Religious Freedom

Religious exemption to public accommodation laws rejected by Supreme Court while those laws cannot be administered in a way that demonstrates hostility to religion or that unfairly discriminates among religious beliefs

/ Antidiscrimination Law, Consumer Protection, Free Speech, Legal Theory, Religious Freedom, Sexual Orientation

This blog entry has a long title because the Supreme Court’s ruling in Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd., v. Colo. Civil Rights Comm’n, 2018 U.S. LEXIS 3386, 2018 WL 2465172 (U.S. 2018) is complicated and cannot be summarized quickly. While the baker won the case (the Supreme Court reversed the state court order to him to pay civil rights damages to the plaintiff couple for refusing to sell them a “wedding cake”), he won it on such narrow grounds that the decision is likely to wind up supporting the power to states to enforce civil rights law without regard to the religious objections of business owners. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the baker on narrow grounds in a 7-2 decision with four judges concurring. The two dissenting judges were Ginsburg and Sotomayor. Three concurring opinions were written by Kagan (joined by Breyer) and Gorsuch (joined by Alito) and Thomas (joined by Gorsuch). …

Religious exemption to public accommodation laws rejected by Supreme Court while those laws cannot be administered in a way that demonstrates hostility to religion or that unfairly discriminates among religious beliefs Read More »

First Circuit resolves dispute over religious real and personal property by reference to formal agreements

/ Personal Property, Religious Freedom, Title Issues, Trusts

The First Circuit Court of Appeals has resolved a longstanding and complicated dispute between two congregations over control of the real and personal property of the Touro Synagogue in Newport, Rhode Island. In an opinion by Judge John J. McConnell, Jr., the trial court had found that an implied or constructive trust existed by which a New York Congregation Shearith Israel (CSI) held title to the property for the benefit of the Newport Rhode Island Congregation Jeshuat Israel (CJI). Congregation Jeshuat Israel v. Congregation Shearith Israel, 186 F.Supp.3d 158 (D.R.I. 2016), rev’d, 2017 WL 3276805 (1st Cir. 2017). That opinion enforced Rhode Island property law and reviewed objective evidence of the parties’ relationship to find that the New York congregation held the property for the benefit of the Newport congregation. In an opinion by Justice Souter, the First Circuit reversed on the ground that the First Amendment requires courts to refrain from involvement in …

First Circuit resolves dispute over religious real and personal property by reference to formal agreements Read More »

First Amendment protects right to federal registration of offensive trademarks that disparage a person or group

/ Antidiscrimination Law, Consumer Protection, Fair Housing Act, Free Speech, Intellectual Property, Religious Freedom, Sexual Orientation, Trademarks

The Supreme Court held that the First Amendment prohibits enforcement of a provision of the Lanham Act that purports to deny the benefits of trademark registration to names or marks that “disparage” a person or “bring [them] into contempt or disrepute.” Matal v. Tam,2017 WL 2621315 (U.S. 2017); 15 U.S.C. §1502(a) (Lanham Act). The Court held that “this provision violates the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment. It offends a bedrock First Amendment principle: Speech may not be banned on the ground that it expresses ideas that offend.” The case involved a band called “The Slants” who sought to reclaim an offensive term for persons of Asian descent. Because the Court’s analysis focused on the idea that speech cannot be regulated because of its offensive content, it would appear that this ruling would equally apply to those who use a term about themselves (the members of the Slants are Asian-Americans) …

First Amendment protects right to federal registration of offensive trademarks that disparage a person or group Read More »

Town cannot impose greater parking requirements for a mosque than for churches or synagogues

/ Antidiscrimination Law, Real Estate Transactions, Religious Freedom, Zoning

A town violated the Religious Land Use-Institutionazlied Persons Act (RLUIPA), 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000cc to 2000cc-5, when its planning board required a mosque to provide off-street parking for every single member as a condition of receiving a building permit when it had not imposed similar requirements for churches and synagogues. Islamic Soc’y of Basking Ridge v. Twp. of Bernards, 2016 U.S. DIst. LEXIS 180568 (D.N.J. 2016). The town had reasoned that, because religious services were on Friday afternoons, almost every person would be using a car to attend services while the same would not be true for churches and syanagogues. The court found this reasoning to be discriminatory since the proposed mosque plan was subjected to unprecedented individualized inquiry that had not taken place for other non-Islamic religious institutions in the past. That constituted a RLUIPA violation because it violated the “equal terms” provisions which prohibit “impos[ing] or implement[ing] a land use regulation in …

Town cannot impose greater parking requirements for a mosque than for churches or synagogues Read More »

Supreme Court will decide whether a bakery must sell wedding cake to a same-sex couple as required by Colorado public accommodations law

/ Antidiscrimination Law, Consumer Protection, Religious Freedom, Trespass

On June 26, 2017, the Supreme Court took certiorari in this case under the name, Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colo. Civil Rights Comm’n. (No. 16-111). The Colorado Court of Appeals has affirmed the Civil Rights Division’s that a bakery must sell wedding cakes to same-sex couples if they would ordinarily do so to male-female couples. Mullins v. Masterpiece, 2015 Colo. App. LEXIS 121, 2015 COA 115 (Colo. App. 2015). State law prohibits discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation in public accommodations, and neither the state statute itself nor the constitution entitles the providers of goods and services to engage in proscribed discrimination for religious reasons. The court rejected the bakery’s contention that it was acting on the basis of an opposition to same-sex marriage rather than an intent to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation. The court held that it did not matter that the bakery would sell baked goods other than a …

Supreme Court will decide whether a bakery must sell wedding cake to a same-sex couple as required by Colorado public accommodations law Read More »

Supreme Court finds fundamental liberty and equality interests in extending right to marry to same-sex couples

/ Antidiscrimination Law, Due Process, Marital Property, Religious Freedom, Sexual Orientation

On June 26, 2015, the Supreme Court held in Obergefell v. Hodges, — U.S. — (2015), that the Constitution’s due process clause protects liberty interests that include personal choices central to individual dignity and autonomy and that those include the right to marry, including someone of the same sex. The Court also held that it violates equal protection of the laws to allow male-female couples to marry but to deny that right to same-sex couples. For the same reasons, states must recognize same-sex marriages validly celebrated in other states.

Photography business cannot discriminate against same-sex couples

/ Antidiscrimination Law, Consumer Protection, Religious Freedom

The Supreme Court of New Mexico has held that the state public accommodations law applies to a photography business that offers its services to the public. Because that law prohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation, the business could not lawfully refuse to take pictures at a same-sex commitment ceremony because of the owner’s religious beliefs. Elane Photography v Willock, — P.3d — (N.M. 2013). The state public accommodations law does not violate the owner’s free speech rights since professions involving creativity or expression are not exempt from those laws. The court explained that “Elane Photography believes that because it is a photography business, it cannot be subject to public accommodation laws. The reality is that because it is a public accommodation, its provision of services can be regulated, even though those services include artistic and creative work. Nor did the owner’s religious beliefs offer a reason to engage in discriminatory conduct. “Under established law, the right of …

Photography business cannot discriminate against same-sex couples Read More »

Section 3 of DOMA struck down

/ Antidiscrimination Law, Marital Property, Religious Freedom, Sexual Orientation

Section 3 of the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), 1 U.S.C. §7, Pub. L. No. 104-199, §3, 110 Stat. 2419, passed in 1996, denied federal recognition to same-sex marriages. This meant, for example, that for such purposes as calculating federal income tax, same-sex couples were not recognized as married and entitled to the tax advantages (and disadvantages) of marriage even if they were validly married under state law. A same-sex couple validly married in Massachusetts under Massachusetts law would file state tax returns as a married couple but would then have to file federal tax returns as two unrelated individuals. However, Section 3 was struck down as an unconstitutional violation of the due process and equal protection clauses on June 26, 2013 in the case of United States v. Windsor,  — U.S. —, 2013 WL 3196928 (2013). Windsor found that marriages have traditionally been governed by state, rather than federal law, and held that no …

Section 3 of DOMA struck down Read More »

Scroll to Top