Now that the country’s justices and its religious politics are aligned, the question is how far the court will go, and with what consequences. A moment of truth is approaching
The Supreme Court Nears the Moment of Truth on Religion
The majority’s view of the Constitution’s free-exercise clause poses a threat to civil society.
By Contributing Opinion Writer Linda Greenhouse
_________________________________________________________________
Here are some very brief extracts to get readers of this blog up on what Linda Greenhouse has written and why:
The Supreme Court has handed down a series of decisions instructing judges to accept almost any religious claim, no matter how preposterous, at face value and to put the government to an extremely tough test to justify any infringement on a “sincere” religious belief.
> In the Hobby Lobby case six years ago, the court gave dispositive legal weight to the claim by owners of two for-profit businesses that the legal requirement to include contraception coverage in their employee health plans would make them complicit in the sin of birth control.
“It is not for us to say that their religious beliefs are mistaken or insubstantial,” Justice Samuel Alito wrote for the majority.
> . . . there are plenty of cases like it, making claims that would have been dismissed out of hand not too many years ago and that now have to be taken seriously by those of us worried about the growing threat that an increasingly weaponized free-exercise clause poses to civil society, along with the statutes meant to extend its reach.
> On April 29, the last scheduled argument day of its current term, the court will hear two cases that are follow-ons to the Hobby Lobby decision. The cases challenge rules issued by the Trump administration to provide employers with not only an enhanced religious opt-out from the Affordable Care Act’s contraception requirement, but also with a generalized “moral exemption” for employers who object to covering birth control but who can’t claim a basis in religious doctrine for not following the law.
> On Monday, the justices accepted a closely watched case that has been at the top of religious conservatives’ Supreme Court wish list.
It challenges the City of Philadelphia’s termination of a contract with Catholic Social Services, one of the private agencies certified to find families to take in foster children. Objecting to same-sex marriage, the agency, which is affiliated with the Archdiocese of Philadelphia, won’t place children with same-sex married couples.
It thus refuses to abide by the city’s Fair Practices Ordinance, which bars discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, among other characteristics.
> . . . In one major respect, the claim in this case, Fulton v. Philadelphia, resembles the claim in a case from Montana that the court heard last month.
In that case, Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue, parents who want to use state scholarship vouchers to send their children to religious schools are claiming a violation of their religious rights because the voucher program was terminated by the Montana Supreme Court . . .
> In two other respects, however, this new case is even more portentous — or promising, depending on one’s view — than the others.
Five years after it ruled in favor of same-sex marriage, the Supreme Court has yet to fully address the objections of those who claim religious reasons for refusing to treat same-sex couples as equals.
> (The court failed to say anything meaningful two years ago in the case of the baker who wouldn’t bake a cake to celebrate a same-sex marriage.)
> Other such cases are pending, including one from a florist who doesn’t want to arrange flowers for a same-sex wedding. . .
> Finally, the new case is especially important in offering the court a chance to do formally and in one sweep what the conservative justices have been trying to do more quietly case by case. . .
Now that the country’s justices and its religious politics are aligned, the question is how far the court will go, and with what consequences. A moment of truth is approaching. If we don’t want hate groups to have a seat in the prison chapel, the time to start drawing lines is now.
The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. We’d like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips. And here’s our email: letters@nytimes.com.
