Substantial Burden

Let's look at some of the cases we have encountered with a view to deciding whether the government has imposed a "substantial burden" on the free exercise of religion:

--Yoder: The law makes it a crime for Amish parents to home school their children in Amish vocational skills? Yes!

--Sherbert: The law denies unemployment benefits to a worker whose faith requires her to turn down employment that requires working on the Sabbath? Yes!

--Hypo: A person seeks to require City government to remove a "Gay Pride" display from a public park because it offends his religious sensibilities about sexual morality? No! Having to avert his eye or walk a few steps out of his way to avoid the religiously-offensive display does not impose a substantial burden on his religious liberty.

--Lyng: Government's use of National Forest will seriously interfere with a portion of the land considered sacred by three American Indian tribes? No! Why not? "The Free Exercise Clause simply cannot be understood to require the Government to conduct its own internal affairs in ways that comport with the religious beliefs of particular citizens?" (p.2) Hmmm. Suppose a devout Catholic Pl argues that government hospitals should not be used for abortions because abortion violates the Pl's religious beliefs? Same case?

--What about a law that requires all businesses to close on Sundays. Pl, a person whose religion requires him to close on Saturday, sues under the Free Exercise Clause claiming that the Sunday Closing Law imposes a substantial burden on his free exercise of religion because it means that he must close his store on both weekend days. Do you agree? See Braunfeld v. Brown, 366 U.S. 599 (1961).