Religious discrimination in America has caused legal scholars to come with a memo addressed to President Obama. In the memo, US government is encouraged to withdraw protection it gives to religious charities particularly in faith-based organizations (FBOs) so they may not perform 'discriminative' act when handling issues related to the religious belief.

Liberal academic group expresses its concern on those operating as federal contractors with a memo stating that the goal is to enable attorneys, scholars and advocates to distribute a new method in settling conflicts when it comes to religious liberty and sexual rights.

According to the document entitled the "Analysis of a Need for Legal Guidance and Policy-Making on Religious Exemptions Raised by Federal Contractors", the liberal academics are against Catholic church who opposes homosexual marriage. It is no surprise since the voice of concern received funds from pro-homosexual foundation, ARCUS foundation and planned parenthood donor, Ford Foundation.

The document mentions United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) several times for its religious discriminations such as not providing contraception but taking the government fund.  Most of all, the document marks a few highlights including transgender issues which do not receive proper health treatments when feds-granted religious organizations are behind the service. The grants will continue to 'support' the discrimination and the disproportionate treatments.

According to ProPublica report, the current legalized regulations will allow the faith-based charities to discriminate. After receiving a lot of critics for laws in the name of faith, a group of constitutional lawyers ask Obama to revoke the legal memo. The paper consists of 16 pages of explanations and is signed by 15 legal scholars in the country. It is published by Columbia University.

According to the article, Obama administration has actually taken steps to prevent the religious discrimination in America done by the faith-based organizations. However, experts found it is ineffective because it does not give protections to beneficiaries and unable to spot wrongdoings especially when these people are already in vulnerable conditions.