Baton Rouge Parish School System & 29:11 Mentoring Families School Event Or Religious Activity

Baton Rouge Parish School System & 29:11 Mentoring Families School Event Or Religious Activity

A local non-profit organization in Baton Rouge, Louisiana named “29:11 Mentoring Families” partnered with the East Baton Rouge Parish School System to host an event earlier this week. School officials state that this event was a Conference and College Fair held at the Living Faith Christian Center in Baton Rouge. For this event, more than 2100 students from Baton Rouge high schools were excused from classes to attend. In addition to this, the East Baton Rouge Parish School System stated they committed to spending $9,800 to help underwrite the cost of the “Day of Hope Student Conference & College Fair” as well as to bus students to and from the event. In addition to this, the founder of 29:11 Mentoring Families, Tramaine, stated the organization had a “real partnership with the school system”. Therefore, both the School System and organization were equally evolved in the Day of Hope Student Conference & College Fair. 

The 29:11 organized the event in reference to a biblical verse in the Book of Jeremiah and the homepage of its website shows a picture of the past event with young people on stage with up-raised hands with “Jesus” displayed on a big screen. The event was supposed to be a College Fair event; however, both 29:11 Mentoring Families and the East Baton Rouge Parish School System received backlash after both students and parents went on social media claiming the school field trip was more of a religious event which they didn't agree to. 

Several students stated that they were separated according to their sex. Once separated, the male students were asked to leave while female students watched three different series of lectures by three different guests. The female students said the three speakers spoke about personal experiences with being a virgin during college, sexual assault, and suicide. When the male students turned inside, they stated they engaged in passive games for prizes such as “who could do the most push-ups”. 

In addition to this, the students were also enraged that they had to participate in a prayer that the adults initiated. Overall, the students stated that the field trip was more of religious activity than a college and career fair event, and left with a feeling of being lured into the twisted religious event through the school-sponsored field trip.

The Chief of Communications for the East Baton Rouge Parish School System, Letrece Griffin, and other school officials reject complaints from both parents and students who attended the controversial “Day of Hope'' senior field trip. Instead, they stated that the Day of Hope was not a religious event and many of the religious components of prayers were spontaneous and initiated by the students. In addition to this, Griffin stated that the reason for the difference in treatment between the male and female students was due to the buses arriving late to the event. Due to the buses arriving late, the male sessions had to be drastically reduced, and the male session still addressed issues such as responsibility, healthy choices, and the importance of camaraderie.

The holding of this event is related to establishment clauses of the constitution. The “Establishment” clause of the First Amendment states that public schools “may not impose prayer or other religious practices on students, even if students are not required to participate”. Many parents and students believe that both the Baton Rouge Parish School System & 29:11 Mentoring Families Non-Profit lured students into attending the religious event they did not agree to. I do agree that this College-Fair was religious in its formation and organization. To begin with, the organization created this event in reference to a biblical verse, as opposed to a secularly created event. In addition to this, it was stated that this event was held in the past and was strongly connected to religious background. Already the creation and organization of this event were religiously rooted. To further this, the event was held in a church where it was stated that prayers were initiated and other religiously based discussions were discriminately placed on students. Lastly, it was stated that this event was partnered with the Baton Rouge Parish School Systems, which spent money on the event and was responsible for the transportation of thousands of students attending the event.

With these various things being established, it is difficult to argue that this event was not religiously rooted and therefore infringe on students' rights by being required to attend this event.   

https://localtoday.news/la/federal-judge-allows-louisiana-to-relocate-jailed-teenagers-to-angola-38611.html

https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2022/9/25/2125225/-High-School-Students-in-E-Baton-Rouge-Lured-to-Fake-College-Fair-Which-Was-Twisted-Religious-Event

https://www.mtsu.edu/first-amendment/page/religion-public-schools#:~:text=Under%20the%20%E2%80%9Cestablishment%E2%80%9D%20clause%20of,are%20not%20required%20to%20participate.

Does Indiana’s Abortion ban violate The Satanic Temple’s Religious Beliefs?

The Satanic Temple intends to destroy Indiana’s near absolute ban on abortion.

On the basis that their religious rights are being violated, the temple has taken the Indiana Governor Eric Holcomb and state Attorney General Todd Rokita to court.

Indiana law criminalizes abortion except in cases where the life of the pregnant woman is at stake or in cases of rape or incest (up to 10 weeks). However, this violates beliefs of The Satanic Temple, specifically Tenets III and V. Tenet III declares that “one’s body is inviolable, subject to one’s own will alone” which does not make fetal tissue carried in a woman’s uterus and unborn child, contrary to Indiana law. Rather the Temple views fetal tissue to not maintain a separate existence or humanity from a pregnant woman. Furthermore, Tenet V decrees that “beliefs should conform to one’s best scientific understanding of the world”. In Indiana’s abortion ban, the early stages of fertilization where a zygote is created are referred to as an unborn child. Yet this contradicts scientific understanding since they do not see a zygote, blastocyst, embryo or nonviable fetus as an unborn child. Rather they are cells which are simply a part of a woman’s body that do not contain humanity.

Therefore, The Satanic Temple’s religious beliefs are being violated by the Indiana near abortion ban. While the Temple as an institution is taking on the state, the lawsuit does name a female member residing in Indiana who became pregnant without her consent and is unable to obtain an abortion in the state. The Satanic Temple has 11,300 members in the state and therefore brings the suit forward with themselves as plaintiff. 

Their grievances extend beyond their claim that the law violates the Free Exercise clause of the First Amendment. They argue that the ban goes against the 13th Amendment by imposing  involuntary servitude on its members through unwanted pregnancy. On top of this, they claim it violates the 14th Amendment by discriminating against pregnant women who engage in unprotected sex. Lastly, they claim that it violates the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which prohibits any actor of the US government from substantially burdening a person’s exercise of religion unless a compelling government interest is present and is the least restrictive means of doing so.

But primarily, does Indiana’s abortion ban violate the ability for members of The Satanic Temple to practice their religious beliefs under the Free Exercise clause of the First Amendment? There are quite a few issues here as to whether the state of Indiana has a compelling state interest in regulating abortion, is using the least restrictive means to do so, is imposing a substantial burden on its citizens, and if the members of The Santanic Temple have a sincere religious belief being violated.

In my opinion, the last issue is the precipice on which all the others rely on. Arguing that their beliefs are insincere would be a fool's errand considering how their religion operates on 7 key beliefs which have been  historically coded into existence. It might be a bit difficult for people to wrap their heads around the fact that this religious group is called The Satanic Temple. In reality, its members do not worship satan. Rather, it is the literary satan which the temple uses as a metaphor for encouraging skepticism and rebellion against arbitrary authority. The Temple does have a recorded history of fighting in court for the right to abortion, but they have yet to be successful. To me, it seems that their beliefs are sincere. Yet while this record could serve as solid evidence of their sincere faith, their lack of success in court would be a detractor. If the court believes that their beliefs are sincere, up next comes the compelling state interest. There is certainly compelling state interest in allowing members of a religion to practice their beliefs and one to regulate abortions. However, one might say this is the most restrictive way of doing it. Only allowing abortions in cases of rape and incest, or if the life of the mother is threatened creates an incredibly high threshold. But what I find rather compelling is the substantial burden which would be placed on members of the Temple. Not only would they violate their religious beliefs by not having an abortion, if they were actually able to get one they could receive criminal persecution. Their freedom to exercise their religion has been demolished, and they could end up in jail.

https://thehill.com/homenews/3662156-satanic-temple-suing-indiana-over-states-near-total-abortion-ban/  

Does Enforcing Teachers to Respect Students' Name and Pronoun Preferences Infringe Upon the First Amendment's Free Exercise Clause?

Pamela Ricard had been a teacher for decades and was a middle school mathematics teacher in Fort Riley, Kansas when the following incident ensued. Following her schools implementation of diversity and equity training and guidelines last year, all teachers in the school were mandated to refer to their students by their preferred names and pronouns, even if they deviated from those in the schools records. In April of 2021 Ricard repeatedly failed to refer to one of her students by his preferred name and pronouns. Another student in the class had informed Ricard the student preferred he/him pronouns and the school counselor had also previously informed her the student wanted to be referred to by a new name. Ricard was reprimanded for not following the students' requests and put on suspension by the school for three days for what they classified as “staff bullying and harassment.” Following this incident teachers were further instructed that they were not allowed to communicate with the parents of the students regarding what names and pronouns students were requesting to be addressed as, unless a student indicated this communication was okay with them. If unwarranted communication with parents was found to occur the school would deem it as a “discriminatory act” and teachers would be disciplined. In March of this year Ricard filed a lawsuit against Fort Riley Middle School administrators under the basis that her religious beliefs as a Christian were being violated by having to comply with the school's policies.


Ricard requested she have a religious exemption from having to follow the policies the school had in place for respecting students' preferred names and pronouns. She requested this exemption because she “holds sincere religious beliefs consistent with the traditional Christian and biblican understand of the human person and biological sex” (Cohen, 2022). The complaint filed further went on to state, “Ms. Ricard believes that God created human beings as either male or female, that this sex is fixed in each person from the moment of conception, and that it cannot be changed, regardless of an individual person's feelings, desires, or preferences” (Cohen, 2022). She felt using a student's preferred name or pronouns was a direct violation of her expression of the religious beliefs she holds. Ricard was represented by the Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) and senior counsel member Tyson Langhofer further went on to comment that “teachers should not be forced by school districts to willfully deceive parents or engage in speech that violates their deeply held religious beliefs” (Cohen, 2022).

The question at hand is whether or not the schools policies enforcing teachers to respect students pronoun and name choices is unconstitutional and prohibits Ricard from freely exercising her religion? This past May the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas ruled that Ricard’s case was to proceed based on the basis of her First Amendment rights to freely exercise her religion. A judge decided Ricard could stop adhering to the particular aspect of the school’s policy that required her to use students’ preferred pronouns, but she was not exempt from addressing them by their preferred names. This case was voluntarily dismissed in late August of this year when school officials agreed to settle by writing a statement that resolved any disciplinary charges that were made against Ricard, along with $95,000. The school board also stopped enforcing the policy that teachers couldn’t communicate with their students' parents if a student was requesting to be referred to by different names or pronouns than what was listed in school documentation.

While ultimately there was no huge deciding factor made by the court, I disagree with the court's decision to allow Ricard to be exempt from the schools policy for referring to students by their preferred pronouns. Ricard believes the policies the school implemented infringes on her ability to freely exercise her religion because it forces her to engage in speech that violates the religious beliefs she holds. The school was not prohibiting Ricard from believing in her religious beliefs. There is a huge distinction between belief and action, and in this scenario she was not being forced to not express her beliefs. By respecting students' wishes she was not being prohibited from acting on and expressing her religious beliefs. She was not being asked to go against her beliefs and change her own name or pronouns. What her students chose to be called does not infringe upon her own beliefs, and calling them a certain name or pronoun doesn't prohibit her exercise of religion.

By not respecting students' wishes to be referred to by their preferred names and pronouns, Ricard was also indirectly pushing her beliefs onto the students. Within her classroom this makes it seem as though students are respected in a Christian manner in accordance with her religion. This does not keep the classroom setting neutral. By respecting their wishes she wasn’t being forced by the school not to believe in what she does. Being exempt from the policy is also in a sense favoring religion and makes it seem like the school is endorsing the establishment of her religious beliefs in the classroom. It shows that teachers can be exempt from things they feel violate their personal religious beliefs, which in a sense establishes religious favoring within schools. Ultimately on this basis, the school's policy does not infringe upon Ricard’s ability to express her religion, and being exempt from the policy is the school establishing her religious beliefs in her classroom.

Cohen, L. (2022, September 2). Kansas middle school teacher who was suspended for repeatedly misgendering student gets $95,000 from district in lawsuit settlement. CBS News. Retrieved September 27, 2022, from https://www.cbsnews.com/news/pamela-ricard-kansas-fort-riley-middle-school-teacher-disciplined-misgendering-student-95k-settlement/ 

Heipel, E. (2022, September 27). Teacher who refused to use students' preferred pronouns settles lawsuit against School District. Catholic News Agency. Retrieved September 27, 2022, from https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/252187/adf-settles-case-for-teacher-who-refused-to-use-students-preferred-pronouns 

Are Religious Ventures Backed by the First Amendment to Only Be Allowed to Hire Like-Minded Employees?

 “We serve everybody regardless of belief or background, personal experience but through the years, our entire history, we hire folks on our staff who share a common faith in Jesus Christ and have the ability to communicate that faith as well,” said Hopkins.

So do religious institutions have the support of the First Amendment to only hire employees of the same faith? The answer to this question does get murky, but for the most part the answer is yes, but why? It would be according to the rights under the First Amendment’s free exercise of religion and something known as a “ministerial exception,” which can pave the way for these religious institutions defending who they can employ. A Wyoming homeless shelter defends its religious freedom in hiring who they see fit in sharing their religious beliefs. The Wyoming Rescue Mission is a Christian nonprofit that believes in the power of sharing the gospel of Jesus Christ through deeds of service. Therefore, they hire those of the same faith that way their mission is served to the public. In terms of service, the mission provides shelter, clothing vouchers, free meals, and assisted programs of recovery and support in job training. This program has had astounding success of which include “60,862 free meals were served to the public; provided 41,037 beds for men, women, and children; enrolled 92 people into their Discipleship Recovery Program; 5,597 case management sessions; and gave 1,208 thrift store vouchers worth $39,649.92 that provided free clothing and essentials to families and guests in need. See? The Wyoming Rescue Mission is making an impact on the Casper community in more than one way. So what could be the problem? In 2020, the mission declined a non-Christian applicant for an opening job. The declined applicant decided to take action and filed a discrimination charge against the mission. After a long investigation, it was determined that the mission violated the Wyoming Fair Employment Practices Act of 1965 and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 for refusing to hire the applicant. However, what was not considered here was the consideration of religious organization’s right of employment. Yet, an impossible question was asked of the mission. They either stand up for furthering their foundational beliefs by letting non-Christian applicants be hired, or face the repercussions of penalties and liability. 

In previous cases of Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commision and Our Lady of Guadalupe School v. Morrissey-Berru similarly, these cases had the plantiff’s filing discriminatory lawsuits against religious schools indicating that they were being discriminating against, while these religious schools rebuttled against these claims using the ministerial exception. The ministerial exception is a legal document that defends religious institutions by helping them be exempt from federal employment discrimination laws that would otherwise be considered discriminatory. Nonetheless, these religious institutions have a say in who they can employ as “ministers.” Yet what defines the broad term of minister? Is it merely someone who preaches the Gospel? Is it a figure-head that conducts services? The term minister was a little too broad and the US Supreme Court declared that the “ministerial exception” was based upon the religion clauses within the First Amendment and that the government cannot interfere with matters of faith. Therefore, the court looks at what the employees do that makes them carry out a religious mission. To reinstate, the exception instead ensures that the authority to select and control who will conduct the religion of the religious organization is the organization’s alone. 

So where does Wyoming Rescue Mission v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission fall in line with these precedent cases? If the federal government decides to agree with the declined applicant, is the government overstepping its means of entanglement with its religious institutions? Is there a clear violation of the mission’s First Amendment right of free exercise of religion? After considering Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commision and the most recent precedent the Our Lady of Guadalupe School v. Morrissey-Berru, the key fact is understanding if the ministerial exception can be used by the mission to avoid the discrimination lawsuit. I would say that the mission can use this exception because the Supreme Court granted the exemption in Hosanna-Tabor when they looked at what the employee does. The questions that were looked at were: are the mission’s employees carrying out their faith? Yes. Are the employees actively spreading the Gospel? Yes. Therefore I would defend the Mission because of this exception. Furthermore, government entanglement in matters of religious affiliations is a clear no, no. In Lemon v. Kurtzman a series of questions were conducted on legislation concerning religion. The questions of a secular legislative purpose, must neither advance or inhibit religion, and must not result in an “excessive government entanglement” with religion. If the court decided with the non-Christian applicant and tried regulating religious organizations internal management affairs, there is a clear violation of government entanglement, inhibiting religion, and there would be no secular legislative purpose because it is directly concerning the applicant’s religious status. 

I believe letting the applicant win the case for discrimination is a clear violation of the Free Exercise Clause.The First Amendment protects the right of religious institutions “to decide for themselves, free from state interference, matters of church government as well as those of faith and doctrine.” Kedroff v. Saint Nicholas Cathedral of Russian Orthodox Church in North America. This case argues that the state of New York intruded on the religious freedom of the Saint Nicholas Cathedral indicating that New York violated the Religious Corporations Law of New York that prohibited the state to interfere in the church administration.

There is a slippery slope because discrimination is a just as an important issue as religion. The discrimination clause makes it illegal to discriminate based on race, color, religion, sex, national origin, disability, or genetic information. However, our Constitution does not highlight discrimnation policies, it highlights and favors religion. That being said, the Wyoming Mission should be able to hire the employees they see fit without government interference because they have the right as a religious institution to promote and hire people who will further their religious causes. “Requiring a church to accept an unwanted person who will not further their cause, and punishing the religious organization intrudes with the internal governance of the church choosing who will personify its beliefs” Hosanna-Tabor. I believe that one could infer that there could be a compelling state interest in regulating the religious organizations actions by interfering with their hiring process, which could lessen the impact of the organization’s work in providing many deeds of service to the Casper community. By imposing a non-religious applicant the state clearly violates the Free Exercise Clause which protects the rights of the religious groups to shape their own faith and mission through whatever means it sees fit. The Establishment Clause can also be invoked in this case because there should be no government involvement in such religious decisions. “For this reason, courts are bound to stay out of employment disputes involving those holding certain important positions with churches and other religious institutions” Hosanna-Tabor.

With that being said, do you think that the government is infringing upon this religious Wyoming mission by violating their exercise of religion by not letting them hire people only aligned with their views? Do you think the materstrial exception could be used to support the Wyoming Mission case? How can the slippery slope of discrimination and violation of the religious clauses of the Constitution be avoided? 

https://www.mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/170/kedroff-v-saint-nicholas-cathedral

https://adfmedia.org/case/wyoming-rescue-mission-v-equal-employment-opportunity-commission

https://www.newspressnow.com/life/religion/wyoming-rescue-mission-statement-on-employment-discrimination-lawsuit/article_c6f58f87-17cd-5608-9e1d-d06eb3135a61.html

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/10-553.pdf

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/19pdf/19-267_1an2.pdf

https://www.wyomingnewsnow.tv/2022/09/22/wyoming-rescue-mission-is-suing-government/

Do Catholic Universities Have a Constitutional Right to Employ Affirmative Action Practices?

Affirmative action is an aspect of the college admissions process that has been long criticized. Affirmative action was first introduced on a legislative scale in an executive order from President John F. Kennedy in 1961. The order decreed that in a professional environment, a contractor “will take affirmative action to ensure that applicants are employed, and that employees are treated during employment, without regard to their race, creed, color, or national origin.” Within the context of college admissions, affirmative action is intended to alleviate some of the obstacles and discrimination faced by racial minorities, as it allows colleges and universities to consider the race of their applicants.

There have been many Supreme Court cases regarding affirmative action, and the practice is often the source of much political discontent. The Supreme Court is scheduled to hear two cases regarding affirmative action this year, and these decisions have the potential to end the practice altogether. In response to these cases being put in front of the Supreme Court, Georgetown University, a Jesuit institution, filed an amicus brief, along with 56 other Catholic Universities alleging that because of their status as religious institutions and the necessity of diversity to their religious mission, their right to consider race in the application process is protected under the free exercise clause of the first amendment.

The brief discusses the admissions process as it stands at many of these universities, defining it as a holistic approach that does take race into account with the purpose of maintaining a diverse student body as to further their goals rooted in Catholicism. The brief argues that because of their status as Catholic institutions, the included universities have a unique perspective on the affirmative action issue. The brief begins with a discussion of Catholic teachings, arguing that they “emphasize the dignity of each individual and the importance of service to the underrepresented.” Because of this pillar of Catholic education, diversity within Catholic institutions is vital to furthering their ultimate pedagogical goal. The brief outlines four reasons for the importance of diversity within Catholic higher education: First, the dynamic environment that comes along with diversity furthers Catholic values such as rigorous thinking and empathy. Second, a diverse environment leads to personal growth, which goes towards the Catholic pedagogical goal of tolerance. Third, social justice is a pinnacle of Catholicism, and thus it is the responsibility of Catholic universities to provide opportunities to underrepresented groups. And finally, it is a mission of Catholic education to create thoughtful, creative, and diverse leaders, which will only result from a diverse educational environment.

After outlining the argument for why diversity is so important for Catholic higher education, the brief argues that because of this, the right of Catholic universities to use affirmative action processes to ensure a diverse class of students is protected under the free-exercise clause of the first amendment. The brief cites multiple free exercise cases tied to education, including Wisconsin v. Yoder, a Supreme Court case in which under the free exercise clause, Amish families were granted the right to withhold their children from school because they believed a traditional education went directly against Amish teachings. The brief argues that all of these cases emphasize the importance of people being able to exercise their religion freely, and goes on to make the argument that the issue of allowing Catholic universities to continue their affirmative action practices is no different, Because diversity is so closely tied to the universities’ religious mission, not allowing them to continue to attempt to create as diverse a class as possible inhibits their free exercise.

While I can agree with the authors of this brief that a diverse educational environment is important, I do not believe that the end of affirmative action practices would inhibit the free-exercise of Catholic universities. All of the Catholic principles discussed in the brief could easily be secular principles, and the brief does not make a strong argument as to why, exactly, they are tied to Catholicism. Additionally, there are other efforts that can be made for Catholic universities to secure a diverse class of students without affirmative action, such as increasing outreach and making students of color feel safe on campus so that other students of color are more compelled to apply in the future. Because of the other alternatives that can be taken, the end of affirmative action would not inhibit Georgetown or the other 56 universities’ free exercise of religion–while affirmative action being abolished might make it more difficult for colleges to increase their diversity, it would force them to consider other ways to foster a diverse and inclusive campus environment.

Does Firing a Nurse Practitioner Based on Her Religious Beliefs Concerning Abortion Violate her First Amendment right?

Paige Casey is a nurse practitioner who worked for a MinuteClinic in Alexandria, Virginia. For more than two and a half years the clinic exempted Casey from prescribing certain contraceptive drugs or devices that aid in preventing pregnancy to honor her Catholic beliefs. Specifically, the lawsuit cited Plan B and Ella which are commonly known as the morning-after pills. After writing a request to the company, which stated her specific Catholic beliefs, Casey was granted an accommodation. There were no incidents or complaints that were a result of this accommodation. The lawsuit claims that in April of 2021, this all changed, and the Clinic abruptly fired Casey solely for refusing to prescribe "abortion-causing" drugs. The Rhode Island-based company announced that its employees could no longer avoid prescribing abortion-inducing drugs along with other forms of birth control. It is important to note that Plan B and Ella are the only drugs that were specifically named in the lawsuit. According to the Food and Drug Administration, Plan B and Ella are both drugs classified as "emergency contraception" and the Administration states that neither drug has the ability to terminate an already existing pregnancy. In accordance with Catholic teachings, however, life begins at conception when a sperm fertilizes an egg. This lawsuit aims to remedy the injuries that Ms. Casey suffered to her conscience rights and the related costly harms.   

Casey, who primarily worked at a MinuteClinic in Alexandria since 2018, again asked for an accommodation for her religious beliefs in December. In January and March, the company reiterated that they would no longer accommodate her request. Effective April 1st CVS fired Casey.       

This case introduces the question of whether or not Ms. Casey's First Amendment Right to Freedom of Religion was violated by CVS Health because of her refusal on religious grounds to sell and dispense certain contraceptive drugs. This brings to light the Constitutional issue of Ms. Casey's ability to express her own religious beliefs while also working for the clinic.  

When looking at Casey's lawsuit it is important to reflect on Obergefell v. Hodges. This is a case where in which a group of same-sex couples sued their state agencies in Ohio, Michigan, Kentucky, and Tennessee to challenge the constitutionality of those states' bans on same-sex marriage or the refusal to legally recognize these marriages. The plaintiffs in the case argue that the state's statutes were a direct violation of the Equal Protection Clause and Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. In a 5-4 decision, the court held that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment guarantees the right to marry as one of the fundamental liberties it protects. The Equal Protection Clause also guarantees the right of same-sex couples to marry because denying this right would deny same-sex couples equal protection under the law.  

To reiterate, in Ms. Casey's lawsuit, she is asserting that she lost her job because she refused to sell contraceptive drugs because it violates her Catholic beliefs and opposition to abortion. This situation points towards a slippery slope because it permits clinic practitioners to allow their religious beliefs to impinge on the rights of clinic patients and customers. In addition, the science iterates that the two drugs cited in the lawsuit are not drugs that can abort an already existing pregnancy, but rather they are preventative measures that are taken before reaching this point. The clinic made accommodations for Casey, but there comes a time when one is simply not meeting the requirements of the job itself. The clinic is not preventing Casey specifically from practicing her own religious beliefs. The clinic is requiring that as a licensed nurse practitioner in the state of Virginia she must fulfill the requirements of the job which is in a secular business. Her refusal to dispense contraceptive medications violates basic medical practices which require practitioners to listen to their patients' needs as well as fulfilling the sale of a product that does not even require a medical prescription. In Obergefell v. Hodges, the right to marry is one of the fundamental liberties that the Fourteenth Amendment guarantees, which means that the states can't impose social or religious values on same-sex marriages just like Casey can't dictate what treatments the patients who come to the clinic can have based on her own values and beliefs. 

Gerald Groff v. DeJoy

Gerald Groff was an employee at the Quarryville Post Office for the USPS, he then transferred to the Paradise Post office as a Rural Carrier Associate in 2012. Groff was hired in this new position as an RCA, and this position means that the carrier must be able to work depending on the office, must be able to work weekends, and RCAs are not guaranteed a specific schedule based on needs. In 2016 this USPS office signed a contract with Amazon, stating that packages must be delivered on Sundays as well. Up until this time everything was working out, Groff had negotiated with his postmaster to make sure he had Sunday’s off as he identifies as an evangelical Christian and needs Sundays off for his Sunday Sabbath. However, once the Quarryville station signed with amazon Patricia, Groff’s postmaster, told him that she could no longer give him all Sundays off as they have peak times. Groff asked to be relocated to the Holtwood station, which had not yet signed a contract with Amazon. Brian Hess was Groff’s new postmaster and he knew that groff had moved to avoid Sunday delivery, but no one ever promised Groff all Sundays off. In 2017 Holtwood post office signed with Amazona and Groff would be required to work on Sundays. Management gave Groff an accommodation, he could find someone to cover his Sunday shifts or show up late on Sundays once his service was over. In May of 2018 Groff had missed 24 scheduled Sundays. Before facing termination due to 24 work absences, Groff decided to resign and sue the post office for refusing to have religious accommodations under the first amendment free exercise and the Equal Employment Opportunity Act of 1972.  

First Groff sued under a federal court stating that the post office did not offer religious accomodations, including an Evangelical’s Sunday Sabbath. The federal court ruled for the Postal Service Office, then Groff appealed to the 3rd circuit where the ruling also favored the Post Office. Groff argued that exempting him from Sunday Work would have a more than de minimis cost on USPS. Groff has appealed to the Supreme Court and is holding on to a response.

I think that USPS should exempt Groff from working on Sundays even though he does not qualify due to his position, but I feel like his first amendment free exercise right is being violated because in this company RCA’s do not have the position to have a flexible schedule yet higher positions do; also Sunday Sabbath is not something Groff all of the sudden made up, he has been transferring jobs constantly and requested several times accommodations, therefore the sincerity is truthful. I think that stating the harm that his Sunday Sabbath has on USPS is unreasonable, and the fact that Groff had Sundays off before USPS signed with Amazon means that it is possible to make his accommodations happen, but USPS is putting their profits first before their employees.

Does Mandating a More Secular Education Curriculum Infringe upon the Free Exercise Clause?

In 2019, the Central United Talmudical Academy, a Kindergarten through 12th grade Hasidic private school in New York City agreed to give their students a standardized government test to see if the students are meeting the minimum education requirements set forth by NY state law. In return for giving the exam, the school was granted government funds. All of the students that took the exam failed. This outcome wasn’t surprising as the state has known about the secular education gap within the private Hasidic school community for the past few years. Prior to the pandemic, an investigation was started to see what could be done to correct the lack of a secular education within these schools but the investigation was put on pause as Covid worsened. It is important to note that while, “other schools might be struggling because of underfunding or mismanagement, [the private Hasidic] schools are different. They are failing by design” (Shapiro, Rosenthal). Within most of the private Hasidic schools, time spent learning topics like: Science, Math, English or History is seen as a waste of time. These schools instead prioritize learning about Jewish laws, traditions, prayers and duties within the community. The expectation is for these children to remain a part of the Hasidic Jewish community once they are adults. Therefore they believe their education should revolve around what they deem necessary skills to have in order to succeed within their community. As of Sept. 19th, the New York Education Policy Committee, “proposed amendments to New York State’s “substantial equivalency” regulations meant to clarify how the state determines that private schools offer instruction that is similar to that offered in public schools” it was further stated that “Monday’s vote only solidified rules on the methods the state will use to determine equivalency, not the actual curriculum schools need to follow” (Gergely). 

Here is where the Constitutional Question arises: If the State of New York begins monitoring private Hasidic schools curriculums in order to ensure there is an equivalent secular curriculum being taught across the board between private and public schools, so that all students meet minimum state standards, would such a process of monitoring and mandating more secular education violate the free exercise rights of the Hasidic schools and families?

Most individuals within the Hasidic community would say yes; Monitoring and mandating a more secular education system within their private school system infringes upon their free exercise clause. The Hasidic community has, “since arriving in Brooklyn in the 1940s, … relied on religious schools to propel the community’s growth and maintain its continuity” (Shapiro, Rosenthal). The community is well aware of the poor test results from the standardized tests but in their eyes, “their schools are succeeding — just not according to the standards set by the outside world” (Shapiro, Rosenthal). The children of this community are being educated on the ways that they will succeed within their own community, which requires a different skill set than what is being offered in public schools.

The Wisconsin v Yoder case, may be used as a precedent in this case where the majority opinion found the Yoder children were allowed to be exempt from the minimum state educational requirement because the information the children would be learning in secular education wouldn’t help them in the lifestyle they would be living. Furthermore, a concern brought to light in the Wisconsin case was that students not being given a higher secular education wouldn’t be successful in the modern world, if they chose to leave the Amish community. However the courts dismissed the argument stating there was no evidence of that. Many of the parents that belong to the Hasidic community plan for their children to remain within the Hasidic community as they’re children enter into their adulthoods, therefore the parents have the sincere belief that the education being given to their child currently is the one that will be most beneficial to them in the long run. Additionally, if these children are forced into a more secular education system by the government, and stop receiving the strictly religious education that is accepted among their community, a ‘substantial burden’ may be placed upon them because “their leaders, the grand rabbis, wield significant power, and breaking the rules they set can carry serious consequences” one consequence may even be ‘shunning’ individuals from the entire community (Shapiro, Rosenthal).

I will make the counter argument, stating the state is remaining neutral by monitoring the education given within these schools and that the regulation, creating an equivalent curriculum for all schools, does not violate the free exercise clause. The government has a compelling state interest in ensuring all children are receiving an education where if they one day decide to leave whichever community they are currently a part of, they have the knowledge and skills necessary to leave said community and be successful. Furthermore by providing the children of this community with a more secular education, the effect on the children would be highly beneficial. As seen in the New York Times article, a man who grew up going to a private Hasidic school and has since left the Hasidic Jewish community, stated “It’s crazy that I’m 20 years old, I don’t know any higher order math, and never learned any science” (Shapiro, Rosenthal). It is likely that children who do choose to leave will be shunned from the only world they know about, with no tools or basic knowledge of the modern world to help themselves, they will likely struggle. If these children are given a more well rounded secular education base, the government isn’t infringing upon their freedom to continue practicing and studying their religion, the government is making it so that if the children do choose to leave their transition into the modern world will be less turbulent. 

Sources: 

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/09/11/nyregion/hasidic-yeshivas-schools-new-york.html

https://www.jta.org/2022/09/12/ny/new-york-finalizes-rules-requiring-private-schools-including-yeshivas-to-prove-they-meet-standards

https://www.oyez.org/cases/1971/70-110

 

Should Children have to choose between their Sports and their Faith?

        Oakwood Adventist Academy is a Seventh-day Adventist private school in Hunstville, Alabama. The Seventh-day Adventist Church follows a form of Protestant Christianity that believes the 7th day of the week is a day of rest and observance. They believe the 7th day of the week falls on Saturday on the modern calendar. Their Sabbath lasts from Friday at nightfall to Saturday and nightfall. Parochial schools have a high emphasis on their sports teams. The Oakwood Adventist Academy basketball team enjoyed an outstanding season and made it to the playoffs. The problem was their game was scheduled to be at 4:30 pm on Saturday, which conflicted with the time of the players' Sabbath. During the Sabbath, one may not participate in any work or schooling; basketball falls under that category. The Sabbath is one's time to focus on their prayer and connection with God.

         The school made efforts to switch the time of the game to a time that did not interfere with their time of rest so that their players would get a chance to play. They requested to switch the game to at 7:30, only 3 hours after their original game was supposed to be played. The time switch was approved by all schools involved but was rejected by Alabama High School Athletic Association (AHSAA), forcing the team to forfeit the game. The Oakwood is a Seventh-day Adventist school that filed suit claiming the action of forcing their players to play during their Sabbath was a direct burden on their players. They claimed it violated their First Amendment rights to freedom of religion. This case is currently being heard by U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Alabama.

        The main question here is whether the Alabama High School Atheltic Association is not letting the Oakwood Adventist Academy Basketball team change the time of their playoff game and discriminating against the players' religious beliefs, putting a direct burden on them. The Oakwood Adventist Academy believes it does and has requested in the suit that the AHSAA provide religious accommodations for their players and other religious academies going forward. The Academy officials also stated that this was not just for themselves; it was for other groups, such as the Orthodox Jews, who believe the Sabbath lands on Friday night through Saturday night. The NCAA, an organization, respected worldwide for how they govern Collegiate Student-Athletes, already has accommodations such as these in place so that no one will ever have to choose between their faith and playing their sport. 

        A case very similar to this is Nakashima v. Oregon State Board of Education. The Oregon School Activities Association (OSAA) sets the schedules for private and public school teams. The OSAA did not schedule games on Sundays. The Portland Adventist Academy, similar to Oakwood Adventist Academy, follows the teachings of The Seventh-Day Adventist Church. The Portland Adventist Academy requests accommodations that they would not have to play on Saturdays, and up to this point, the OSAA respected that request. The OSAA had received complaints from other institutions involved in the tournament and had informed the Portland Adventist school they could no longer grant their accommodation as previously stated. The OSAA appealed this decision and brought the case to the Oregon Supreme court. The Oregon Court of Appeals found that the OSAA did discriminate against the students by not allowing their accommodations. The OSAA argument was that allowing this accommodation would be giving The Portland Adventist Academy special treatment violating the U.S. Constitution and the Oregon Constitution. The court agreed with the finding of the Oregon Court of Appeals that granting this accommodation did not violate the U.S. Constitution or the Oregon Constitution. The Supreme Court also found the OSAA violated the rights of the students as it discriminated against their religion.

        The Nakashima v. Oregon State Board of Education decision will help the Oakwood Adventist Academy in their case of Oakwood Adventist Academy vs. Alabama High School Athletic Association case. Although the cases themselves have differences, the main principles are the same. By the AHSAA not granting the school and its students accommodation to not have to play during their time of Sabbath, the AHSAA discriminates directly against the student's religion. This is a direct violation of the Student-Athlete's First Amendment rights of freedom of religion. The Oakwood Adventist case is not only fighting for their religious freedom but all groups with religious beliefs that could interfere with the ability to participate in sports. The decision of this case will have future implications as if they are allowed religious accommodations, other religions also must be granted the same accommodations for their beliefs.  This is a significant issue because these student-athletes chose to attend this private school to practice their religious beliefs. Any Student-Athlete must have equal opportunity to participate in athletic events regardless of their beliefs. Not granting these students the accommodations they need to participate in their specific sport makes it so that there is not equal opportunity for athletes to participate, violating the athlete's rights as Americans.

Sources: 

https://www.becketlaw.org/case/oakwood-adventist-academy-v-alabama-high-school-athletic-association/

 

https://www.nadadventist.org/news/faith-and-basketball-high-school-team-fights-right-compete-and-keep-their-sabbath

 

https://www.aclu-or.org/en/cases/nakashima-v-board-education

 

https://www.wbrc.com/2022/05/04/oakwood-adventist-academy-sues-ahsaa-claims-religious-discrimination/

 

https://classroomlaw.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/Case-Study-Nakashima-v-Oregon-State-Bd-of-Ed.pdf

303 Creative LLC v. Elenis

The Supreme Court is set to hear a lawsuit regarding an interesting combination of both the free speech and free exercise clauses of the First Amendment. The case surrounds Lorie, the owner of 303 Creative LLC. This company is focused around design of all kinds, and is based in Lorie’s passion for the arts. Meaning that Lorie works to design websites, graphics, and other sorts of creative designs. As expressed in an article by the Alliance Defending Freedom, Lorie was hoping to expand her business into creating wedding websites, but, because of religious convictions, she did not want to cater to LGBTQ+ couples, citing that her beliefs understand marriage as “between a man and a woman”. She would like this message posted on her website and to not cater to same-sex couples, but the current Colorado laws will not allow this. Lorie is a God-fearing woman based in Colorado, and the Colorado AntiDiscrimination Act (“CADA”) prohibits discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation for any open businesses. The main question being brought from this case is: does the Colorado’s AntiDiscrimination Act violate Lorie’s right to freedom of speech and free exercise by prohibiting her from posting a message on her website sharing that she will not cater to same-sex couples due to her religious convictions as well as working with same-sex couples on this wedding website expansion?

    The courts have established this as a free speech issue, but looking at the huge part that religion plays in this, I am going to present it from a free exercise standpoint. Looking at a past case that is relevant, Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission is an important precedent to keep in mind. In 2018, this ruling set a tone for how LGBTQ+ religious opinions will be decided moving forward. This case is based around how a cakemaker was approached by a gay couple who wanted to have their wedding cake made at his shop. Same-sex marriage was not yet legal in Colorado at the time and the owner of the shop was Christian and deeply opposed to same-sex marriage. He argued that he should not be forced to put something on a cake he did not agree with, and the Supreme Court ruled in favor of him due to the fact that he was exercising his religious freedom and additionally his freedom of speech. 

    In Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission and the case of 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis, the lower courts ruled in favor of CADA. Multitudes of discrimination are not allowed under this law (specifically discrimination in relation to sexual orientation) and the lower courts ruled in favor of that finding. The lower court in Lorie’s case ruled that CADA’s Accommodation Clause, which reads that any public accommodation cannot refuse to serve a group because of sexual orientation, narrowly survived the strict scrutiny test. Strict scrutiny means that the Judicial Review assumes a policy to not be well-founded unless a compelling interest is presented. If this interest is present, the policy can be justified. The Tenth Circuit Court ruled that Colorado has a compelling state interest in ensuring equivalent access of public goods or services to all the citizens of Colorado. The Supreme Court overturning this decision sets a precedent which will most likely be used for 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis. The Supreme Court ruled that although same-sex couples are granted civil rights and liberties, free exercise and free speech are Constitutionally protected rights and these two things need to both exist under the Court’s rulings and the Constitution. All of these things are protected expressions, which I believe can get a little slippery if they are all to be fully protected. This means that a private business can not serve LGBTQ+ couples due to religious beliefs, even though same-sex couples also have civil liberties and protections as guarded under the Constitution. This is important in my opinion because it establishes that freedom of religious exercise is more important of an interest to the Supreme Court than preventing discrimination of same-sex couples and giving them access to the same goods and services non-LGBTQ+ couples have access to.

    Although I do not agree with the morality of denying same-sex couples the right to consume products just as any other American, I do believe that under the guise of the Constitution, 303 Creative LLC and Lorie should be able to not cater to same-sex couples when making marriage websites. Lorie does not oppose working for LGBTQ+ individuals by themselves, but she does believe that marriage is a sacred right under God for a man and a woman, so she is not able to make marriage websites for same-sex individuals for this reason. Under the Constitution, Lorie should be able to post a message about her beliefs on this specific topic, especially since she has her religious beliefs about God posted throughout her website already. Lorie’s right to free speech is being silenced through CADA and, additionally, through this silencing of free speech and free expression, Lorie will be forced to serve same-sex couples, which violates her religious beliefs. For these reasons, I oppose the lower court's decision to uphold CADA. 

Sources:

https://adfmedia.org/case/303-creative-v-elenis 

https://denverlaborlaw.com/colorado-employment-law/colorado-revised-statutes-crs-24-34-401/#:~:text=401%20et%20seq.-,C.R.S.,Colorado%20employment%20lawyers%20right%20away. 

https://303creative.com/about/ 

https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/303-creative-llc-v-elenis/ 

https://www.naag.org/attorney-general-journal/supreme-court-report-303-creative-llc-v-elenis-21-476/ 

https://www.mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/1596/masterpiece-cakeshop-v-colorado-civil-rights-commission 

https://mslegal.org/cases/303-creative-v-aubrey-elenis-et-al/