Freedom of Religion/Limitations - Restrictions/Jurisprudence: Difference between revisions
Import-sysop (talk | contribs) (transformed) |
Import-sysop (talk | contribs) (transformed) |
||
| Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
|pageLevel=Question | |pageLevel=Question | ||
|contents= | |contents= | ||
The Supreme Court ruled in Employment Division v. Smith ([[Probable year::1990]]) that the First Amendment does not provide for religious exemptions to a generally applicable law. In the case, a Native American was fired from his job and denied unemployment benefits for using Peyote, a substance sometimes smoked during religious ceremonies. The court had previously ruled in Sherbert v. Verner ([[Probable year::1963]]) that the First Amendment does provide for that type of exception unless there is a compelling reason to enforce the law anyway (Munoz [[Probable year::2008]], [[Probable year::1083]]) . | The Supreme Court ruled in Employment Division v. Smith ([[Probable year:: 1990]]) that the First Amendment does not provide for religious exemptions to a generally applicable law. In the case, a Native American was fired from his job and denied unemployment benefits for using Peyote, a substance sometimes smoked during religious ceremonies. The court had previously ruled in Sherbert v. Verner ([[Probable year:: 1963]]) that the First Amendment does provide for that type of exception unless there is a compelling reason to enforce the law anyway (Munoz [[Probable year:: 2008]], [[Probable year:: 1083]]) . | ||
However, the Supreme Court’s ruling in Gonzales v. O Centro Espírita Beneficente União do Vegetal ([[Probable year::2006]]) appears to undermine this ruling. In that case, a religious group claimed the right to use a drug called hoasca. The Supreme Court held that, under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, the government is obligated to grant religious exemptions to general laws unless the government can demonstrate a compelling state interest in regulating the drug’s religious use (“Gonzales v. Centro”). | However, the Supreme Court’s ruling in Gonzales v. O Centro Espírita Beneficente União do Vegetal ([[Probable year:: 2006]]) appears to undermine this ruling. In that case, a religious group claimed the right to use a drug called hoasca. The Supreme Court held that, under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, the government is obligated to grant religious exemptions to general laws unless the government can demonstrate a compelling state interest in regulating the drug’s religious use (“Gonzales v. Centro”). | ||
Pandemic: The COVID-19 pandemic has caused many governments to limit religious gatherings. For example, at the outset of the pandemic, Maryland banned gatherings of more than ten people, including religious services (Pitts [[Probable year::2020]]) . | Pandemic: The COVID-19 pandemic has caused many governments to limit religious gatherings. For example, at the outset of the pandemic, Maryland banned gatherings of more than ten people, including religious services (Pitts [[Probable year:: 2020]]) . | ||
Ensuring Success of a Government Operation: In Goldman v. Weinberger ([[Probable year::1986]]) , the court upheld an Air Force ban on headgear, which was challenged by an Orthodox Jew seeking to wear a yarmulke while on duty. The court found that the Air Force had a legitimate interest in ensuring obedience and conformity (“Landmark”). | Ensuring Success of a Government Operation: In Goldman v. Weinberger ([[Probable year:: 1986]]) , the court upheld an Air Force ban on headgear, which was challenged by an Orthodox Jew seeking to wear a yarmulke while on duty. The court found that the Air Force had a legitimate interest in ensuring obedience and conformity (“Landmark”). | ||
Non-Discrimination Law (a notable non-exception): In a landmark case, Masterpiece Cake Shop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission ( [[Probable year::2017]]) , the Supreme Court decided that Colorado anti-discrimination law could not compel a baker to violate his religious beliefs by baking a cake for a same-sex wedding (“Masterpiece”). | Non-Discrimination Law (a notable non-exception): In a landmark case, Masterpiece Cake Shop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission ( [[Probable year:: 2017]]) , the Supreme Court decided that Colorado anti-discrimination law could not compel a baker to violate his religious beliefs by baking a cake for a same-sex wedding (“Masterpiece”). | ||
Munoz: | Munoz: | ||
https://poseidon01.ssrn.com/delivery.php?ID=9420940680730001010910981140831230860340 08059068089043102127107104085000073089113076103052038060105029109003069066[[Probable year::1211]] 201080260520780270280480911210290090881160250670750410221101001200720910030790 82021094097027125023004126080023120030064020093085097&EXT=pdf | https://poseidon01.ssrn.com/delivery.php?ID=9420940680730001010910981140831230860340 08059068089043102127107104085000073089113076103052038060105029109003069066[[Probable year:: 1211]] 201080260520780270280480911210290090881160250670750410221101001200720910030790 82021094097027125023004126080023120030064020093085097&EXT=pdf | ||
“Landmark”: https://billofrightsinstitute.org/cases/ | “Landmark”: https://billofrightsinstitute.org/cases/ | ||
“Gonzalez v. Centro”: https://www.oyez.org/cases/[[Probable year::2005]]/ 04-[[Probable year::1084]] | “Gonzalez v. Centro”: https://www.oyez.org/cases/[[Probable year:: 2005]]/ 04-[[Probable year:: 1084]] | ||
“Masterpiece”: https://www.oyez.org/cases/[[Probable year::2017]]/ 16-111 | “Masterpiece”: https://www.oyez.org/cases/[[Probable year:: 2017]]/ 16-111 | ||
Gomes: https://digitalcommons.law.byu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=[[Probable year::2450]]& context=lawreview | Gomes: https://digitalcommons.law.byu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=[[Probable year:: 2450]]& context=lawreview | ||
Koev: http://web.a.ebscohost.com.proxy-um.researchport.umd.edu/ehost/detail/detail?vid=1&sid=bb31 f9a9-0997-4bb0-a34c-eeb97b46b9c7%40sdc-v-sessmgr01&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2Z Q%3d%3d#AN=13678[[Probable year::2604]]& db=asn | Koev: http://web.a.ebscohost.com.proxy-um.researchport.umd.edu/ehost/detail/detail?vid=1&sid=bb31 f9a9-0997-4bb0-a34c-eeb97b46b9c7%40sdc-v-sessmgr01&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2Z Q%3d%3d#AN=13678[[Probable year:: 2604]]& db=asn | ||
}} | }} | ||
Revision as of 22:08, 28 December 2022
Under American jurisprudence, what permissible exceptions exist?
The Supreme Court ruled in Employment Division v. Smith (1990) that the First Amendment does not provide for religious exemptions to a generally applicable law. In the case, a Native American was fired from his job and denied unemployment benefits for using Peyote, a substance sometimes smoked during religious ceremonies. The court had previously ruled in Sherbert v. Verner (1963) that the First Amendment does provide for that type of exception unless there is a compelling reason to enforce the law anyway (Munoz 2008, 1083) . However, the Supreme Court’s ruling in Gonzales v. O Centro Espírita Beneficente União do Vegetal (2006) appears to undermine this ruling. In that case, a religious group claimed the right to use a drug called hoasca. The Supreme Court held that, under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, the government is obligated to grant religious exemptions to general laws unless the government can demonstrate a compelling state interest in regulating the drug’s religious use (“Gonzales v. Centro”). Pandemic: The COVID-19 pandemic has caused many governments to limit religious gatherings. For example, at the outset of the pandemic, Maryland banned gatherings of more than ten people, including religious services (Pitts 2020) . Ensuring Success of a Government Operation: In Goldman v. Weinberger (1986) , the court upheld an Air Force ban on headgear, which was challenged by an Orthodox Jew seeking to wear a yarmulke while on duty. The court found that the Air Force had a legitimate interest in ensuring obedience and conformity (“Landmark”). Non-Discrimination Law (a notable non-exception): In a landmark case, Masterpiece Cake Shop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission ( 2017) , the Supreme Court decided that Colorado anti-discrimination law could not compel a baker to violate his religious beliefs by baking a cake for a same-sex wedding (“Masterpiece”).
Munoz: https://poseidon01.ssrn.com/delivery.php?ID=9420940680730001010910981140831230860340 080590680890431021271071040850000730891130761030520380601050291090030690661211 201080260520780270280480911210290090881160250670750410221101001200720910030790 82021094097027125023004126080023120030064020093085097&EXT=pdf
“Landmark”: https://billofrightsinstitute.org/cases/
“Gonzalez v. Centro”: https://www.oyez.org/cases/2005/ 04-1084
“Masterpiece”: https://www.oyez.org/cases/2017/ 16-111
Gomes: https://digitalcommons.law.byu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2450& context=lawreview
Koev: http://web.a.ebscohost.com.proxy-um.researchport.umd.edu/ehost/detail/detail?vid=1&sid=bb31 f9a9-0997-4bb0-a34c-eeb97b46b9c7%40sdc-v-sessmgr01&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2Z Q%3d%3d#AN=136782604& db=asn