College
of the Ozarks has a reasonable argument here that the directive violates the
First Amendment free exercise clause. ADF Senior Counsel Matt Bowman argued
that the “College of the Ozarks should be free to follow the religious
tradition on which it was founded. The government cannot strip a private,
faith-based institution of its constitutionally protected freedoms because it
disagrees with its views about marriage and biological sex”[1].
According to College of the Ozarks, the implementation of this directive in
their institution would violate their religious beliefs and undermine their
religious devotion. Forced compliance threatens the core beliefs of their faith
and in turn violates the protections guaranteed to them by the First
Amendment.
On the other hand, there is a compelling state interest to act and protect individuals from suffering from discrimination based on their gender or sexual orientation. Issues of gender identity and sexual orientation have always been problematic for Catholic institutions. One of the major issues that College of the Ozarks had is with the new interpretation of the meaning of the word "sex" in the Fair Housing Act. The college argues for the traditional meaning referring to ones biological sex and the belief that there are only two sexes. They think this new interpretation changes the historical meaning of the word sex and therefore restricts their right to practice their beliefs within their institution. Typically, I would argue that the government should not be able to require a private religious institution to follow a directive that violates their religious beliefs and duties. However, I feel as though the government can implement this directive because the institution receives federal funds for housing. Even though they are a private institution, they receive federal funds and are therefore able to be held to a standard that may interfere with their religious beliefs. No rights are absolute under the constitution and just because an individual or institution has the right to believe whatever they choose does not give them the right to act in accordance with those beliefs, especially if it begins to violate the rights of others. As seen in other cases, religious freedoms can. Additionally, I think the court should rule against College of the Ozarks because there is a slippery slope issue at hand. If the court allows this institution to have a religious exemption, then where does the line get drawn?
[1] https://www.cofo.edu/News/moduleId/1421/Id/248/controller/PressRelease/action/details#:~:text=The%20lawsuit%2C%20College%20of%20the,sexual%20orientation%20and%20gender%20identity.
8 comments:
I agree with Reid’s standpoint on this case. I would also generally say that the institution’s First Amendment rights are being violated, especially since they are a religious institution. However, the federal funds for housing makes it difficult for me to say that College of the Ozarks should be exempted from the directive. The slippery slope is present here, because with the decision on this case comes possible precedents for similar cases in the future. Just like Reid said, if the court allows the institution an exemption, there will be tricky decisions to come with regard to cases like this.
I also agree with Reid's standpoint because of the subjectivity of this case. Similar to a case mentioned last week, this case emphasizes the clash between traditional ideologies and progressive social norms. Although I agree with Biden's proposal to implement gendered options, I do not think the state has the right to represent subjective opinions and enforce them upon institutions. Additionally in this case, the Christians at Ozark college would be the minority whose rights to believe are being infringed upon. the state's case was clearly based on interpretive evidence that is subject to political and social scrutiny which results in its implement being unconstitutional.
I think this is a really interesting case, where the line is blurred between traditional Christian beliefs and government directive. As long as the government is providing funding to the College of Ozark, they have jurisdiction over how the school operates in that particular field (student housing). Personal beliefs aside, the school can not take the government funding and not abide by the rules. If the College of Ozark wishes to be freed from governments control, they can go to privately, individuals, or alumni to receive finances/ funding another way. The amount of money being received is probably a significant amount (I am curious as to how much), because if it weren't, Ozark College would find a way to receive funding elsewhere and fully operate they way the school religiously believes.
This is a very well-written piece on a very timely case. I think the argument is convincing with the issues of direct federal funding and the notion of a slippery slope. I agree that since the College is receiving federal funding they must abide by federal statute and not be granted a religious exemption- this would violate neutrality and equality of religious schools and nonreligious state-funded schools. This ties into the cases we've read earlier in the week such as McCollum and Engel which majority opinions highlight that the government doesn't have the ability to step on the beliefs of religion, but can interfere in their actions. Overall I think the price of the slippery slope would be high and by granting an exception of the directive, it opens the door to many others.
I agree that the main problem here is the fact that the federal funds are still going to this private institution. Even if this is going against their right to freedom of religion, Reid makes a good point when he mentions that rights are not absolute and when this institution is receiving the federal funds, they might have to follow through with some things that they don't necessarily believe in. There also is compelling state interest because they are looking out for the well-being of students who may attend this university. The purpose of this law isn't necessarily to impede on the institution's religious rights (although it might) but to serve a bigger purpose and with that there are some costs.
I agree with the opinion that Reid presented here. I believe that since the school is receiving federal funding, is must abide by federal laws. I also believe that if the state were to grant an exemption, it might start to look like establishment of religion, since the school is receiving federal funding and was granted an exemption by the federal government to practice discrimination in the name of religion. The state also has compelling interest in protecting the rights of minority groups.
I definitely agree with Reid's stance on this case as he presented it. I strongly believe that discrimination should not be tolerated on any grounds, especially that of religion. What religion encourages discrimination? This excuse for sexist and homophobic laws should not be tolerated by the government or any institution. This case also deals with a slippery slope. At what point do we say enough? My final reasoning for agreeing with Reid is that this school is receiving federal funding so, therefore, they must abide by federal laws.
I also agree with Reid's opinion on this case. The key parts of this case to me were that the school was receiving school funding and the fact that discrimination should not be permitted. The fact that rights aren't absolute means that the College of Ozarks cannot and shouldn't be allowed to practice any form of discrimination. I can see the other side of the argument that their first amendment rights are being violated. However, because they are receiving federal funds they need to also adhere to federal housing acts and anti-discrimination laws.
Post a Comment