Calvary Road Baptist Church argues that the law requires them to violate their religious beliefs. Not only are they required to hire individuals, but also forbidden from posting their stance on the issues. To them, their beliefs must be fulfilled, and by breaking their religious standards they are acting against their religion. Additionally, "there’s imminent harm, because the Act gives the attorney general the ability without notice to file a civil lawsuit this afternoon against the ministry’s policies and practices." Harm is interpreted as material monetary, physical, or emotional damage. In this case, spontaneous civil lawsuits may cost the church money and time, as well as disrupt their reputation, causing measurable harm by this standard.
Herring, the attorney general, argues and ultimately dismisses the case on the grounds that the event has not yet occurred. When ruling on the case, it is stated that "'This has nothing to do with the underlying merits of the case or whether there may be an actual controversy in the future,' Judge Plowman said. 'I don’t see it right now.'" So, because there have not been any specific cases yet, the court has accepted the request by Herring to dismiss the case. However, it is important to look at the precedent of 303 Creative v. Elenis. In this case, the plaintiff had not yet started work that would break the law, but was able to bring her case to court on the grounds that "her company faced ‘a credible threat Colorado [would] prosecute them under that statute.’" Thus, when looking at this precedent, it may be surprising that the current case did not have the same approval to be heard. The plaintiff, Calvary Road Baptist Church has filed an appeal in the meantime to overturn the dismissal.
The Sherbert Test, established under Sherbert v. Verner, is helpful to evaluate this case. It looks at whether the law places a burden on an individual's religious freedom, and if there is a compelling state interest to do so. In this example, it can be argued that a substantial burden is in place. These organizations, that are known to be religiously based, are required to break their beliefs and hire individuals who do not agree with what they are teaching and promoting in the given space. This violates what a religious individual may believe they have to do to remain aligned with their religious commitments. However, it can be argued that there is a compelling state interest in place to support the law. Virginia is one of the first southern states to enact laws that protect the LGBTQ+ community, thus serving as a landmark example. The Supreme Court themselves have establish a commitment to protecting the rights of LGBTQ+ individuals, as seen in cases like Obergefell v. Hodges, among others. One could argue that Virginia is simply following precedents and attempting to prevent discrimination in the country.
Evaluating the case from both sides, Calvary Road Baptist Church should win the case. While the Virginia Values Act should remain in place, an exception should be made specifically for religious organizations. Because the organization is founded on religious grounds, it cannot serve its purpose without following the religious beliefs it is teaching. Although, individuals working at a general business should not be granted this exemption, Constitutionally. In a case like this, the individual can believe something, without having the right to act on it. But, when the inability to act directly impacts the goal of the organization, such as a church, there is not a less restrictive solution.
Ultimately, a religious organization cannot Constitutionally be blocked from promoting their beliefs. By forcing a religious organization to hire individuals who do not align with their understanding of issues, and forbidding them from posting their beliefs, the Free Exercise Clause is violated. Additionally, they are not actively promoting harm against the LGBTQ+ community; they are not telling their congregation to go out and disrupt LGBTQ+ individuals. However, there are other jobs for them, which is a less restrictive means to addressing the dispute. If an individual wants to teach, they can teach at a public school or even another religious school that does not share the same belief system. If they want to work at a religious place of worship, they can search for one that is accepting of the LGBTQ+ community. This idea is important because these religious organizations are not targeting the LGBTQ+ community so they are not able to work, but instead hoping to maintain their own religious beliefs and principles.
Sources:
https://lis.virginia.gov/cgi-bin/legp604.exe?201+sum+SB868
https://tennesseestar.com/2021/08/23/alliance-defending-freedom-asks-court-to-reconsider-challenge-to-virginia-values-act/
https://www.oag.state.va.us/media-center/news-releases/1891-december-7-2020-herring-defending-virginia-anti-discrimination-laws-in-court
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2021/jul/16/loudoun-churches-plan-appeal-after-judge-blunts-ch/
6 comments:
I agree with Molly that a religious organization cannot constitutionally be blocked from promoting religious beliefs, especially when they are not actively harming anyone. I second the point that the exception should be made in favor of Calvary Road Baptist Church. The individuals can get a job somewhere else, as they are not limited here. For the sake of maintaining religious beliefs, I agree that the Church should should be able to promote their religious beliefs freely especially because they are not harming anyone.
I agree that the Virginia Values Act interferes with the free exercise of religion of these religious organizations. It is unconstitutional for the government to force them to hire people that do not follow their values, as it places a substantial burden on their religion. However, I do think that it can be argued that there is a compelling state interest here. Like in the Bob Jones case, the government has a responsibility to protect minority rights and prevent discrimination. In that case, the university was not given their tax exemption because they were racially discriminating even though it was considered part of their religious beliefs. The government has a compelling state interest to prevent discrimination, so it can be argued that this is what they are doing here. However, in this case, these are purely religious institutions, not receiving public funds. They should be permitted to hire whomever they want in order to have free exercise of their religious beliefs.
I also agree that the Act should stay in place but the church should get an exception because both the rights of religion and the LGBTQIA+ community are important to American society. As we have learned in class, the Constitution gets preference over state laws, so at least a exception should be required. There is also no compelling state interest to force this church to hire those in the LGBTQUI+ community because they can find a job elsewhere. Now, if this church were the only place that has employees within 100 miles or something like that, then the state interest would be present. Also, as stated in this blog, if a LGBTQUI+ person were so incredibly passionate about working in a church, their are churches that accept people in the community.
This is an extremely difficult case for me to decide upon and I'm not entirely sure which side I would vote with if I had to. I can certainly understand the idea that the Act might violate one's right to free exercise of religion and exceptions to this law might be valid. However, I also question what kind of slippery slope getting rid of this act might have. Could they use this as an excuse to extend discrimination outside of religious beliefs? How are we to determine what motives are religious and what aren't? Altering with this act would leave me with a lot of concerns about its impact.
The Virginia Values Act seems extremely extensive and since it is so broad, I believe there should be exceptions for specifically religious organizations to protect their Constitutional rights to Free Exercise. I agree with Molly's points that there is not enough of a compelling interest for the state to maintain the Act and tread on the right of Free Exercise. Since the Act most definitely impedes on Free Exercise, I wonder if the Act will be struck down completely or be upheld with religious exceptions. I believe it should be able to exist in some part, but it should have a limited exemption to religious organizations and not just private individuals working under a larger company with personal religious ideas.
This is definitely an interesting case and I am not totally sure which way I am fully decided on, but I tend to lean more towards agreeing with Molly. I like what Sam said about the individuals being able to get a job anywhere else if they would like. It is not limiting them as they are just one place. I also think with this case, it should not be constitutionally permissible for the Government to block this religious organization from preaching and practicing their religious beliefs as it is core to their personal ideals and convictions.
Post a Comment