For
Seventh-day Adventists, a Protestant-Catholic denomination, Sabbath is
celebrated on Saturdays, as worship takes place from Friday sundown to Saturday
sundown. This is the case for Joseph and Joelle Chung, tennis players who
attend William F. West High School in Chehalis, Washington. They both are on their high school tennis
team and were hoping to play in the state championship tournament this past
school year. Joelle, a senior, was disqualified from the state
championship tournament because she does not compete on Saturdays, her day of
Sabbath, which is when the final match would have taken place. After not
receiving the religious exemption that they had asked for, the Chung Family
sued the Washington Insterscholatic Activites Association (WIAA) in August.
Joelle had gone undefeated her whole senior year and probably would have won
the tournament. She wanted to fight for this religious exemption to allow her
brother, a sophomore, the opportunity to be able to play in future championship
matches.
Joelle and Joseph Chung, Seventh-day Adventists |
The WIAA denied Joelle’s request for religious
accommodation last season because the rules were that if she could not commit
to playing the whole tournament then she would not be allowed to compete at
all, even though the only conflict was not until the final day of
competition. She would have played every match until it affected her
Sabbath, and then would have dropped out if necessary. They usually allow players who get sick or
injured during the tournament to drop out, but they did not give this same option
to anyone with a religious interference. Asking for a compromise, the Chung
family asked if they would move the state championships to a weekday or allow
Joelle to play in all of the qualifying tournaments and then have an alternate
play in the championship, which is what they allow for others who drop out
mid-tournament. The WIAA said it wouldn't be fair for the people who she had
eliminated along the way. This seemed unfair to them because the
Association had recently allowed volleyball and golf matches in the same school
to be moved based on the religious beliefs of those who observe Saturday as
their day of Sabbath.
Joelle said, “As a senior, it was hard to give
everything I had to support my team all season, only to be forced to sit out
after the entire season simply because of my faith. I will never get the
chance to play for a state championship again, but hopefully, this case will
protect other Seventh-day Adventists like my brother from having to choose
between sports and their faith." The
lawyer defending the Chung family believed that the rules of the WIAA
discriminate against religious minorities and students whose faith honor
keeping the Sabbath.
Shortly after this article was written, the
WIAA agreed to add religious observance to its reasons for missing games
without being penalized. The Chung family won their case celebrating this
step to creating religious equality in all situations like theirs.
Joelle Chung practicing tennis |
I agree with the ruling because this case does
discriminate against religion, specifically those who celebrate their Sabbath
on Saturdays. Not allowing Joelle or her brother the right to a religious
exemption from participating in a match on Saturday goes against their free
exercise of religion. There are usually no high school sports played on
Sundays, and since that allows for anyone who celebrates their Sabbath on
Sundays to be exempt, then that is discriminating against the religious
minority. Also, if this high school gave religious exemptions to other
sports players on different teams, then they should also give it to the tennis
players who wish to receive it. Joelle was not getting herself out
of anything or using her religious beliefs as an excuse but was being treated
unfairly for celebrating her day of Sabbath on a day that is known for many
other things to take place.
Being an athlete, I would never want my
religious beliefs to interfere with being able to play the sport that I love,
especially if I could win a championship for my team and high school.
Joelle stated how much she loved playing tennis and being able to win for her
school as a senior would have been an amazing opportunity, so she clearly was
being sincere about her religious beliefs and truly do put those beliefs before
her hobbies and passions. This case also does affect any other person’s
beliefs and is not hurting anyone in the process. Even though it seems like a small, irrelevant
case, it is a big deal to Joelle and her family. Having to choose between your religious
beliefs and doing that of what you love would be a very hard decision to
make.
I agree with Caroline. Because the WIAA allows for un-penalized exemption for many other secular circumstances, not allowing a religious exemption would be a clear act of discrimination against religious minorities. However small this case may seem, Joelle fought for what she believed in and created a new sense of understanding for religious minorities in her community.
ReplyDeleteI agree with the author's opinion. This case impedes on Joelle's free exercise of religion. I only agree on the grounds that other exemptions for injured players are given. Since Joelle practices the Sabbath on Saturdays, the obvious idea would be to just move the championship game to any other day. This is not the case, and the WIAA denies Joelle's application for an exemption.In this way, the WIAA is favoring sectarianism over religion. However, I see it that if the policy is changed and there is no exemption of any type, then this would make the rule neutral and there would be no base for Joelle's claim.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Caroline's opinion. This tournament had privileged one religion over another, as religions who had their sabbath on Saturday were the only penalized. Also, religious exemptions have been granted in many capacities, and alternative options were also available. I have raised Seventh-day Adventist so I know that many people in this denomination take their faith and duty to God very seriously, and should not be penalized because they do so.
ReplyDeleteInitially, I did not believe that the students should receive a religious exception since the rules pertaining to tournament involvement seemed facially neutral, and since it is difficult to cater to everyone's religious needs. However, after reading the entire post, I agree with TJ that this seems to go against free exercise of religion since other exemptions are made for secular reasons. Therefore, denying any religious reason would be discriminatory. Since other students who drop out mid-tournament can reschedule matches, it should be the case that students with religious obligations can to do the same. Although not as serious as choosing between one's religion and one's business, as was the case with Braunfeld v. Brown, this still brings the unfair issue of choosing between one's religion and one's passion.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Caroline because I believe that not allowing Joelle to be exempt from participating in a match for religious reasons is violating her First Amendment rights, especially if the WIAA clearly states that individuals can miss games without being penalized for religious grounds. In addition to this, if other individuals on other teams at this school are allowed to be given religious exemptions, then Joelle should be allowed to too. This shows that this case is clearly discriminating against religious minorities and is privileging one religion over another. Therefore, I believe that this case is unconstitutional.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Caroline. While the policy was intended to be facially neutral, as Sarah brings up, it's evident that the rule is ultimately discriminatory against religions which recognize Sabbath on Saturday's. Refusing to accommodate Joelle violates the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment. The WIAA was forcing Joelle to choose between her religion and an activity she loves. I see overlap between this case and Braunfeld v. Brown. While tennis is not considered Joelle's "occupation," it is a significant part of her life that does not deserve to be taken away due to her religious beliefs. In Braunfeld v. Brown, I believed that the indirect burden on Jewish merchants was unconstitutional since it forced merchants to choose between two aspects of their lives that they held as important, their religion and their occupation.
ReplyDelete