the state and local levels should seek to
make accommodations to faith unless the government has a clear and

compelling interest in infringing on religious expression. The law, Fish noted,
does not rule out making religious accommodations for state officials. (6)

○ But critics say these approaches still subject same-sex couples to uncertainty
and possible rejection and imply their marriages are of a different or lesser
status, when the US government has recognized same-sex marriages as equal
under the law. The accommodations tilt the balance toward religion over
individual rights, says the Rev. Carolyn Davis, an analyst with the Faith and
Progressive Policy Initiative at the Center for American Progress, a liberal
Washington think tank.”

○ But Liberty Counsel’s Staver says the photographer and the baker were not
discriminating against the couples baked on sexual orientation. They don’t
concern themselves with whether their customers are gay or lesbian, he says,
and serve whomever comes through their doors. But, he says, participating in a
same-sex wedding is different. “They don’t want me to participate in a ceremony
that signifies something that directly collides with their deeply held religious
convictions,” Staver says. “Thats different from discriminating because someone
is gay or lesbian. It’s a really major point that needs to be understood 7

○ Anthony Caso, a law professor at Chapman University in Orange, Calif., which is
affiliated with the Christian Church, agrees the photography or bakery business
had the right to turn down same-sex weddings. Because the couples could easily
procure photography and banking services elsewhere, he says, the injury wasn’t
significant enough to provide the compelling government interested required to
overcome the Free Exercise of Religion Clause. “If you can make the argument
that there’s nobody else to take pictures at your wedding or bake your cake, then,
maybe, its different. But this isn’t the case,” Case says. “There’s going to be lots
of bakers more willing to bake that cake.” 7

○ White evangelical Christians were the only religious group that expressed
majority support for allowing small businesses to refuse to serve gay and lesbian
people, according to the poll: ​Catholics felt most strongly that businesses must
provide goods or services to gay or lesbian people.​ (8)

○ But organizations that back women’s access to contraceptives say the Supreme
Court ruling and other accommodations on religious grounds have tilted the
balance between religious freedom and individual rights too far towards religion.
“We’re really concerned about allowing an individual or corporation’s religious
belief to trump the health and welfare and rights of other individuals,” says
Gretchen Borchelt, vice president for health and reproductive rights at the
National Women’s Law Center (8)

○ But Chapman University’s Caso says the government doesn’t have a compelling
justification to force companies to provide insurance that includes all the listed
contraceptives, when it could have provided them to women through other
means. “There are a lot of ways to provide contraceptives to people.(9)

○ But some religiously affiliated universities and charities, including the Little
Sisters of the Poor, have balked at providing any contraceptives to their
employees (9)

○ Supporters of such institutions reject the accommodation, saying it leaves them
responsible for setting in motion a chain of events that leads to contraception
being available through their health care plans. By submitting the form requesting
accommodation, they cause something to happen to which they religiously
object. (9)

○ Adele Keim: counsel for the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, a washington
based non-profit law firm that works on religious liberty cases and that filed the
original lawsuit for the Little Sisters of the poor. In the end, Keim says, the
government wants these institutions “to provide something that they believe is
morally wrong.” (9)

__= with more evidence we can refute a contention about Christian beliefs being “compromised”

__= find support regarding laws and/or measures taken to protect cultural minorities and we
could even turn this use of “incompatible with american beliefs” to refute if they argue christians
have to compromise their beliefs

__= I would be shocked if they took this route in terms of their contentions, but either way this is
refutable information. The con side has the Religious Freedom Restoration Act but our side has
the Establishment Clause from the 1st Amendment.

__= How the laws have accommodated these religious extremists. Then there’s the other issue
of how the uncertainty and the accommodations make it so same sex marriage are not treated
equally.

__= Its another example of the same point the other blue highlighted point makes but the Pro
side of this one finalizes the argument

__= this is a poll of citizens who agree with the laws that have been placed are supported by a
majority of the American people and that there’s only one religious group (White evangelical
christians) that don’t support which means the laws are in favor of the majority of religions

__= this is a big con that I think we might have to refute, but with Obamacare there was
“accommodations” which could be argued as “adequate” to protect religious rights because
there’s a way for business owners to not have to give the contraceptives while the receiver still
won’t have to pay

__= shows that even Hobby Lobby, the initial spark in overturning the free contraceptives for
religious reasons said they would provide other ones for women but highly religious groups
refuted it entirely

Notes:

Constitution’s 1st Amendment: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of
religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” The first part supports the Pro side and the
second part supports the Con side. (3)

Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 – Prohibits any agency, department, or
official of the United States or any State (the government) from substantially burdening
a person’s exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general
applicability, except that the government may burden a person’s exercise of religion only
if it demonstrates that application of the burden to the person: (1) furthers a compelling
governmental interest; and (2) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling
governmental interest.

^^^ https://www.congress.gov/bill/103rd-congress/house-bill/1308

2016 Supreme Court ruling in ​Obergefell v. Hodges ​that same-sex marriage is legal across the
United States. (5)

2014 Supreme Court case ​Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Inc.​ : Under the Patient Protection and
Affordable Care Act (ACA), employment-based group health care plans must provide certain
types of preventative care, such as FDA-approved contraceptive methods.
https://www.oyez.org/cases/2013/13-354

July 8, 2020 LITTLE SISTERS OF THE POOR SAINTS PETER AND PAUL HOME ​v​.
PENNSYLVANIA ​ET AL​. The court ruled in favor of the Little Sisters of the Poor.

“​In a 7–2 ​decision​ on Wednesday​, ​the Supreme Court upheld a Trump administration rule that
greatly broadens a religious exemption to the contraception mandate of the Affordable Care Act.
Under ​Little Sisters of the Poor v. Pennsylvania​, an employer with a “sincerely held religious or
moral objection” to providing this coverage may now decline to cover their employees’
contraception. The government ​estimated​ at oral arguments that broadening the religious
exemption would result in as many as 125,000 women losing their statutorily mandated
contraceptive coverage. This was ​one of two big wins today​ for religious employers seeking to
end-run laws intended to protect workers.

But the Obama administration created a narrow carve-out that allowed houses of worship to opt
out of the contraception mandate. A follow-on rule gave religious nonprofits an accommodation
that allowed them to opt out of providing contraceptive coverage if they “self-certified,” or gave
written notice of, their religious objection, at which point their insurer or the government would
pay for the coverage.”

https://www.oyez.org/cases/2013/13-354

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/19pdf/19-431_5i36

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2020/05/little-sisters-of-the-poor-supreme-court-contraception-obamacare.html

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2020/07/supreme-court-ministerial-exception-religious-employers.html

^^^
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2020/07/supreme-court-sidelines-women-little-sisters-of-the-
poor-v-pennsylvania.html

4 minute Pro Speech 1:

Attention getter:

Thesis: My partner and I advocate yes for the resolved Do US laws adequately protect religious
rights?” For these three contentions:

Roadmap:

Contention 1: US laws adequately protect religious rights within the 1st Amendment.

Warrant:

Impact:

Contention 2:

The Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993

Warrant:
Impact:

Contention 3:

Warrant:
Impact:

4 minute Con Speech 1:

Contention 1:

Warrant:
Impact:
Contention 2:

Warrant:
Impact:
Contention 3:
Warrant:
Impact:

2 minute Crossfire:

Questions???

4 minute Pro Speech Rebuttal 2

4 minute Con Speech Rebuttal 2

4 minute Grand Crossfire

Questions??

Pro Final Focus Speech:

Why we won the debate based on arguments made in the speech

Con Final Focus Speech:

Why they think they won the debate

ADVANCEDPUBLIC COMMUNICATION DEBATE INSTRUCTIONS

Purpose: From this point forward each week we will have two public forum debates and students will gain

experience in: (1) debate preparation and research: (2) types of public forum speeches used in debate; (3) working in

teams to develop cases and arguments; and (4) argument structure that incorpora tes claims, warrants and impact

statements; (4) responding to opponent’s arguments; (5) thinking on your feet; (6) staying within each speech’s time

parameters; and (7) public speaking skills.

You will have the opportunity for three practice debates and I should see significant improvement in each debate in

terms of preparation, argument structure, ability to respond to opponents’ arguments, ability to navigate crossfire,

ability to work in teams, and your public speaking skills. Your level of participation, prepared briefs, and

improvement will count toward your participation grade. You will not be given a debate grade until the final debate.

Preparation:

You will be assigned a debate resolution and will argue in favor of the resolution (Pro) or against the resolution (Con).

Each team will be responsible for developing a brief that identifies pro and con arguments for each side of the debate.

You will need to generate a list of 5-7 pro and con arguments with supporting evidence for each side of the debate.

Remember to write these out as claims that are appropriate to the argument structure used in public forum debate:

simple, concise, and consist of one clear point. This chart of arguments should be formulated as a document and will

be included in the brief you provide your instructor as well as the first pro and con prepared speech.

Briefs: Will be typed and turned into your instructor and should include:

1. Team members names and assigned speeches for each debate

2. Summary list of con and pro arguments for resolution

3. List of complete arguments (claim, warrant, impact) for your stance on the resolution (Pro/Con)

a. This should include your three primary contentions and secondary arguments you might make

b. Backup evidence for each contention that can be used to reinforce or rebut your opponent

4. List of complete arguments that can be used to refute your opponents’ three contentions

5. Copy of first pro or con speech case written according to established case parameters

6. Bibliography of minimum 10 sources

a. Please identify what specific databases you found sources from

b. Please identify Advanced Public Com Lib Guide category source drawn from

i. Pro and Con Topic Briefs
ii. Newspapers

iii. U.S. Government and Agency Resources
iv. Congressional Legislation and Analysis
v. Executive Branch and Presidential Documents

vi. U.S. Supreme Court Decisions and Analysis
vii. Policy Think Tanks

viii. Political Magazines
ix. Statistical Data
x. International and World News/Analysis

xi. Scholarly Resources
xii. Legal Reasoning and Law Reviews

xiii. Polling Resources
xiv. Fact Checking
xv.

7. Information Literacy Source Evaluation (Graded Separately 2.5%)

http://libguides.lmu.edu/cmst2800

http://libguides.lmu.edu/c.php?g=733282&p=5238642

http://libguides.lmu.edu/c.php?g=733282&p=5238645

http://libguides.lmu.edu/c.php?g=733282&p=5325321

http://libguides.lmu.edu/c.php?g=733282&p=5325323

http://libguides.lmu.edu/c.php?g=733282&p=5325324

http://libguides.lmu.edu/c.php?g=733282&p=5325325

http://libguides.lmu.edu/c.php?g=733282&p=5325326

http://libguides.lmu.edu/c.php?g=733282&p=5325327

http://libguides.lmu.edu/c.php?g=733282&p=5325328

http://libguides.lmu.edu/c.php?g=733282&p=5328492

http://libguides.lmu.edu/c.php?g=733282&p=5328493

http://libguides.lmu.edu/c.php?g=733282&p=5328494

http://libguides.lmu.edu/c.php?g=733282&p=5471336

Graded Items:

• Information literacy source evaluation (2.5% each debate)

• Online student feedback for each debate

• Online critical reflection for each debate

• Counts toward debate participation grade: preparation and improvement

RESOLUTIONS: CMST 2800-01 8:00-9:00am

Oct 5: Resolved: Are New Surveillance Technologies Effective and Legal?

• Pro: Chase Bresler & Varun Senthilraja

• Con: Alex Tobias & Stokley Berg

• CQ Researcher Brief Name: High-Tech Policing

Oct 7: Resolved: Can News Outlets Regain the Public’s Confidence?

• Pro: Amber Clarvit & Katrina Rathband

• Con: Sydney Parker and Katy Trainer

• CQ Researcher Brief Name: Trust in Media

Oct 12: Resolved: Are Students Learning How to Be Good Citizens?

• Pro: Julia Carlota & Emily Ram

• Con: Jenna Duran & Aliyah Del Rosario

• CQ Researcher Brief Name: Civic Education

Oct 14: Resolved: Do U.S. Laws Adequately Protect Religious Rights?

• Pro: Blake Marques & Evelyn Chandra

• Con: Marissa Canton Guerrero & Andrea Elias

• CQ Researcher Brief Name: Religious Freedom

RESOLUTIONS: CMST 2800-04 4:00-5:30pm

Oct 5: Resolved: Are New Surveillance Technologies Effective and Legal?

• Pro: Sophia Burrows & Sophia Kraake

• Con: Natalie Robinson &Antonia Abramowtiz

• CQ Researcher Brief Name: High-Tech Policing

Oct 7: Resolved: Can News Outlets Regain the Public’s Confidence?

• Pro: Brisa & Anai Rosales

• Con: Owen Pollard & Manuel Alencar

• CQ Researcher Brief Name: Trust in Media

Oct 12: Resolved: Are Students Learning How to Be Good Citizens?

• Pro: Sarah Cheung

• Con: Alexandra Christophilis

• CQ Researcher Brief Name: Civic Education

Oct 14: Resolved: Do U.S. Laws Adequately Protect Religious Rights?

• Pro: Alexandria Cardwell & Nathan Cardwell

• Con: Ethan Patrick & Ben Grunberg

• CQ Researcher Brief Name: Religious Freedom