Focus on the First Amendment right to religious freedom, particularly when it protects a religion-based right to discriminate in a manner that is otherwise illegal (anti-gay bakers, anti-abortion hobby shop owner, anti-birth control pharmacist, anti-gay website designer)

Balancing Religious Freedom and Equality by [Name] Course, Date - Professor Introduction Engaging Context: A High-Profile Example of Religious-Based Discrimination In 2018, the United States Supreme Court ruled Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission. This case addressed the dispute between religious freedom and anti-discrimination laws. Jack Phillips, who is a baker and a staunch Christian, refused to construct a wedding cake for a same-sex couple, citing his beliefs that same-sex marriage is against the doctrine of his religion. The bakery's refusal became a complaint before the Colorado Civil Rights Commission, and the commission decided that Phillips was at fault for discrimination. While the Court, in its decision, the Court narrowly sided with Phillips, but the case brought to light a more significant legal issue: when and to what extent religious beliefs can be used to justify conduct that would otherwise breach anti-discrimination laws.[Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission (2018; 2018), https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/584/16-111/.] Purpose Statement This paper is intended to explore the legal limits and the consequences of the First Amendment's Free Exercise Clause when its language has been employed to legalize religion-based discriminatory conduct, which might otherwise be prohibited. This study explores the changing interplay between religious freedoms and society's commitments to equality by focusing on critical cases and legal formations regarding marginalized communities, including members of the LGBTQ+ community and women seeking reproductive healthcare. Roadmap of the Paper This paper appears to aim at a careful examination of these legal dilemmas: * The first section of this paper, which is the Literature Review, provides a summary of what has been written by scholars and experts about the balance between religious freedom and anti-discrimination laws. This section will explore the foundations of relevant legal doctrines, the importance of scholarly debates, and the historical evolution of the legal systems involved in this case. * The second part, Historical Context and Key Cases will explain the progression of the law and the precedents of the cases used in further development of this field of law. This includes main decisions such as Sherbert v. Verner and Employment Division v. Smith and current issues, such as religious objections to anti-discrimination statutes. * The third section, Legal Analysis of Modern Conflicts, will include recent cases and controversies, such as refusals by pharmacists to dispense birth control or by website designers to serve same-sex couples. It will examine the conflict between the Free Exercise Clause and other constitutional protections, such as the Equal Protection Clause, and consider the role of state RFRAs. Literature Review The Clash Between Religious Conscience and Non-discrimination Laws There has been much scholarship on the conflict between religious conscience and anti-discrimination laws, especially in cases influencing LGBT+ people. Guth studies how such public deliberation over religious freedom is generated by a case such as the one involving the Christian baker Masterpiece Cakeshop, who refused to bake a cake for a gay couple because of religious beliefs. Guth argues that public opinion often cleaves along cultural lines, seeing religious conscience claims as symbolic battlefields for more significant social questions. Likewise, Parlow describes the difficulties religiously affiliated institutions grapple with in identifying ways to assert their faith-based identities while simultaneously complying with the requirements of non-discrimination laws, in particular, how religious institutions are provided less protection than they once were in free exercise cases in modern jurisprudence. Both studies highlight the highly contested negotiations over religious freedom; however, while Guth focuses on larger social cleavages, Parlow points to the evisceration of institutional autonomy in the face of current legal precedents.[James L. Guth, New frontiers of religious freedom? LGBTQ rights versus religious conscience, 50 Religion, State and Society 338 (2022).] [Matthew J Parlow, Revisiting Gay Rights Coalition of Georgetown Law Center v. Georgetown University A Decade Later: Free Exercise Challenges and the Nondiscrimination Laws Protecting Homosexuals, Texas Journal of Women, Gender, and the Law (2022), https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Revisiting-Gay-Rights-Coalition-of-Georgetown-Law-A-Parlow/1ed93f05880a91429a8b6d10a0cfba19b131b9cc?utm_source=consensus (last visited Nov 19, 2024).] The Evolution and Redundancy of the Free Exercise Clause The redundancy of the Free Exercise Clause in contemporary legal practice is a hot topic among scholars. Conkle believes that the non-discrimination aspect of the clause, as defined in Employment Division v. Smith, has become a part of other First Amendment doctrines, thus diminishing its unique role and influence in many legal scenarios. Conkle believes that by permitting the general rules regardless of the negative impact on religious practices, Smith, in effect, has limited the scope of the Free Exercise Clause so that many religious freedom claims do not gain additional protection. On the other hand, Moreland targets conflict areas such as employment and benefits disputes involving religious organizations, where the right to free exercise of religion is still a subject of discussion. Moreland stresses that religious bodies are more interested in the right to practice their faith unimpeded than in the observance of cumbersome regulations. The diverging opinions express the disagreement in legal scholarship: some argue that the Free Exercise Clause is becoming irrelevant; others maintain that it is the core issue in the new cases, specifically cases on health care mandates and employment rights, hence arguing it's changing and still contentious purpose.[Daniel O Conkle, The Free Exercise Clause: How Redundant, and Why? Loyola University of Chicago Law Journal (2024), https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/The-Free-Exercise-Clause%3A-How-Redundant%2C-and-Why-Conkle/08037d42967baeb6ba50bb0abd0e2a391733ddb6?utm_source=consensus (last visited Nov 19, 2024).] [M Moreland, Religious Free Exercise and Anti-Discrimination Law, Albany law review (2015), https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Religious-Free-Exercise-and-Anti-Discrimination-Law-Moreland/73ae688c095430aec4c8ecd60a7137d7b7a73bab?utm_source=consensus (last visited Nov 19, 2024).] The Limits of Religious Autonomy and Ministerial Exceptions For all these reasons, religious autonomy remains the subject of much debate. Stevens, who asks how far a religious entity can go in refusing service based on faith without violating non-discrimination laws, examines state licensing of religious officials to address same-sex marriage. Moreland also examines the 'ministerial exception' in which religious institutions have been entitled to carve out exemptions from employment discrimination laws concerning employees they consider ministers. What Moreland calls constitutional autonomy provides him with an exception to justify; Stevens emphasizes the paradox between religious liberty and civil equality. Together, these perspectives demonstrate how claims of religious autonomy can make finding the balance between the rights of religiously marginalized groups and those of the faithful alike more challenging than it might have been.[Andrew C Stevens, By the Power Vested in Me? Licensing Religious Officials to Solemnize Marriage in the Age of Same-Sex Marriage, Emory law journal (2014), https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/By-the-Power-Vested-in-Me-Licensing-Religious-to-in-Stevens/8c303686f7d67be11e246d442808e6804391e29a?utm_source=consensus (last visited Nov 19, 2024).] [M Moreland, Religious Free Exercise and Anti-Discrimination Law, Albany law review (2015), https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Religious-Free-Exercise-and-Anti-Discrimination-Law-Moreland/73ae688c095430aec4c8ecd60a7137d7b7a73bab?utm_source=consensus (last visited Nov 19, 2024).] Comparisons Across Legal Systems: US vs. South Africa In light of a comparative approach, Roberts compares the treatment of religious autonomy under the American Constitution with South Africa's constitutional framework, which grants equal protection to a broader range. Unlike the United States, South Africa's legal framework tries to find an appropriate balance between a commitment to religious freedoms and broader equality commitments. It promotes more comprehensive protections that harmonize religious practices with anti-discrimination norms. Conversely, US jurisprudence commonly struggles with conflicts between religious rights and civil rights protections, resulting in hugely contentious arguments about the breadth of religious exceptions. This comparison reinforces the weakness of the US approach because religious organizations might be subjected to higher constraints in exercising freedom without violating anti-discrimination policies.[Bernard Roberts, The Common Law Sovereignty of ...