Carter 1

Nicholas Carter

Dr. Michael Fagge

THL 225

March 8

WASHINGTON — Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer may have ended the latest controversy in her state

by vetoing a "religious freedom" bill that threatened gay men and lesbians, but the nation's

legislatures and courts are just getting started.

While religious liberty remains a "core value" in Arizona, Brewer said Wednesday, "so is non-

discrimination." And therein lies the balancing act that's at the root of several other disputes.

Can the Obama administration force for-profit businesses to provide health insurance for their

employees that includes forms of contraception the owners equate with abortion? That case

comes to the Supreme Court next month.

Can a New Mexico photographer, an Oregon bakery and a Washington state florist refuse to

provide services to same-sex weddings? Those questions are pending before courts and could

soon go to voters as well.

Can several states from Mississippi in the South to Utah in the West enact laws similar to the one

Brewer vetoed in Arizona, setting up potential conflicts between religious liberty and other

freedoms?

The answer isn't simple. Congress and the states often carve out exceptions for religious beliefs.

The Supreme Court has consistently made room for religious exercise. And unlike race and

gender, sexual orientation is not a protected class — yet.

 Carter 2

However, for a religious liberty bill such as Arizona's to pass the smell test, it must show a

compelling interest on the part of those who want to flex their religious muscles, and it must not

impose undue costs or burdens on others. That is where many such efforts collapse.

"We ought to accommodate religion when we can," says Frederick Gedicks, an expert on law

and religion at Brigham Young University Law School. "That is, when it doesn't impose

significant costs on others."

If photographers, bakers and florists refused to serve gay men and lesbians, could they get the

services easily elsewhere? Even if they could, would they be embarrassed or insulted by the

slight?

The first question is paramount in the Supreme Court challenge by for-profit businesses to the

so-called "contraception mandate" in the health care law. The companies argue that female

employees can get birth control easily on their own, without their employers' assistance.

The second question was addressed by Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy in last year's

opinion striking down a key section of the Defense of Marriage Act, which denied federal

benefits to legally married same-sex couples. Kennedy said the purpose and effect of the law was

"to impose a disadvantage, a separate status, and so a stigma" on those couples.

Beyond assessing the burden on consumers or employees, the other relevant question in most

cases is: What's the compelling interest?

In the case of Arizona's businesses, Brewer said, there wasn't one. The bill "does not seek to

address a specific and present concern related to Arizona businesses," she said.
 Carter 3

There are times when laws can carve out exceptions or exemptions for religious beliefs —

carefully. "There are slippery slope problems here, but I think there are handrails on that slope,"

Gedicks said.

It's quite possible that the New Mexico photographer cannot avoid serving gay men and lesbians,

as the state Supreme Court ruled, but that the U.S. Supreme Court will permit an Oklahoma-

based arts-and-crafts company and a Pennsylvania woodworker to deny some contraception

coverage to their employees.

That's because in the latter case, it's the government compelling family-owned corporations to do

something against their owners' religious beliefs, says Anthony Caso, a law professor at

Chapman University in California who has submitted a brief supporting Hobby Lobby and

Conestoga Wood Specialties.

But Sally Steenland, director of the faith and progressive policy initiative at the liberal Center for

American Progress, said religious beliefs can't overcome the Constitution's guarantee of equal

protection.

"What ends up happening is that religious beliefs trump the Constitution, and people can pick

and choose the laws they want to obey," she said. "It enshrines discrimination as a religious

belief."

2014
 Carter 4

Works Cited

Boston, Rob. "The Bishops, Obama And Religious Freedom: The Catholic Hierarchy's Bold

New Church-State Lobbying Blitz -- And How It Might Affect Your Civil Rights."

Church & State 65.2 (2012): 30-33. ATLA Religion Database. Web. 2 Mar. 2014.

Carson, Thomas. New Catholic Encyclopedia. Detroit: Thomson/Gale, 2003. Print.

Conn, Joseph L. "Deception In North Dakota: 'Religious Liberty' Amendment On June Ballot

Would Jeopardize Rights Of Women, Tax-Payers And Minorities, Critics Say." Church

& State 65.3 (2012): 58-59. ATLA Religion Database. Web. 3 Mar. 2014.

Ivory, Elenora Giddings. "Compelling State Interest : What Happens When "Equal Protection"

And "Free Exercise Of Religion" Collide?." Church & Society 90.2 (1999): 96-99.

ATLASerials, Religion Collection. Web. 3 Mar. 2014.

Sweet, William. "Models Of Religious Freedom." Science Et Esprit 64.2 (2012): 157-177.

ATLASerials, Religion Collection. Web. 3 Mar. 2014.

Vorster, J M. "The Rights Of Minorities In A Constitutional State." Ecumenical Review 52.4

(2000): 490-502. ATLASerials, Religion Collection. Web. 3 Mar. 2014.

Wolf, Richard. "Religious Liberty vs. Civil Rights: A Balancing Act." USA Today. Gannett, 28

Feb. 2014. Web. 02 Mar. 2014.

<http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/02/27/arizona-religion-gays-lesbians-

supreme-court/5872879/>.

Wood, James E, Jr. "Religious Human Rights And A Democratic State." Journal Of Church And

State 46.4 (2004): 739-765. ATLASerials, Religion Collection. Web. 5 Mar. 2014.
Carter 5