# Religious liberty of public employee vs. same-sex marriage rights. How to reconcile? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [June 30, 2015, 4:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/religious-liberty-of-public-employee-vs-same-sex-marriage-rights-how-to-reconcile/723876 "2015-06-30T16:35:24Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 27
**Author:** ![Iggy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iggy/32/3364_2.png) [@Iggy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Iggy)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2015, 4:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/religious-liberty-of-public-employee-vs-same-sex-marriage-rights-how-to-reconcile/723876/521 "2015-07-14T16:32:28Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > You haven’t “dealt” with it at all-the white supremacist case involved discrimination against an employee for his religious beliefs. Let’s try this one more time: > _Have there been cases where the court has ruled that a person may discriminate on the job because the discrimination is of a religious nature?_ Not discrimination _against_ a religious person because of their religious practice-discrimination _from_ a religious person towards a customer based on their religious beliefs. > Got it? As I said, the exact issue (employee discriminating against a customer who is not a member of a federally protected suspect class with the employee claiming religious exemption) will likely be a case of first impression. But a rather well known case, [Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burwell_v._Hobby_Lobby_Stores,_Inc.) the court ruled that [the employers get to discriminate](http://mediamatters.org/blog/2014/06/30/supreme-court-embraces-discrimination-against-w/199935) against female employees and not provide them legally mandated insurance that covers certain birth control due to the employer’s sincerely held religious belief. There are cases distinguished by the aggrieved party being a member of a class specifically protected from discrimination under federal law. See [Newman v. Piggie Park Enterprises, Inc.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newman_v._Piggie_Park_Enterprises,_Inc.) Ginsburg made note of those in her dissent in Hobby Lobby. And indeed on racial grounds such discrimination was not permitted based upon a religious objection. [SCOTUSblog has an analysis](http://www.scotusblog.com/2014/06/analysis-hobby-lobby-and-claims-for-religious-exemptions-from-anti-discrimination-laws/) of the Hobby Lobby decision in which they examine how that ruling may affect other types of discrimination cases. > [@SCOTUSblog analysis](#): > > One might be forgiven for assuming that the same is true of the other forms of discrimination mentioned by the dissent. But that assumption is surely open to debate. That is because the Court has, in other contexts, distinguished between racial discrimination, on the one hand, and sex and disability discrimination, on the other. For example, under the Equal Protection Clause, the Court applies strict scrutiny – the same test it applied in Hobby Lobby today – to laws that discriminate on the basis of race, but only “intermediate” scrutiny to sex discrimination, and only “rational basis” scrutiny to disability discrimination (and, up to this point, discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation). > > Does that mean that the government may only have the “compelling” interest required by RFRA in proscribing racial discrimination, but not sex, disability, or sexual orientation discrimination? As far as I know, **the Court has never decided that question in the RFRA context or any other.** \*\*bolding \*\*my emphasis The Court has not decided a case precisely on point with the circumstances of the current issue with court clerks. Different levels of scrutiny apply depending upon the class of persons discriminated against, so it is not clear that history of religiously based racial discrimination not being accommodated is a marker for the current case where sexual orientation is at issue. ---
**Author:** ![Iggy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iggy/32/3364_2.png) [@Iggy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Iggy)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2015, 4:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/religious-liberty-of-public-employee-vs-same-sex-marriage-rights-how-to-reconcile/723876/522 "2015-07-14T16:42:24Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > I’d never argue that no true Christian or whatever wouldn’t believe something hateful and stupid. > > So, you agree that the postal clerk should be able to refuse the invitations? > Even religious freedom has boundaries when others are affected. (Such as children being treated.) And I think it is okay to check if the religious beliefs are truly sincerely held and not just a cover for something else. Courts may delve into whether a religious beliefs is sincerely held. They are just really don’t want to do so. As the high court wrote in [Hobby Lobby](http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/13-354_olp1.pdf) (pdf link) > [@](#): > > “Repeatedly and in many different contexts, we have warned that courts must not presume to determine . . . the plausibility of a religious claim” As to a postal clerk… is there an accommodation available that would allow him to selectively object AND which would not be an undue burden on the employer? To selectively object might require opening and individually examining the mails, definitely an undue burden. And for that reason no accommodation need be granted. ---
**Author:** ![Iggy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iggy/32/3364_2.png) [@Iggy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Iggy)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2015, 4:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/religious-liberty-of-public-employee-vs-same-sex-marriage-rights-how-to-reconcile/723876/523 "2015-07-14T16:53:50Z")
> [@Miller](#): > > This white supremacist case you’ve mentioned a few times. Was the guy demoted because he was caught acting in a discriminatory manner, and successfully sued on the grounds that he was acting in accord with his religion? Or was he demoted purely on the basis of his membership in the church, and successfully sued because his employer could not demonstrate that he was putting his racist beliefs into action at his job? Because if it’s the second situation, I don’t think that has any relevance to this discussion. The employee was interviewed for a news piece. The interview was conducted during his off duty time. He was subsequently identified by name and photo as being involved in the World Church of the Creator, a religion espousing white supremacy. The news piece was published on a Sunday. Upon reporting to work on Monday the employee was immediately summoned into a meeting where he was demoted. The employer stated a lack of confidence in his ability to fairly supervise his subordinates, three of whom were minorities. The employee did not have any allegations of racially based misconduct on his disciplinary record, though he had been disciplined once, several months prior, for mis-keying some data. Apparently there was no record of him acting on his beliefs. The employee challenged his demotion and won. So it is more like your second example. Still, I brought up that case as there seems to be some who call for the dismissal of a clerk who holds such beliefs. In fact, what the law requires is an accommodation of his beliefs. He can believe whatever he wants. And if an accommodation can be made which allows for his acting on his beliefs then it must IF the accommodation is not an undue burden to the employer. ---
**Author:** ![wonky](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wonky/32/393_2.png) [@wonky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wonky)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2015, 4:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/religious-liberty-of-public-employee-vs-same-sex-marriage-rights-how-to-reconcile/723876/524 "2015-07-14T16:59:06Z")
> [@Iggy](#): > > Still, I brought up that case as there seems to be some who call for the dismissal of a clerk who holds such beliefs. Cite? ---
**Author:** ![Iggy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iggy/32/3364_2.png) [@Iggy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Iggy)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2015, 5:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/religious-liberty-of-public-employee-vs-same-sex-marriage-rights-how-to-reconcile/723876/525 "2015-07-14T17:30:14Z")
> [@jsgoddess](#): > > Cite? Seriously! [Cite](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=18480702&postcount=6) > [@BobLibDem](#): > > We say that when you sign on to work for the government you leave your personal beliefs at the door. Leave your beliefs at the door? Really? [Cite](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=18481337&postcount=48) > [@howye](#): > > … If you have sincerely held religious belief that prevents you from carrying out all of your duties as a public employee, you must be terminated and not later, not tomorrow, today and right now. If you have the belief you must be terminated!? No discussion of accommodation? Going beyond a beliefs-only argument there were many posts in this thread that espoused that no accommodation be made and that a refusal to issue would be sufficient to dismiss a clerk. Read the first five pages or so. The Constitution guarantees your right to religious belief and practice. The Civil Rights Act demands accommodation of religious practice where it is not an undue burden on the employer. Period. ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2015, 5:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/religious-liberty-of-public-employee-vs-same-sex-marriage-rights-how-to-reconcile/723876/526 "2015-07-14T17:31:44Z")
> [@Iggy](#): > > The employee was interviewed for a news piece. The interview was conducted during his off duty time. He was subsequently identified by name and photo as being involved in the World Church of the Creator, a religion espousing white supremacy. > > The news piece was published on a Sunday. Upon reporting to work on Monday the employee was immediately summoned into a meeting where he was demoted. The employer stated a lack of confidence in his ability to fairly supervise his subordinates, three of whom were minorities. > > The employee did not have any allegations of racially based misconduct on his disciplinary record, though he had been disciplined once, several months prior, for mis-keying some data. Apparently there was no record of him acting on his beliefs. > > The employee challenged his demotion and won. > > So it is more like your second example. In other words, entirely unrelated to the discussion at hand. Thanks, that’s what I figured. ---
**Author:** ![GrumpyBunny](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/bc8723/32.png) [@GrumpyBunny](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GrumpyBunny)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2015, 5:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/religious-liberty-of-public-employee-vs-same-sex-marriage-rights-how-to-reconcile/723876/527 "2015-07-14T17:32:30Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > Perhaps it would be helpful if someone posted a list of “Bigot Friendly” job positions on the office bulletin boards? Ouch. Thanks, I almost snorted ham sandwich up my nose. ---
**Author:** ![wonky](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wonky/32/393_2.png) [@wonky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wonky)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2015, 5:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/religious-liberty-of-public-employee-vs-same-sex-marriage-rights-how-to-reconcile/723876/528 "2015-07-14T17:42:34Z")
> [@Iggy](#): > > If you have the belief you must be terminated!? No discussion of accommodation? That’s an embarrassingly bad reading of that person’s words. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2015, 5:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/religious-liberty-of-public-employee-vs-same-sex-marriage-rights-how-to-reconcile/723876/529 "2015-07-14T17:43:07Z")
> [@GrumpyBunny](#): > > Ouch. Thanks, I almost snorted ham sandwich up my nose. Seriously, though-It has been proposed more than once that we can skirt the law by just transferring the religiously bigoted to other jobs where they won’t have to interact with the public as much. Let’s say people with “that” problem are regularly transferred from whatever job they currently hold to the less publically exposed “Department H”(for example). If you already work in “Department H”, how are you going to feel about your department becoming a dumping ground for religious bigots? ---
**Author:** ![GrumpyBunny](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/bc8723/32.png) [@GrumpyBunny](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GrumpyBunny)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2015, 6:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/religious-liberty-of-public-employee-vs-same-sex-marriage-rights-how-to-reconcile/723876/530 "2015-07-14T18:07:37Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > Seriously, though-It has been proposed more than once that we can skirt the law by just transferring the religiously bigoted to other jobs where they won’t have to interact with the public as much. Let’s say people with “that” problem are regularly transferred from whatever job they currently hold to the less publically exposed “Department H”(for example). If you already work in “Department H”, how are you going to feel about your department becoming a dumping ground for religious bigots? Unfortunately (or fortunately, for the bigots, I suppose), within the public sector a remedy for refusal to perform a required official action on the basis of religious belief is to find another job. ---
**Author:** ![Iggy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iggy/32/3364_2.png) [@Iggy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Iggy)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2015, 8:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/religious-liberty-of-public-employee-vs-same-sex-marriage-rights-how-to-reconcile/723876/531 "2015-07-14T20:04:06Z")
> [@Miller](#): > > In other words, entirely unrelated to the discussion at hand. > > Thanks, that’s what I figured. Relevant to the thread to the extent that finding another’s religious beliefs to be distasteful, bigoted, hateful, or illogical is not sufficient cause to deny that person a religious accommodation. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2015, 8:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/religious-liberty-of-public-employee-vs-same-sex-marriage-rights-how-to-reconcile/723876/532 "2015-07-14T20:11:04Z")
> [@Iggy](#): > > Relevant to the thread to the extent that finding another’s religious beliefs to be distasteful, bigoted, hateful, or illogical is not sufficient cause to deny that person a religious accommodation. Then it’s not relevant. ---
**Author:** ![boytyperanma](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/4491bb/32.png) [@boytyperanma](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/boytyperanma)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2015, 8:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/religious-liberty-of-public-employee-vs-same-sex-marriage-rights-how-to-reconcile/723876/533 "2015-07-14T20:13:13Z")
> [@Iggy](#): > > Relevant to the thread to the extent that finding another’s religious beliefs to be distasteful, bigoted, hateful, or illogical is not sufficient cause to deny that person a religious accommodation. You were asked for a cite and have not provided one. No one is saying someone can’t have bigoted beliefs and hold a job. The argument being made is if your bigoted beliefs prevent you from doing your job you should be fired. Come back with better cites. ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2015, 8:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/religious-liberty-of-public-employee-vs-same-sex-marriage-rights-how-to-reconcile/723876/534 "2015-07-14T20:34:05Z")
> [@Ibn\_Warraq](#): > > . . . For example who is the idiot who told you that employers could forbid Jews from wearing Yarmulkas air Muslim employees Kufi caps with no legal ramifications? . . . **Robert163** never said that. You said it, in post 498. You’re lambasting him for something you said. ---
**Author:** ![Iggy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iggy/32/3364_2.png) [@Iggy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Iggy)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2015, 9:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/religious-liberty-of-public-employee-vs-same-sex-marriage-rights-how-to-reconcile/723876/535 "2015-07-14T21:49:56Z")
> [@boytyperanma](#): > > You were asked for a cite and have not provided one. No one is saying someone can’t have bigoted beliefs and hold a job. The argument being made is if your bigoted beliefs prevent you from doing your job you should be fired. > > Come back with better cites. I’ve provided tons of cites for things that do exist. You are asking for a cite for a case that has not yet been heard. I should turn the tables and ask for a cite that you can fire someone just for holding bigoted religious beliefs and acting on them when an [accommodation](http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/wysk/workplace_religious_accommodation.cfm) would have prevented the whole issue altogether. Or does the law, perhaps as I have pointed out repeatedly, [protect sincerely held religious beliefs](http://www.eeoc.gov/laws/types/religion.cfm) and [require accommodations](http://www.eeoc.gov/policy/docs/qanda_religion.html) with regards to [such actions](http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/release/6-1-15.cfm) unless it would be an undue burden on the employer? My cite is the [Civil Rights Law of 1964](http://www.eeoc.gov/laws/statutes/titlevii.cfm) and a pile of [cases from the EEOC](http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/litigation/selected/religious_discrimination_facts.cfm). Employees routinely won cases where they did not show up to work (Sabbath or other religious day of observance) or refused to perform specific tasks (raising the US flag) due to religious beliefs. So yes, sometimes religious actions win out. And I provided a [pretty good cite](http://www.scotusblog.com/2014/06/analysis-hobby-lobby-and-claims-for-religious-exemptions-from-anti-discrimination-laws/) that the clerk’s religious accommodation case is an unsettled area of law as no case precisely on point has been heard. I’ve [repeatedly said](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=18516415&postcount=521) [this is a case of first impression](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=18514719&postcount=489) and this will be up to the courts to decide where the dividing line will fall when religious practices crash against discrimination law. I said repeatedly [not all religious accommodation requests](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=18516451&postcount=522) [must be granted.](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=18516492&postcount=523) and that accommodations which are an [undue burden](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=18516613&postcount=525) need not be granted. But you would be a fool as an employer not to at least look at what is requested. There have been cases at the state level where the religious accommodation did not win out (wedding cakes and photographers) but those were based upon state non-discrimination law. There have been cases where the aggrieved party was a member of a protected class under federal law. Sexual orientation is not such a protected class. The simple reality is that, as far as experts in the field can find, there are no cases precisely on point\*. Come back with a better argument. Show me a federal case where a 1)religious accommodation was refused and the religious belief was sincere and 3) the employer won despite the accommodation not being an undue burden and 4) the aggrieved party was not a member of a protected class at the federal level. - As far as I (I am not a lawyer) can tell, the issues that would make a case precisely on point related to a [strict scrutiny](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strict_scrutiny) analysis which is the standard required by the [RFRA](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_Freedom_Restoration_Act)for religious discrimination cases. Such an on point case would be [ol] [li]a federal case where an employee pleaded for a religious accommodation of a religious practice related to a sincerely held belief[/li][li]that religious practice resulted in discrimination against a person, but not discrimination as it relates to membership in a federally identified protected [suspect class](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suspect_classification)[/li][li] the government’s goal was inspired by a [compelling government interest](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_interest)[/ol][/li]In such a case the government would have to show that its proposed solution is [narrowly tailored](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narrow_tailoring) to address its compelling government interest and that its solution is the least restrictive means of doing so. ---
**Author:** ![DrFidelius](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/drfidelius/32/3447_2.png) [@DrFidelius](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrFidelius)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2015, 10:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/religious-liberty-of-public-employee-vs-same-sex-marriage-rights-how-to-reconcile/723876/536 "2015-07-14T22:20:55Z")
Jesus wept. Just because the discrimination might be technically legal does not mean it is right. . ---
**Author:** ![msmith537](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/d9b06d/32.png) [@msmith537](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/msmith537)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2015, 10:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/religious-liberty-of-public-employee-vs-same-sex-marriage-rights-how-to-reconcile/723876/537 "2015-07-14T22:22:39Z")
> [@Iggy](#): > > I should turn the tables and ask for a cite that you can fire someone just for holding bigoted religious beliefs and acting on them when an accommodation would have prevented the whole issue altogether. “Bigotry” is not a protected class nor is it something that needs to be legally accommodated. Really, there seems to be a lot of confusion about FRFA and religious rights here. The law is intended to serve as an exception for cases when a neutrally applied law has the unintended side effect of restricting your religion practices. Let’s say a “no hats indoors” law prevented you from wearing a Yarmulke. The law is not there to empower bigotry because a person feels a certain class of people are an affront to their religious beliefs. Which I call bullshit on anyway. There’s a ton of shit the Bible says do or don’t do that I don’t see people getting worked up over. Trying to frame the argument as one of “religious freedom” is a disingenuous attempt to legitimize bigotry by hiding behind a semantic nuance of the law. ---
**Author:** ![wonky](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wonky/32/393_2.png) [@wonky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wonky)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2015, 10:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/religious-liberty-of-public-employee-vs-same-sex-marriage-rights-how-to-reconcile/723876/538 "2015-07-14T22:24:14Z")
> [@Iggy](#): > > I’ve provided tons of cites for things that do exist. You didn’t provide the cite I asked for. ---
**Author:** ![Ibn\_Warraq](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/e19b73/32.png) [@Ibn\_Warraq](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ibn_Warraq)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2015, 1:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/religious-liberty-of-public-employee-vs-same-sex-marriage-rights-how-to-reconcile/723876/539 "2015-07-15T01:44:35Z")
> [@Trinopus](#): > > **Robert163** never said that. You said it, in post 498. You’re lambasting him for something you said. Yes, Robert claimed. > [@](#): > > **Robert163** > Religious thought or religious texts should have no bearing on legal matters. I pointed out this was false. There are plenty of times where religious texts do have bearing on legal matters. I sarcastically said > [@](#): > > **Me** > Really, suggest to some business owners that they forbid Jewish employees from wearing Yarmulkas and see what happens to them. The obvious point being that employers can force employees to not wear say Yankees baseball caps or T-shirts professing their love for Star Trek, the Chicago Bears, or the Grateful Dead but they can’t forbid them from wearing Yarmulkas. For that matter, you can’t just declare yourself a member of “the Church of Babe Ruth” and declare that if they’re going to let Jews wear a Kippa they have to let you wear a Yankees hat. Why? because in fact religious beliefs and what religious texts actually say does matter in some legal matters. If Robert’s claim had been true than employer could forbid the wearing of Yarmulkas but his claim was false so they can’t. ---
**Author:** ![Ibn\_Warraq](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/e19b73/32.png) [@Ibn\_Warraq](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ibn_Warraq)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2015, 1:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/religious-liberty-of-public-employee-vs-same-sex-marriage-rights-how-to-reconcile/723876/540 "2015-07-15T01:49:07Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > _Nobody is talking about headgear! This isn’t about headgear! Forget about the fucking headgear!_ The topic is whether a religious person may use their religion as an excuse to actively discriminate against a customer while on the job. Whether they do it in a turban, a Yarmulka, a bowler hat or a fez doesn’t matter. Debates evolve. Robert claimed that religious beliefs and texts didn’t matter or have any standing in American law. He was wrong, there are a number of ways in which religious beliefs matter more than secular beliefs in American law. Bringing up the way employers are prohibited from banning religious headgear while allowing other forms of headgear is a pretty good comparison. If you’d prefer I’ll point out that pizzerias can refuse to deliver to say car dealerships if the store owner has an animus towards car salesmen, but can’t refuse to deliver to a Mosque or Synagogue. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/religious-liberty-of-public-employee-vs-same-sex-marriage-rights-how-to-reconcile/723876.md?page=26) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/religious-liberty-of-public-employee-vs-same-sex-marriage-rights-how-to-reconcile/723876.md?page=28)