The Supreme Court has shaped the interpretation of religious freedom within the United States through rulings on cases regarding the First Amendment. Some of the early cases heard resulted over the amount of religious liberty and …show more content…
the spreading of First Amendment protections to the state level. These cases stem as far back as 1878, where the court ruled that prohibiting polygamy violates no religious freedoms within the Mormon faith (11). In what is believed to be a landmark case by many constitutional law academics, the Supreme Court’s ruling in Cantwell v. Connecticut expanded the assurance of religious freedom as well as the ban against an established religion to the state level. (13). With the ruling in Cantwell, the struggle to define the relationship between religion and government quickly entered schools. From 1948 to 1985, the Supreme Court decided cases that pertain to religion in public schools. This includes a case in 1962 dealing with the Establishment Clause, Engel v. Vitale, which resulted in a complete ban of school-sanctioned prayer (11). During the late eighties and into the latter half of the nineties, with the Court’s narrowing of the rights towards the exercise of religious freedoms, The Religious Freedom Restoration Act was enacted by Congress with the hope that the nation would return to a more capacious interpretation of the Free Exercise Clause. In 2002, the Supreme Court permitted money from the state to go towards religious schools such as school vouchers. This was decided in Zelman v. Simmons-Harris where it was decided that vouchers are a secular provision to enable kids to be sent to better schools (11). A much more recent exercise of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act was seen in 2015 when the court ruled that the right to marry is given to same-sex couples in Obergefell v. Hodges. Over the past 23 years since the Religious Freedom Restoration Act was passed, state as well as Supreme Court rulings have shaped current stances over religious freedoms (11).
The Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) is a federal law passed within the United States in 1993 which was in part to prevent laws that could significantly constrict a person’s right to freely exercise religion.
However, the main intent of the RFRA was to reinstate the compelling interest standard, which would be done through necessary strict scrutiny of laws which wanting to outweigh religious conviction (6). Since the Bill of Rights the United States federal law has maintained the attempt to stop legislation that would significantly constrict a person's right to freely exercise religion. But, starting in 1990 with a case known as Employment Division of Oregon v. Smith, the Supreme Court ruled that Oregon can prohibit the religious use of peyote (15). The reason for this is because peyote is criminalized in Oregon, which gives the law secular purpose, and the Supreme Court has never allowed criminal laws. The ruling of this case caused many conservatives and liberals alike to feel that the ruling went too far in the direction of restricting religious belief and the ability to freely exercise those beliefs. This is why the RFRA was passed and is used in shaping arguments that take place over religious freedoms where a compelling interest is needed, which can be done through strict scrutiny. One such circumstance of this happening is the case Burwell v. Hobby Lobby, where the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Hobby Lobby, an unforeseen consequence over the usage of the …show more content…
RFRA. In 2014 the court ruled in favor of Hobby Lobby’s decision not to provide contraceptives for its employees on the basis that it violates the owners’ religious beliefs (15). The decision allows exemption only in certain cases (such as religious rights) from laws passed in which its owners see objection towards. Other circumstances in which the RFRA was used in 1997 when Indiana and Arkansas both signed RFRAs for the states so that limits on the amount of restriction on religious expressions, such as not servicing gay couples. These laws were met by a flood of oppositions, some of which came from major corporations. These oppositions caused the states to revise their laws to reduce the impact (18).
With the ruling on same-sex marriage enacted in 2015, some small private-businesses have emphasized that they will not provide any goods or services towards the union of gay or lesbian couples.
The reasons as to why these businesses choose not to provide goods or services towards gay and lesbian couples stems from their religious beliefs. Two cases to take note of are Elane Photography in New Mexico, who rejected to take pictures at a lesbian couple’s wedding. The other case revolves around Masterpiece Cakeshop in Colorado, they refused to provide a cake for a wedding of a same-sex couple on the belief that it went against their religion. Both cases were brought before a state court where they ruled in favor of the couples. Arguments as to why private business owners should not be able to deny service to others because of their religious beliefs comes directly from anti-discrimination legislation passed within Colorado and New Mexico, along with 19 others, for a total of 21 states that include anti-discrimination towards sexual orientation. A professor of law and religion at George Washington University makes the argument that having exceptions on the basis of accommodating religion would become a disconcerting pattern. He argues that to begin exceptions to public-accommodations have garnered serious problems. An example of this is not serving women without the accompaniment of men because it goes against their religion. The professor argues that these accommodations will
continue to lead to problems (7). Arguments made by Liberty Counsel states that the photographer and the baker did not discriminate because of the couple’s sexual orientation when serving customers. The problem came down to the fact that participating in the wedding was something that directly clashes with their religious beliefs. An argument as to why this is justified, was given by a law professor at Chapman University. He agrees with the photography and bakery business for the reason that the couples could have easily attained a photographer and baker from somewhere else. Finally, Louise Melling, the director of the American Civil Liberties Union Center situated in New York offers an argument against allowing private business owners to deny services to people based on religious beliefs on the basis that these acts could lead to discrimination and an undercut of the Supreme Court ruling on same-sex marriage (8).
Today American Muslims face great obstacles. Since the 9/11 terrorist attack, resistance and animosity towards Muslims has grown in the United States. Before 9/11, the FBI averaged around 20-30 anti-Muslim hate crimes per year. But, after the attack, the average amount of hate crimes has risen to 100-150 (12). An example of this can be seen with Sterling Heights, where last year the community advocated the rejection of a mosque being built in the neighborhood. This comes from the negative light that has befallen the Islamic faith (12). With the November attack on Paris, followed by the December mass-shooting in San Bernardino, California, anti-Muslim proposals and acts have escalated. Governor Jeb Bush believes the United States should only allow Christian refugees from war-torn Syria, which is predominantly Muslim (16). Donald Trump and Ben Carson have called the religion incompatible with the beliefs of Americans. Trump specifically states that Muslims should be banned from entering the country until the situation is dealt with (3). Muslim-American leaders feel that due to remarks such as the one made by Trump where he called for all Muslims to be banned as a result of a mass shooting in San Bernardino, people such as Sarkar Haq, a Muslim shopkeeper, are beaten in alleged hate crimes (5). With the terror attacks and the barrage of political statements scowling towards the Islam faith, American Muslims face obstacles of discrimination and hate crimes which have resulted in the injuries of Muslim such as Sarkar Haq. The courts have dealt with some of the issues. Muslim women have suffered much discrimination from their headscarf. They’ve had to fight for the right to wear them. Muslim prisoners have had to fight to allow the growth of beards by a half-inch in accordance with their faith. The Supreme Court in both instances has ruled in favor of the plaintiff and their religious rights.
With the Supreme Court’s rulings towards religious freedom, that include such laws as the RFRA, the United States has gone under considerable reconstruction throughout the decades. From the arguments for and against private business owners denying services to same-sex couples, to the obstacles that Muslims face in society today. Controversies over religious freedom will continue to be at the center of American politics.