11.3 Intersection of religious liberty and anti-discrimination laws

Religious liberty and anti-discrimination laws are at odds in recent Supreme Court cases. The Court grapples with balancing First Amendment protections for religious expression against civil rights laws prohibiting discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity.

Key conflicts arise in public accommodations, employment, and healthcare. The Court's rulings, like in Masterpiece Cakeshop, have been narrow, leaving broader questions unresolved. Future cases will likely continue to weigh religious freedom against non-discrimination interests.

Religious Liberty and Anti-Discrimination Laws

Religious freedom vs LGBTQ+ rights

• First Amendment protections safeguard religious expression and prevent government establishment of religion
  • Free Exercise Clause guarantees right to practice religion without government interference
  • Establishment Clause prohibits government from favoring or endorsing specific religions
• Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination in employment, public accommodations, and other areas
  • Title VII bans discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, and national origin
• State and local laws expand protections to include sexual orientation and gender identity (SOGI)
• Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) heightens scrutiny for laws burdening religious practice
  • Substantial burden test evaluates impact on religious exercise
  • Compelling government interest required to justify burden
• Conflict areas emerge in public accommodations (businesses), employment practices, housing policies, healthcare services
• Legal theories invoked include expressive conduct (artistic expression), freedom of association (organizational membership), compelled speech (forced endorsement)

Supreme Court's balancing approach

• Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission (2018) highlighted tensions
  • Baker refused to create wedding cake for same-sex couple
  • Majority found state commission showed hostility to baker's religion
  • Concurrences emphasized narrow scope of ruling
  • Dissent argued for stronger non-discrimination protections
• Narrow ruling focused on procedural fairness rather than broader constitutional questions
• Court stressed importance of neutrality in applying laws to religious and secular beliefs
• Acknowledged sincerity of religious convictions while recognizing potential dignitary harm to LGBTQ+ individuals
• Left unresolved questions about extent of religious exemptions from anti-discrimination laws
• Subsequent cases further explored boundaries (Fulton v. Philadelphia, 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis)

Religious exemptions vs non-discrimination protections

• Arguments for religious exemptions emphasize fundamental nature of religious liberty
  • Preventing government coercion in matters of faith
  • Preserving diversity of beliefs and practices in pluralistic society
  • Respecting individual conscience and moral convictions
• Arguments for non-discrimination protections focus on equality and societal impact
  • Ensuring equal treatment under law for all citizens
  • Preventing stigma and psychological harm from discrimination
  • Promoting economic participation and opportunity
  • Maintaining consistency in civil rights enforcement
• Legal standards applied vary in scrutiny level (strict, intermediate, rational basis)
• Proposed compromises include narrow exemptions for religious organizations, alternative service provider requirements, mediation processes

Impact of decisions on future cases

• Precedents shape interpretation of religious liberty and anti-discrimination laws
• Scope of exemptions may expand or contract across industries and contexts
• State Religious Freedom Restoration Acts interpreted in light of federal rulings
• Legislative responses include proposed federal Equality Act and state-level religious freedom laws
• Judicial philosophy shifts influence constitutional interpretation (textualism vs. living constitutionalism)
• Rulings potentially impact protections for other groups (race, gender, national origin)
• International approaches to similar conflicts inform domestic debates
• Public opinion and social attitudes shape legal and political landscape
• Future cases likely to employ careful balancing tests
  • Weighing religious liberty against non-discrimination interests
  • Considering potential harms to third parties from exemptions