The First Amendment

More and more states are passing what they call Religious Freedom Laws but what they do in actuality is to give special rights to those with certain religious beliefs that allow them to ignore laws that they do not like. These laws turn the First Amendment upon its head. By saying that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…” for almost 240 years that amendment has been interpreted to mean that laws aimed at certain religion are prohibited while laws that are equally applied to everyone do not violate the First Amendment.

Do you see the difference?

You can have zoning laws that say this is a residential area and churches and synagogue are allowed but not mosques. It is either all religious places of worship or none; you cannot select which places of worship will be allowed.

Last year I wrote a blog in this…

**************************

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

The First Amendment has never been interpreted that laws which do not ban specific religions or religious practices but are for everyone such as the drugs laws are unconstitutional. For an example you can ban the use of peyote and it will also prohibit people taking peyote for religious ceremonies, the Supreme Court in a ruling in 1990 said that it can be banned. According to the ‘Electric Law Library,

The U.S. Supreme Court reversed, holding that the free exercise clause of the First Amendment did not prohibit the State of Oregon from banning the sacramental use of peyote through its general criminal prohibition laws, or from denying unemployment benefits to persons dismissed from their jobs for such religiously inspired use. In an opinion written by Justice Scalia (joined by Chief Justice Rehnquist and Justices White, Stevens, and Kennedy), the Court discarded the long-standing compelling interest test, holding that facially neutral laws of general applicability that burden the free exercise of religion require no special justification to satisfy free exercise scrutiny. Finally, the Court asserted that the free exercise of religion may be protected through the political process. According to the majority, its inability to find constitutional protection for religiously inspired action burdened by generally applicable laws does not mean statutory exemptions to such laws are not permitted or even desired…

But that is not the only court case that said the First Amendment rights were limited, there was also a Supreme Court case where a certain Amish sect claimed that they didn’t have to pay the Social Security tax because it violated their religious beliefs. In the Encyclopedia of American Civil Liberties said this about United States v. Lee, 455 U.S. 252 (1982),

When a person’s religious beliefs are at odds with actions of their government, and the person is required to support the government through taxes, there may be conflict. In deciding these conflicts, courts must weigh the government’s interest in the tax program against the burden on the individual’s rights under the free exercise clause of the First Amendment.

… in this case the Court did not require an accommodation on the part of the government. In a unanimous opinion, the Court ruled that there was no constitutional requirement for an exemption from social security taxes based on the free exercise clause. It also ruled that the existing statutory exemption only applied to the self-employed, not employers like Mr. Lee.

The same thing was true when the Quakers claimed a religious exemption from paying income tax because of their religious belief of pacifism. They lost their court case and had to pay their taxes.

Now the Republicans and conservatives are trying to twist the First Amendment to allow religious exemptions from anti-discrimination laws to allow people to discriminate sexual orientation and gender identity.

Washington Lawmaker Introduces Religious, Gay Discrimination BillThe Huffington Post
By John Celock
Posted: 04/26/2013
Legislation proposed in Washington state this week would allow businesses to deny service to the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender population and others, based on religious differences.

Under the terms of the bill, businesses in the state could refuse service to anyone whose religious or philosophical beliefs differ from their own. They could not, however, refuse service based on areas protected under federal law, which does not include the LGBT community.

This bill gives carte blanche powers to people to discriminate against LGBT people, all they will have to say that it is against my religion and they can discriminate. There are no religious tests to prove that it is really against their religion to discriminate because by definition they just have to state that and it automatically is true.

Do you remember a few months ago the Republicans got up on their soapbox and said that they had to be more inclusive… well it didn’t take long for their actions to show their true colors.

*************

Now it is Indiana that is trying to pass a “Religious Freedom” bill,

State Senator To File Religious Freedom Bill
Indiana Public Media
By Barbara Harrington
Posted December 29, 2014

State Sen. Scott Schneider, R-Indianapolis, plans to file a Religious Freedom Restoration Act during the upcoming legislative session.

While the details are still being worked out, the Indy Star reports the bill would allow small businesses to withhold services from same-sex customers.

So this law will give special rights to people who say that their religion allows them to discriminate against LGBT people. This I believe is a direct violation of the First Amendment and the Fourteenth Amendment. The Fourteenth Amendment because it is not treating everyone equally, the bill says you can discriminate LGBT people but not against any other protected class.

Meanwhile in Rhode Island the courts are having none of this “religious freedom” special treatment,

Firefighters Don't Have Case After Pride Parade
Courthouse News Service
By Marimer Matos
Published: December 29, 2014

PROVIDENCE, R.I. (CN) - The Rhode Island Supreme Court ruled against a pair of Catholic firefighters who were forced to man the truck in a Pride Parade.
[…]
 Though the men complained to their chief that they were uncomfortable, as Catholics, with the assignment, they were denied relief and reluctantly joined the crew in the parade.

The judges said.

    "The respondents' participation in the parade as public servants carrying out a legitimate work assignment was not a deprivation of their constitutional rights," Justice William Robinson wrote for the court.
[…]
     No pertinent legal authority exists to support "the proposition that, in such specific circumstances, employees' rights are violated if they happen to possess religious objections to the beliefs of the group with which an otherwise legitimate work assignment requires brief interaction," according to the ruling.

     "The respondents' appearance in the parade, solely as members of the Providence Fire Department, did not constitute a form of expression on their part," Robinson wrote. "Rather, it was simply the accomplishing of a task assigned to an engine company of the Providence Fire Department, and the individuals chosen to carry out that assignment cannot be said to have engaged in personal speech by carrying out their work as public servants."

Notice that the judges called it a “legitimate work assignment” to exempt someone from a job everyone else has to do is special treatment.