Message
eye on the times
Person standing in front of large clock in clock tower
How to Protect Your Religious Rights, and the Rights of Others
By Orlan Johnson

If you are an adherent, what should you do in situations where you think your First Amendment rights are being violated?

There are many individuals and institutions that believe that if their religious beliefs create an inconvenience for others, they do not have rights that should be protected. The free exercise clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution allows that one should receive an accommodation for religious observance assuming it does not create an undue hardship on any other party. Any organization denying such accommodations would cause irreparable harm to an individual and therefore would be potentially liable for violation of the First Amendment.

If you are an organization, what analysis do you need to conduct when faced with someone who is claiming your practices are infringing upon their religious freedoms?

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits employment discrimination based on religion. This includes refusing to accommodate an employee’s sincerely held religious beliefs or practices unless the accommodation would impose an undue hardship (more than a minimal burden on operation of the business). A religious practice may be sincerely held by an individual even if newly adopted, not consistently observed, or different from the commonly followed tenets of the individual’s religion. Therefore, once an organization becomes aware that an employee or participant to the organization desires a religious exemption, the organization is required to respond and reasonably grant an accommodation.

If you are an individual (or run your own private business) how should you respond to a perceived conflict between what you believe and in contrast to what an employee or company participant may believe?

The Supreme Court in 2014 issued an opinion for the 5-4 majority and held that Congress intended for The Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (RFRA) to be read as applying to corporations since they are composed of individuals who use them to achieve desired ends. The Supreme Court held that the private business Hobby Lobby was granted an exemption from a regulation in the Affordable Care Act that required employers to provide certain kinds of preventive care for its women employees. Hobby Lobby objected to providing health insurance coverage to its female employees for four FDA-approved contraceptives that the plaintiffs believed prevented implantation of a fertilized egg. The Court held that the company did not need to provide such health coverage because it violated the sincere religious beliefs of the owners of the company. This was a very controversial decision but is the current law of the land as it relates to privately-owned companies.

However, in 2018 the Supreme Court ruled on a case that dealt with whether owners of public accommodations can refuse certain services based on their First Amendment claims of free speech and free exercise of religion. They claimed exemption from laws ensuring non-discrimination in public accommodations. In particular, the company refused to provide creative services, such as making a custom wedding cake for the marriage of a gay couple, on the basis of the owner’s religious beliefs.

The Court didn’t rule on the specific issues related to upholding one’s religious beliefs, although several dissents urged that it should have. Instead, the Court ruled that when the prior court ruled for the plaintiff, that court did so with a tone of hostility towards the defendant’s religious belief. The justices ruled (7-2) that the hostility toward religious beliefs in these types of cases is unacceptable.

Orlan Johnson directs public affairs and religious liberty policy for the Adventist Church in North America.
Back to Issue