THE EXERCISE OF RELIGIOUS LIBERTY Thomas J Schetelich
THE “EXERCISE” OF RELIGIOUS LIBERTY Thomas J. Schetelich Baltimore, Philadelphia, Washington D. C.
THE “EXERCISE” OF RELIGIOUS LIBERTY DEVELOPMENTS AND TRENDS Thomas J. Schetelich Baltimore, Philadelphia, Washington D. C.
Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. (2014) EEOC v. Abercrombie & Fitch (2015) Trinity Lutheran Church v. Comer (2017) Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Comm. (2018) American Legion v. American Humanist Association (2019) American Legion v. American Humanist Assn.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. First Amendment, United States Constitution
The Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (42 USC § 2000 bb– 1) a) Government shall not substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability, except as provided in subsection (b) of this section. b) Government may substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion only if it demonstrates that application of the burden to the person — (1) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and (2) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.
Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. (2014) KEY POINT – a corporation has the religion of its owners, and the right to free exercise of that religion in the marketplace. “A corporation is simply a form of organization used by human beings to achieve desired ends … When rights … are extended to corporations, the purpose is to protect the rights of people. ” “A law that operates so as to make the practice of religious beliefs more expensive in the context of business activities imposes a burden on the exercise of religion. ”
EEOC v. Abercrombie & Fitch (2015) KEY POINT – the right to religious exercise extends to employment. An employer cannot make adverse employment decision based on the employee’s or applicant’s religious practice “whether this derives from actual knowledge, a well-founded suspicion or merely a hunch. ”
Trinity Lutheran Church v. Comer (2017) KEY POINT – a faith-based organization has the right to seek government funding available to secular institutions without compromising its religious freedom. “Trinity Lutheran is a member of the community too … Denying a generally available benefit solely on account of religious identity imposes a penalty on the free exercise of religion. ”
Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Comm. (2018) KEY POINT – sincere religious faith must be given respect in deciding cases of public accommodation. “These disputes must be resolved with tolerance, without undue disrespect to sincere religious beliefs, and without subjecting gay persons to indignities when they seek goods and services in any open market. ”
American Legion v. American Humanist Association (2019) KEY POINT – “the establishment of religion” determined based on the “history and tradition” of symbols. “A government that roams the land, tearing down monuments with religious symbols and scrubbing away any reference to the divine will strike many as aggressively hostile to religion. … for those with a knowledge of history, the image of monuments being taken down will be evocative, disturbing, and divisive. ”
WHATS NEXT? Sterlinski v. Catholic Bishop of Chicago KEY QUESTION – Who is a “minister” of a Church?
WHERE TO GET ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: www. fsb-law. com 410. 837. 2200 Thomas J. Schetelich Jocelyn S. Szymanowski
- Slides: 16