This case ruled that school enforced prayer was a violation of the First Amendment, more specifically the Establishment Clause. Soon after these cases were settled, another federal court case caught the attention of the nation, the Wallace vs. Jaffree case. In 1985 appellees challenged the constitutionality of moments of silence. They claimed that the Alabama statute (§ 16-1-20.1) violated the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause. In a 6-3 decision, the court decided it was in fact a violation. Yet in today’s society, which is full of tragedy and heartbreak, we still see schools continuously holding moments of silence. The ideology of religious freedom is that school is kept a religious free zone during the school day. Teachers and staff cannot enforce or promote any religion over another. In Minnesota, a highschool denied the creation of a pro-life club based on religious reasons stating “does not support the student body as a whole.” (ALIV Club vs. Independent School District #885) Despite this claim, the school body had recognized over a dozen other non-curricular clubs and provided them with access and materials they denied the ALIV Club. ADF Senior Counsel David Cortman states:
“Pro-life students should not be discriminated against for expressing their beliefs. As the Supreme Court has noted, students do not shed their constitutional rights at the schoolhouse gate. School officials do not have the authority to trump the constitutionally protected rights of students, and by denying the ALIV Club official status on campus, they are doing exactly that.”
The principle denied equal opportunity for christian students. All students, no matter their religion or personal beliefs, have the constitutional right to equal materials and opportunities as all other students. Another case of denying equal rights to students is in a Minneapolis high school. Muslim students are allowed to leave class every friday during fifth hour and leave class multiple times per day for prayer. They do not promote any religion besides Islam. They do not offer synagogue for Jewish students or church services for Christian students. This is an example of a school not following the constitution. Under the First Amendment, students are allowed to pray during non-instructional time as long as it does not distract from other learning environments.
127 our experts are availableright now
However with students leaving class multiple times a day, resulting in class having to stop and wait for them, and not going to class fifth hour every Friday, this is discrimination against other students who do not practice Islam. A few students within the school have brought it to the principal and superintendent’s attention the inequality of opportunity for all students and they are currently dealing with it. Similarly to the ALIV Club, a group of students are denied equal opportunity to the same materials and time that other groups are. Being that both schools are publicly funded schools, thhe school board is breaking the Establishment Clause. They were promoting a religion instead of being a neutral ground for all students and staff to thrive in.
A major topic in today’s culture when it comes to religious freedom laws is the opportunity to use your religion to discriminate. In the case of Masterpiece Cakeshop vs. Colorado Civil Rights Commision 584 U.S. __ (2018), Masterpiece Cakeshop owner Jack Phillips denied her services to a gay couple because of religious beliefs claiming that the First Amendment protected him from discrimination laws. In the very heated court case, the judges voted 7-2 in favor of the baker citing the First Amendment. This begs the questions; Can religious freedom and LGBTQ+ rights exist in harmony in today’s society? After the Phillips won the case many people became scared of what this victory could open the door to.
Anti-discrimination law states that it is unlawful to discriminate against people no matter their race, gender, gender identity, sexuality, religious beliefs, and political beliefs. The couple in the case claimed that Phillips discriminated against them for their sexuality. Federal Law prohibits discrimination, however it protects religious freedom. As long as businesses are denying services based on religious reasons, and not personal reasons or for malintent, legally they can deny service to anyone. That said, the service they are providing has to deliberately interfere with what they believe. If you are a tire shop owner you cannot deny service to a gay couple. That is discrimination.
However if you are a clerk you are allowed to deny signing marriage certificates to lgbtq couples due to religious beliefs. In the case of Miller vs. Davis, Kim Davis was under fire for not personally signing gay and lesbian marriage certificates and she denied any of her deputies to sign them as well because her name would still be present on the certificate. This is a prime example of discrimination disguised as religious freedom. Davis unconstitutionally denied the other clerks and deputies their rights. She imposed her own religious beliefs and ideals onto her peers. If she had not done this, she may have been constitutionally protected under the First Amendment to deny these couples the certificates from her.
Many people, both republican and democratic, believe that there is no possible middle ground for religious freedom and anti-discrimination. Those with strong religious beliefs do not want to deny their beliefs and those who tend to be discriminated against want their rights and equality. For lawmakers this is a very tricky subject and there is no clear answer. Students want equal opportunity, and teachers want to demonstrate their faith in any legal way they can. Many people also interpret the First Amendment in different ways. What may be religious freedom to one person, is discrimination to another. Similar to the Lemon Test, the government and federal courts tended to use the Sherbet Test to determine whether or not the government has infringed on the right to exercise religion. It is a series of four questions, two for the one claiming their rights have been violated, and two for the government to ask themselves. The Sherbet Test is as follows:
For the individual, the court must determine whether the person has a claim involving a sincere religious belief, and whether the government action places a substantial burden on the person’s ability to act on that belief. If these two elements are established, then the government must prove that it is acting in furtherance of a “compelling state interest,” and that it has pursued that interest in the manner least restrictive, or least burdensome, to religion.
However in 1990 the Supreme Court reined in the Sherbet Test after the case of Employment Division vs. Smith. In the wake of this case, many people have tried to restore the Sherbet Test through legislation. In some states these efforts have been successful, in others the courts ruled that the test is applicable to religious claims by the virtue of the state’s own constitution. However in most states the level of protection for free-exercise claims is unknown. It really is decided by the judge of the case whether or not free-exercise claims is applicable.
The government is in everything we do and many people are starting to understand why they are incorporated into religion even though there should be a separation of church and state. Without religious freedom laws, teachers and school boards would have total control over students’ learning when it comes to religion. In the Rhode Island case stated above, young elementary school students were introduced to a very Christian environment even though the students were a part of a state funded school. Religious freedom laws protect those who want to show their faith in school or work, and protects those who don’t identify with a faith at all. As tensions rise between the religious and those who don’t believe in religion, we need these laws to protect our human rights.
When the government denies our free speech and our right to practice religion it is no longer a democracy but it becomes a dictatorship. Whether you are religious or not, these laws are laws for a reason. The Founding Fathers knew that without these laws, our country would fall apart and go into war similar to countries we see in war today over religion. Lawmakers today have the challenge of protecting everyone’s rights in a fair way. The middle ground will be hard to reach, but someday we will reach that middle ground. Until then lawmakers and officials need to keep working towards peace.
