Arlene's Flowers

Barronelle Stutzman is the sole owner of Arlene’s Flowers in Richland, Washington. One of her longtime customers at the store, Robert Ingersoll requested Stutzman’s creative skills for his same-sex wedding-ceremony; a request in which Stutzman declined. Stutzman previously served Ingersoll and his partner for nine years without any issues, and Stutzman also has employed members of the LGBTQ community unto her staff. The request for flowers was only denied to Ingersoll on this specific occasion because it was made clear that the purchase of her flowers would be for his impending same-sex wedding ceremony; the wedding-ceremony was in conflict with Stutzman’s Christian ideology and beliefs. Stutzman holds the belief that the covenant of marriage is only to be between a man and a woman, and not two partners of the same-sex. 

The news of the incident eventually became publicized, and on a local news broadcast Stutzman is quoted as saying that “You have to make a stand somewhere in your life on what you believe and what you don't believe, and it was just a time I had to take a stand”. After the broadcast aired, two separate lawsuits were quickly filed against Stuzman and her florist business. The first lawsuit was pursued by Washington Attorney General, Bob Ferguson, and the second by the American Civil Liberties Union, the legal group who represented Ingersoll and his partner Curt Freed. Attorneys for the ACLU proposed a settlement in the suit with the following conditions: Stutzman making a public apology, donating money to a LGBTQ youth center, and a promise to no longer refuse service to customers based on their sexual orientation. The legal group representing Stutzman, known as the Alliance Defending Freedom, declined the settlement offer, stating she should not be required to violate her religious beliefs and also attempted to file a countersuit against Bob Ferguson. The suit against Ferguson was filed as a consumer protection lawsuit, and a settlement was proposed in which Stutzman would be fined $2,000, and an agreement to not discriminate in the future. Stutzman declined the settlement again citing the state's constitution in regard to "freedom of conscience in all matters of religious sentiment”. 

Stutzman is currently pushing to get the case through to the Supreme Court, as the Washington Supreme Court has ruled against her twice. This case is currently active and is occurring just two years after the Masterpiece Cakeshop vs Colorado Civil Rights Commission case. The Masterpiece Cakeshop case was almost identical in nature to Stutzman’s case except instead of flowers being denied for wedding purposes, it was a wedding cake. The ruling in that case fell in favor to Philips and his cake business. The Supreme Court reasoned that while gay persons and same-sex couples are afforded civil rights protections under the laws and the Constitution, religious and philosophical objections to same-sex marriage are protected views and can also be protected forms of expression. 

I agree with how the Washington Supreme Court has been ruling against Stutzman, and despite her religious beliefs I think she should simply sell the couple the flowers and continue on with her business. The Caskeshop case ruling would not even stand in her favor because the primary cause for Philips and his business winning the case was due to the Colorado Commissions failing to act in a neutral manner. They continuously slandered and harassed Philips for his beliefs, thus losing the neutrality of the matter. There is no harassment in Stutzman’s case, she has received no egregious backlash for her beliefs. There is a slippery slope, I am concerned with as it relates to business determining who or whom groups they decide to refuse to sell a product to based on their identity. Stutzman can easily refuse to sell to a religious-jew requesting flowers for his barmixtzfah or refuse to sell to a any person identifying as transgender. If every business were to sell to people based specifically on their preferences beliefs, the culture of the american capitalist system would take a major hit, and the division among people could essentially revert back to segregation. 

Could the Decision of Employment Division v. Smith be Overturned?

In April of 1990, the Case of Employment Division, Department of Human Resources of Oregon v. Smith was decided. This case involved two counselors for a private drug rehabilitation organization. The two counselors were member of the Native American Church; as a part of their religious ceremonies they ingested peyote, which is a powerful hallucinogen. When the organization found out about the use of peyote, the counselors were fired. As a result, both of them filed a claim for unemployment. However, the government denied their claim because their dismissal from the organization was considered work-related “misconduct.” The state appellate court reversed the denial of the claim because it violated the counselors’ First Amendment right to free exercise of religion. The state supreme court then affirmed the appellate court’s decision. However, the US Supreme Court then vacated the Oregon Supreme Court’s decision and returned the case back to the Oregon courts. This was done in order to decide whether the use of illegal drugs in a sacramental way violated Oregon’s state drug laws. The Oregon Supreme Court decided that the law’s prohibition of illegal drugs for sacramental religious purposes violated the Free Exercise Clause. As a result, the case returned to the US Supreme Court in a new light.

              The question at hand was whether a state could deny unemployment benefits to a worker who was fired for using illegal drugs for religious purposes. In a 6 to 3 decision the court ruled that yes, a state could deny unemployment benefits to a worker who was fired for using illegal drugs for religious purposes. The court reasoned that one’s religious beliefs should not excuse them from a law, that is otherwise valid, that prohibits conduct that does not have any constitutional protections.

              The case of Ricks v. Idaho Board of Contractors was decided by the Idaho First Judicial District Court in July of this year. George Ricks, an Idaho resident, wants to be a state-licensed contractor and start his own business. However, his religion is stopping him from doing so. In the state of Idaho, it is required that a person uses their social security number to register as an independent contractor. Ricks, however, is a devout Christian and based on his interpretation of Revelations 13:16-18,

¹⁶And he causeth all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to receive a mark in their right hand, or in their foreheads:

¹⁷And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name.

¹⁸Here is wisdom. Let him that hath understanding count the number of the beast: for it is the number of a man; and his number is Six hundred threescore and six.

he believes that it is sinful to use his social security number to register as an independent contractor. There is a very small percentage of Christians that agree with this interpretation of these verses of the Bible, but that does not make his claim any less valid.

              As a result of being denied a contractor’s license, Ricks offered alternate forms of identification, such as a birth certificate, but the state would not accept it. In Idaho foreign workers who do not have social security numbers can use their birth certificates to obtain an occupational license in the state. Ricks argued that he should get the same exemption.

              The Idaho First Judicial Court ruled in favor of the Idaho Board of Contractors. Ricks appealed the decision and is waiting for the case to be argued in front of the US Supreme Court. The ruling of this case could overturn the decision of Employment Division, Department of Human Resources of Oregon v. Smith if the Supreme Court rules in favor of Ricks. These two cases are similar because they involve laws that are hurtful to those who have religious restrictions, but otherwise are valid laws. The question here is whether it is more important to value, otherwise valid, laws or the constitutionally protected religious rights of individuals.

              As mentioned above, the right to free exercise of religion is a guarantee under our nation’s constitution, so I believe that this important right should overrule state laws in certain cases, especially in the case of Ricks v. Idaho Board of Contractors. Ricks sincerely believe that giving his social security number to become a state licensed contractor would be a sin due to his deeply held religious beliefs. However, that should not stop him from becoming a licensed contractor and contributing to society in that way, but also do not think that the law preventing him from getting a license in unconstitutional at its core. As stated before, in the state of Idaho, foreign contractors can get a license by way of providing a valid birth certificate. This is an exemption that is provided to them because of their citizenship. Would it be so wrong to provide the same exemption to Ricks because of his religion? I don’t think it would be wrong at all. To not provide the exemption to him would be unconstitutional. 

Christian School Discrimination

Since 2016, Bethel Christian Academy has been giving out millions of dollars worth of scholarships to those who wish to attend their school. These scholarships are provided by the BOOST program, which gives scholarships to students from low-income backgrounds to attend nonpublic schools. This program has non-discrimination rules that require schools to accept students no matter their race, color, national origin, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression. Bethel Christian Academy is a nonpublic school in Savage, Maryland run by Bethel Ministries and is a Pentecostal church.  Bethel says that they do not turn down students based on sexual orientation but only asks students to refrain from engaging in sexual conduct, and there have no been any cases to prove that they have ever discriminated against a student. 

In the fall of 2017, officials from the Maryland State Department of Education said that Bethel did not follow the scholarship’s non-discrimination requirement after reading the Parent-Student Handbook that stated the school supports the bible’s view of marriage between a man and woman.  It also said ‘that God immutably bestows gender upon each person at birth as male or female to reflect His image’.  They revoked the school’s ability to provide any more scholarships because of these beliefs and also ordered them to pay more than $100,000 for previous scholarships. 

In June, Bethel school filed a lawsuit against the state that this was a violation of their freedom of speech, freedom to exercise religion, religion establishment clauses, and due process and equal protection clauses.  They said that by having the state penalizing the school for its beliefs, they are discriminating against them.  Bethel principal, Claire Dant, said that the school does not ask for a student’s sexual orientation during the admission process and that if someone is gay, ‘it is invisible’.  She said she does not know if any student who is gay has ever gone to her school.   

In the brief that they filed it said that since the school has represented that it will not discriminate against students based on their sexual orientation or gender identity that the state officials are punishing the schools for its beliefs and expression, violating the First Amendment. 

They also argued that the Supreme Court case Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia v. Comer stated that a private organization cannot be required to renounce its religious character to participate in a public benefit program.  

On November 14th of this year, the state tried to dismiss Bethel’s case, but a federal judge denied this request stating that Bethel had said it does not discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation in its admissions. This case has not been resolved yet.  

This case is very tough because there are cases that can say that both the school and state are discriminating in some cases.  The school could be discriminating against students, but the state is clearly discriminating against the school.  Because of the fact that there is no proof that the school has ever discriminated against a student, and that the school does not ask for a student’s sexual orientation or gender identity, then I am siding with the Bethel school in this case.  Just because the school supports a certain religious belief, does not mean they choose who receives their scholarships based on this.  These students also have the choice of whether or not they can attend this school.  If they do not want to attend because they do not agree with their beliefs, they can choose another non-public school to go to.  Since this money is already going to nonpublic schools, then it is not an issue.  Just because a school has a certain belief, does not mean they are discriminating.  They clearly do not turn anyone away based on their beliefs or identities, because they do not ask anyone on their applications.  They cannot discriminate against information that they do not know.  The school has the freedom of speech and freedom of religion, so they have the right to have these views since they are not discriminating against anyone. 

Should Florida Public Schools Be Forced to Offer a Religion Elective?

           In October of this year, Florida Representative Kimberly Daniels proposed a bill that would require public schools to offer Bible classes. According to The Hill, the bill would require all public school districts in Florida to “offer elective courses relating to religion, Hebrew Scriptures, and the Bible to students in grades nine through 12.” The bill states that there is “an objective study of religion,” “an objective study of the Bible, including but not limited to, a course on the Hebrew Scriptures and Old Testament of the Bible; and a course on the Hebrew Scriptures, the Old Testament of the Bible, and the New Testament of the Bible.” Students are not required to use a specific Hebrew translation, and the Bible does not have to be the only text used for the course.

Passing this bill would require Florida State school districts to add these courses to the Course Code Directory (CCD) & Instructional Personnel Assignments. The main issue here is not that Florida public schools would be forced to advertise teaching such courses, but that “the specific certification coverages listed for these job code assignments are mandatory for all school-based and instructional personnel” as defined in 1012.01 and 1012.55 Florida Statutes defined in Title XLVIII of the K-20 Education Code. Therefore, all public school teachers in Florida could be subjected to teaching a religion course. This is currently not the case: it is not currently mandatory for Florida public schools to offer a religion elective. Although passing the statute at hand would not coerce students in any way (they are not required to take these classes) employee coercion is a separate issue. The instructor, who is considered a government employee, is being paid by taxpayer funds.

It is already permitted for public schools in Florida to offer these religion courses, however, passing this statute would make it mandatory and not optional for such classes to be offered. The question stands: does requiring public school districts in Florida to offer electives that teach the about Bible violate the Establishment Clause?

These classes would be taught as electives, and would be optional to take. While students are not required to take any of these religion instruction classes, and there is no apparent coercion on the students’ end, I do foresee some issues if this statute is to be passed by the Supreme Court. Based on School District of Abingdon Township, Pennsylvania v. Schempp, public schools are not permitted to sponsor Bible readings or recite the Lord’s Prayer. Requiring a religion class based on the Bible to be taught is slightly different in nature: the bill at hand does not necessarily promote religious activity. Taking a religion class is not equivalent to attending a religious service. However, it would be impossible for the government to monitor such courses without excessive entanglement.

These public schools are also funded through taxpayer funds. Allowing students to take religion classes as electives is different from forcing schools to offer such classes. The presence of religion classes provides an open forum for the exchange of ideas. On July 1, 2017 the “Florida Student and School Personnel Religious Liberties Act” was passed which “prohibit[s the] school district from discriminat[ing] against students, parents, or personnel on basis of religious views or expression.” It also “Require[s] the Department of Education to develop a model policy regarding the limited public forum and voluntary expression of religious viewpoints and by students and school personnel in public schools pursuant to this section.” Passing the statute forcing a religion elective to be taught does more than provide students to access to a public forum. The school risks establishing a religion because these classes are ostensibly teaching solely about the Bible, as opposed to any other religious texts.

Also, as it currently stands, if there is no teacher employed that wants to teach the class, it is not necessary for the class to be taught at all. However, forcing all public schools in Florida to offer a religion elective means that a government employee will be teaching religion, which may or may not be their choice. Passing this bill would mean that if the school district needs an instructor for the religion course, the school must hire an employee that would be willing to teach such a course. In some cases, this could be seen as indirectly aiding religion: the teacher is the vehicle through which a religious message is conveyed.  

If this statute is passed, is Florida’s Public School District establishing a religion? For this, I will consult the often-undermined Lemon Test. There is indeed a secular purpose for teaching these texts, as they are an important aspect of American history. Regarding the question as to whether the primary effect is to advance religion: it is evident that the class could advance Judaism and Christianity. However, the bill clearly states that there would be an “objective study” of both the Bible and religion. A study of religion does not necessarily lead to the endorsement of these religions. I see an issue less with the fact that students have the opportunity to learn about the Bible than I do with the fact that the Bible is not being taught as a literary text to further understand other texts, or even as an influential historical text; it appears to be taught through a religious lens. It is possible that there would be excessive entanglement of government and religion because the schools would be forced to hire teachers qualified to teach such subjects. This is a slippery slope: a teacher’s freedom of speech may be in jeopardy if they are forced to teach a topic which contravenes their own religious convictions.

It is also likely students of these public schools would acquire the Bibles for their classes through receiving public funds, which would indirectly aid religion. However, due to the fact that public schools in Florida are permitted to teach religion courses, this is likely already occurring. Board of Education v. Allen allows students to loan such textbooks since the benefit goes to the student, rather than the institution directly.

Due to the fact that both Florida and Tennessee public schools were required to display the United States motto “In God We Trust,” and that there has not appeared to be a strict wall of separation between Church and State recently in Florida, I conjecture that the Supreme Court will make it mandatory for Florida Public Schools to offer a religious elective conforming to the standards of the aforementioned bill. If the bill is passed, it will go into effect in July.

Secular Education in Yeshivas?

A fight against secular education that is still prevalent today began around 4 years ago when a complaint was filed in 2015 with New York City’s Department of Education. The group leading the complaint was made up of 52 yeshiva graduates, parents, and teachers who felt that Judaism schools did not receive the “substantially equivalent” secular education they deserved. The “substantially equivalent” education they were referring to consisted of subjects that went beyond religious teachings, the complaint also included that the students of these schools were not being taught sufficient English in their daily teachings. As a result of this complaint, came the Parents for Educational and Religious Liberty in Schools (PEARLS). The parents group has come together to ensure religious liberty in places like Yeshivas, which maintain judaic teachings. 

For the last few months, Yeshivas have been fighting to keep their schools as non-secular as possible, with debate on both sides fighting for changes in their educational systems. Yeshivas are places of academics for Talmudic law. Yeshivas have large populations all over the state of New York with higher rates of visibility in burroughs like Brooklyn. 

Although Yeshivas are private educational schools, they collect money similar to public schools that comes from taxpayer funds. This money helps fund private schools with transportation, textbooks, and special education services. This investment in Yeshiva education has recently seen much controversy because of failure to provide secular education that resembles education seen in public schools. Certain guidelines had been put in place in November of 2018 that made it so that staff members from public school districts would visit the nonpublic schools in the state every five years to determine whether the schools were providing enough instruction in all of the subjects required by state law. Although the schools were only visited once every five years, the one visit could dictate whether or not a school kept government-funded services like textbooks and transportation. 

The question at hand is whether the government should intervene and set rules of educational curriculum for private non-secular education such as within Yeshivas. Does this intervention violate Jewish schools’ freedom of exercise rights? This last April 18th, a state judge in Albany nullified what guidelines had been set up to monitor private schools by the Education Department. This has enabled private schools to create their own curriculum, leaving the instruction of secular education up to the discretion of the private schools. Although the private schools call this a win, the Department of Education has not stopped fighting for new guidelines and regulations to be enacted all over the state of New York. 

This has caused other private schools such as Catholic schools and secular private schools to come together and challenge the ongoing battle. Just today on December 9th, an article was released which depicted PEARLS as a group that teaches children and families to fear secular education. The article also claims that PEARLS is playing on the fears of people who grew up hearing family stories about the Holocaust, to increase fear of secular education. PEARLS has denied that their campaign is dishonest and there is a lot of controversy surrounding the methods the parent group uses to address their ultimate goal of non-secular education. 

Although there is a lot of controversy regarding the methods used by the group, I do agree with the Parents for Educational and Religious Liberty in Schools. Monitoring and creating curriculum guidelines for non-secular schools is a direct violation of the schools’ freedom of exercise rights. To better understand this case we can look to Wisconsin v. Yoder. In this case, Amish families were prosecuted for not sending their children to school after the eighth grade because of their religious beliefs. The court ruled in favor of the Amish and found that the free exercise of religion under the First Amendment outweighed the state’s interests in compelling school attendance. This case sets a precedent for how we should look towards private schools in the state of New York. Similar to the Yoder case, private schools in New York should not have to fall under state regulation that places all areas of education together under strict monitoring. Families have chosen to place their children in private religious and private secular schools to create their own curriculums, which should not be monitored by public districts. By allowing public school district officials to enter private educational spaces and decide if the curriculum taught is sufficiently secular is not neutral and is favoring secular education over private education. 

Christianity Endorsement in Public School System

        Smith County, Tennessee is made up of a diverse community of individuals who identify with many different religions, such as Christianity, Muslim, and even those who identify as atheist.  The Smith County High School and Middle School in Carthage, Tennessee are being accused of promoting and endorsing Christian religious beliefs on their properties through school-sponsored religious activities, and conveying religious messages to their students for many years.  These activities include school-sponsored prayer at athletic and school events; the use of religious symbols on the walls of the school’s building, and teachers pushing their Christian faith onto their students.  The American Civil Liberties Union of Tennessee and the American Civil Liberties Union, on behalf of two families close to the schools, filed a federal lawsuit challenging the promotion of religion by the Smith County School System.  This case is called Butler v Smith County.

Kelly Butler is the father of two children who attend the high school in Carthage, Tennessee.  Mr. Butler is a U.S. Army veteran who believes strongly in the constitutional freedoms he fought to defend during service, and one of those freedoms he expresses is the right to decide for himself what faith, if any, he is going to follow and promote to his children.  Mr. Butler and his two children are atheist, and they feel “shunned” and “unwelcome” in the Smith County School System community because they don’t share the beliefs of the school and oppose their religious activities.  After sharing his concerns with the school board, he was ignored.  Butler also speaks on behalf of his friends Sharona Carr and Jason Carr, parents of children within the school system who are atheists as well. 

The schools are being accused of school-sponsored prayer.  This included prayer in school-day assemblies, athletic events, and graduation ceremonies.  During such events, the prayer-giver, who is a student, will ask the students and staff to bow their heads and pray.  The Board of Education has a moment-of silence policy that has the principle make an announcement each morning telling the students to take a moment of silence and tells the teaches to take no other action during this silent period.  Along with in school prayer, every Smith County High School home football game begins with a Christian prayer delivered over the public-address system.  A group was also brought into the middle school to distribute Bibles to anyone who wanted one.  Along with the distribution of Bibles, Bibles are presented all around the school with no secular reason.  Lastly, Christian symbols are present, such as a giant Latin cross saying “In God We Trust,” and scripture written on the hallway walls.

The First Amendment of the Constitution clearly states, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.”  This was created to give citizens their freedom of religion and to protect themselves from government endorsement of any particular religion.  The problem here with Butler v Smith County is that is seems the Smith County School System is completely endorsing the Christian religion.  If a teacher promotes religion at a public school, this is considered government endorsement of a religion because that school is publicly funded and the teachers are paid by the state.  There are similar cases that have dealt with issues of establishment of religion in schools.  One in particular is Santa Fe Independent School District v Doe (2000).  This case dealt with elected student chaplains from a school publicly giving prayer over the address system before each home football game.  This was decided in court as being unconstitutional because the student was given permission from the school to give prayer publicly on public property.  Although the games were not mandatory for fans, they were however mandatory for players, coaches, and others working the game.  These individuals that were forced to be there were coerced to part take and listen to the Christian prayer.  This is similar to Butler v Smith County where the school is allowing students to give public prayer during school events on school property.

I believe the Smith County School System is violating the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment by their endorsement of Christianity.  There are no secular purposes for providing prayer at school events, and although the prayer is student led, it is encouraged by the school and given on school property, which is government funded.  The Establishment Clause allows people like Kelly Butler and his children to be in public spaces without feeling “shunned” or “unwelcome” simply because of their religious belief or lack thereof.  Whenever students are asked to bow their heads and pray, regardless if they are told they must or if it is voluntary, there is coercion involved.  These students, the staff members, and individuals attending the school functioned events are coerced to participate in Christian prayer, which is a clear violation of the Establishment Clause.  Just as Santa Fe Independent School District v Doe was decided as unconstitutional, I believe this will have the same result. 

Government Funding Discrimination?

In an ironic celebration of National Adoption Month, the Trump administration recently proposed a rule that will allow faith-based foster care and adoption agencies to deny their services to LGBTQ parents. The proposed rule would revoke a regulation instituted by the Obama Administration that included sexual orientation and gender identity as protected classes under anti-discrimination policies. 

The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) released the proposed rule that grants organizations government funding despite discrimination against LGBTQ persons based on their religious beliefs. The HHS stated the proposed rule would “better align its grants regulations with federal statues, eliminating the regulatory burden, including the burden on the free exercise of religion.” 

If passed, organizations that receive governmental grants, funded by tax-payer money, are free to discriminate without penalty. Proponents of the rule applaud the administration for allowing non-profits to work in accordance with their religious beliefs. Others are horrified, claiming this is yet another exploitation of the Free-Exercise Clause used to justify and encourage discrimination of LGBTQ people.  

There was an impassioned public response to the release of the proposed rule due to the issue at hand which is the adoption of children in need. There are currently 123,000 children awaiting adoption, and in 2016, around 114,000 same-sex couples were raising adopted children. Additionally, it was found that same-sex couples are significantly more likely to be raising adopted or foster children, 21.4% compared to only 3%. 

The constitutional issue at hand is the allowance of organizations to receive federal grants despite religiously motivated discrimination. I argue this rule is beyond the scope of the Free Exercise Clause and withholding government funding to organizations who refuse to comply with discriminatory laws is not a violation of the First Amendment. 

Embedded in the Free Exercise Clause is the absolute right to believe whatever religious doctrine one chooses. However, the precedent set in Reynolds v. The United States determined “congress was left free to reach actions which were in violation of social duties or subversive of good order.” Therefore, the limitations of this clause allow for an infringement on religious freedom if there is a compelling state interest at hand that outweighs the burden of religious freedom. 

I argue this proposed rule impedes on the compelling state interest of preventing discrimination of LGBTQ persons in society. The government cannot restrict the organization's right to observe these religiously held beliefs but they do have the right to restrict specific actions. 

To support this argument, I will cite the decision of Bob Jones University v. U.S. that determined the constitutionality of revoking tax-exempt status to institutions whose discriminatory policies and practices against black students were not in compliance with public policy. The precedent set in Bob Jones justifies the state placing limitations on complete religious liberty in order to uphold essential societal standards, specifically when public funds are involved. 

The only differences I see between Bob Jones and the HHS proposed rule is forty years and the discrimination of a different marginalized group in society. The tax-exempt status of the University is comparable to the grants funding these adoption agencies, in that tax-payer money is funding the existence of the organizations. 

The complexity that is within this case is the competing state interests at hand, in keeping adoption and foster care agencies open to ensure higher adoption rates of children. The dissent, in this case, would argue the substantial burden placed on agencies would defund organizations leading to complete shutdown. This argument, however, is synonymous to mine, in that allowing discrimination hinders the state interest of placing children in loving homes, by reducing the number of applicants that qualify to adopt.

My argument is additionally supported by the recent decision by the U.S. District Court in Fulton v. The City of Philadelphia, that rejected the argument that agencies performing public child welfare services have a constitutional right to discriminate. The case was brought by a tax-payer funded government-contracted foster care agency that claimed their constitutional right to discriminate against prospective foster families headed by same-sex couples in which the court found not be in the scope of their free exercise rights. 

In a similar case recently decided by the U.S. Supreme Court, Masterpiece Cake Shop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, the court decided it was a burden on free exercise to force a private business owner to comply with anti-discriminatory laws that competed with his religious beliefs. Given the inherent differences between the issue at hand and that of Masterpiece, I believe the court would rule differently. A major discrepancy between the cases is the fact Masterpiece Cake Shop is a privately-owned business versus the tax-payer funded adoption and foster care agencies in question. Additionally, the court ruled in favor of Masterpiece largely in part of the lack of harm that was imposed by freely exercising religious beliefs. I believe the argument can be made in this case, the denial of a loving home to a child in desperate need can be considered harmful.

This case poses the reoccurring and relevant question about the constitutionality of using religion as an excuse to violate any-discrimination laws. This rule privileges the religious beliefs of organizations over the rights of others, while simultaneously placing them above the needs of children. The state has a compelling interest in both preventing discrimination and expanding the number of families able to adopt. 

Times are changing, and religion cannot continue as a justification to outwardly discriminate against marginalized groups in society. The Free Exercise Clause must be interpreted to properly balance the burden on free exercise and the state interest at hand to protect all rights of citizens and ensure the order of our nation.