It should also be noted that none of the laws discussed so far in this thread were challenged on Establishment Clause grounds. Same-sex marriage was a Fourteenth Amendment equality issue, that invited a bunch of nice-sounding but legally irrelevant rambling about a “right to love” in the majority opinion, and the birth control question is about an imposition on the free exercise of people with a religious opposition to birth control.
And the phrase doesn’t come from the Constitution.
I think you’ve gotten a bit confused, my friend.
It’s not me who’s made statements about what the consensus of legal scholars is; it’s you who did that. In post #5, you wrote, “I’m pretty sure most legal scholars think it means no person can have an influence on legal matters by appealing to their religious beliefs”. We are still waiting for you to provide your first citation to any legal scholar who actually says what you claim most legal scholars think.
Everson v. Board of Education
Supreme Court 1947
Matter concerning tax being used to pay for busing to religious schools
The Justices were split over the question whether the New Jersey policy constituted support of religion, with the majority concluding these reimbursements were “separate and so indisputably marked off from the religious function” that they did not violate the constitution.[6] However both affirming and dissenting Justices were decisive that the Constitution required a sharp separation between government and religion and their strongly worded opinions paved the way to a series of later court decisions that taken together brought about profound changes in legislation, public education, and other policies involving matters of religion.[4] Both Justice Hugo Black’s majority opinion and Justice Wiley Rutledge’s dissenting opinion defined the First Amendment religious clause in terms of a “wall of separation between church and state”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Everson_v._Board_of_Education
If you prefer a legal website:
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/330/1
To ignore the conversation so far, I think the problem here is that for government workers refusing to issue SSM licenses because of sincere religious beliefs, church and state are housed in one brain. The worker is acting as an agent of the state, but also feels he must act as an agent of the church, and these drivers are contradictory.
There are really only two solutions. One is to acknowledge the difference, and be willing to act purely as an agent of the state. The other is to withdraw from the conflict, either by leaving the church or, more likely, leaving the state.
Employees in private industry asked to do something they find distasteful can either try to get the request quashed, which is not going to happen here, or leave. The cases which force an employer to respect religious beliefs are examples of the former approach.
This is 2015. I have sympathy for people who are forced into various situations where they have to act against their conscience. Let’s say you are a social worker and you have to return a child from a foster home where the child is doing well back to the original parents, whom, you are quite sure, from decades of experience, will not be good for the child. But the court says you have too and you do it, going against your conscience and registering your protest. (That is the first example I could think of)
But, in 2015, to say that god/the bible says homosexuality is wrong, when you’ve never met or talked to god/jesus… I have no patience for such outdated thinking.
At risk of stating the obvious, neither Justice Hugo Black’s majority opinion nor Justice Wiley Rutledge’s dissenting opinion say that “no person can have an influence on legal matters by appealing to their religious beliefs”. Indeed, Justice Hugo Black’s majority opinion is clearly defending religious liberty: “New Jersey cannot hamper its citizens in the free exercise of their own religion… No person can be punished for entertaining or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs…[the Constitution] has secured religious liberty from the invasion of the civil authority.”
So if faced with a question such as whether the owners of a chain of craft stores should be free to purchase insurance policies based on their religious beliefs, Justice Hugo Black would clearly believe they should, and would be in agreement with 225 years of settled law. By referencing this case, you would appear to have proved yourself wrong.
Both Justice Hugo Black’s majority opinion and Justice Wiley Rutledge’s dissenting opinion defined the First Amendment religious clause in terms of a “wall of separation between church and state”
Underage drinking as part of a religious ceremony is legal:
http://www.clermontsheriff.org/UnderAgeAlcoholFAQ.aspx
Your statement that “we do not have the right to practice our beliefs” is false. For example, Gregory Holt recently received the right to grow a beard due to his religious beliefs:
Why yes, they did. So what?
What determines the law in this country, the Constitution or your personal emotions?
Concept A: My individual religious beliefs allow me to wear type of clothing or practice type of custom that effect no one but myself, due to separation of church and state, the state can not dictate that I am not allowed to do … as long as no one else is effected.
Concept B: I believe in religious custom [Y] which would lead to discrimination against other people, and due to separation of church and state, the state has dictated that I am not allowed to discriminate according to religious doctrine [Y].
Both are established under a wall of separation of church and state
So what? You asked for the legal authority to establish the separation of church and state. My opinion on the uselessness of using god as an authority figure is just that, an opinion, but until god comes down and tells me otherwise… it’s an opinion I’m going to stick with.
Seperation of church and state is IMPLIED by the 1st amendment.
The government being forbidden to interfere with free exercise of religion is stated directly.
And I’m sure in 1789 lots and lots of people would of agreed with you.
It doesn’t matter when a law is passed, it’s valid until repealed. Freedom of religion isn’t just the law of the land because of the 1st amendment, but also due to the Religious Freedom Act passed into law in the 90s.
This idea of religious freedom not existing is a fairly new one, at least in terms of one of the major political parties getting behind the idea.
A wall of separation between church and state was established in 1947. I’d not call that new. If the SCOTUS is still interpreting that, via Hobby Lobby or similar cases, fine, that’s up to them it’s not up to me… but I will say that if you have a “wall of separation between church and state” then decisions like Hobby Lobby don’t make any sense to me.
Are you disputing that we have “wall of separation between church and state”?
I agree that Concept A would be an example of religion and state remaining separate.
Concept B would be the exact opposite, to state the obvious once again. For instance, many religious groups such as Orthodox Jews, Roman Catholics, and all major Muslim groups will not hire women for some leadership posts. The Constitution protects their right to do so. If the government forced the hiring of female rabbis, priests, imams, and so forth, that would obviously be state invasion of church business. The Supreme Court recently reaffirmed that your way of thinking is wrong in Hosanna Tabor vs. EEOC.
The Constitution protects religious freedom. It does not say that religious freedom doesn’t apply to religious practices that affect other people.
Not at all. But that wall means government can’t interfere with religious practice, nor promote it, absent a compelling interest.
It’s interesting that someone brought up female circumcision. Can the government ban male circumcision? This is where compelling interest comes in. Male circumcision does not severely impact sexual function. Female circumcision does. The government has a compelling interest in protecting females from cirumcision. The government does not have a compelling interest in preventing male circumcision. It would have a compelling interest in protecting males from castration for religious reasons.
A wall keeps both parties from interfering with the other. A wall that allows the government to bust through and stop religious practice whenever it wants is not really a wall. It’s a door that opens from only one direction.
That would actually make for an interesting legal debate. I think what they are doing is discrimination and should not be protected. I predict this will be overturned at some point. If you tell me that currently it is legal I will take your word for it.
Well, apparently, in 1947 the SCOTUS decided to interpret the constitution differently than you do. They are supposed to be the experts. A WALL OF SEPARATION is about as explicit as I think it can get.
Why would you expect “separation of church and state” to apply to a decision involving Hobby Lobby? Hobby Lobby is not a church.