First Ten Today

Let's talk about this article on tolerance and who is intolerant of whom.

Link

Here is the situation--a customer asks a florist to provide flowers for his same-sex wedding. The florist is a devout Christian, and her religious beliefs require her to refrain from facilitating a same-sex marriage. The customer complains to state authorities and wishes the government to punish the florist for her religiously-motivated actions.

In a pluralistic society committed to tolerance, how should this matter be resolved?

Religious Garb in Public Schools

Suppose a public school forbids Muslim girls from wearing religious head coverings such as head scarves or hijabs? Suppose the policy states that "no student may wear any religious clothing or headgear" during the public school day? Suppose the school allows children undergoing chemotherapy to wear a scarf to cover their baldness?

Thursday Feb. 26 Readings

For Thursday's class, read the first 2 Free Exercise assignments:



1. Linder Introduction (Link); Reynolds case (Link)


2. Casebook p. 1702-1708; Goldman case (Link)

France and the Niquab

From the ReligionClause blog:

Why Has The Niqab Become So Controversial In France?

Today's New York Times carries and interesting and provocative analysis of why wearing of the niqab (full face veil) by Muslim women has become such a controversial issue in France. (A French ban on wearing the full face veil in public took effect last week.)  Here are some excerpts:

In French culture, the eyes are supposed to meet in public, to invite a conversation or just to exchange a visual greeting with a stranger. Among Muslims, the eyes of men and women are not supposed to meet, even by chance, and especially not in public or between strangers....

French tradition has also long encouraged mixing of the sexes in social situations. “The veil ... interrupts the circulation of coquetry and of paying homage, in declaring that there is another possible way for the sexes to coexist: strict separation.”

A more familiar explanation for French antagonism to the facial veil is historical and political: the deep-rooted French fear, resentment and rejection of the “other” — the immigrant, the invader, the potential terrorist or abuser of human rights who eats, drinks, prays and dresses differently, and refuses to assimilate in the French way.....

Meanwhile, France will remain France — the land where the uncovered body is celebrated. Billboards and posters on Paris streets regularly feature naked breasts and buttocks.

First Ten

Chip sent me a link to this article as a possible topic for a first 10 discussion.

What are your thoughts?

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/23/world/europe/charlie-hebdo-attack-leads-to-changes-in-french-schools.html?_r=1

Holt v. Hobbs and RLUIPA

Very nice article on the significance of the Court's recent unanimous decision at the desert News.

Link

Some excerpts:

The Holt decision is the first time the Supreme Court has ever given substantive meaning to RLUIPA’s protections for religious freedom. In Holt, the court repeatedly emphasized how vast those protections are — “very broad,” “expansive,” “capacious” and “substantial.”
In a unanimous opinion authored by Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr., the court found that Arkansas’ policy banning beards substantially burdened the inmate’s religious exercise and lacked the high degree of justification required for such a burden. It forced the inmate into an unjust corner — either engage in activity that seriously violates his religious belief or face disciplinary action. The court went further, saying it doesn’t matter that officials permit the prisoner to exercise other aspects of his religion, like having a prayer rug or observing religious holidays. The court said that governments can’t force religious individuals to trade one religious practice for another.
This reasoning shifted the burden to Arkansas to prove both that a “compelling government interest” justified the policy and that the state had used means that were the “least restrictive” to the religious exercise. On whether the interest was compelling, the court held that Arkansas had not proven that its policy interests — for example, preventing the flow of contraband — were advanced by the beard ban. Because Arkansas doesn’t require inmates to shave or crew-cut the hair on top of their heads, it’s hard to see why (or even how) an inmate would hide contraband in a short beard rather than in longer hair on top.
Finally, the court held that Arkansas had not proven its policy was the least restrictive means of accomplishing its objectives, especially when over 40 other state and federal prison systems permit similar beards. Arkansas didn’t show why it can search prisoner’s hair, clothes and quarter-inch medical beards, but not half-inch religious beards....

So if you don’t live in Arkansas, you don’t wear a beard, and you’re not a prisoner, why does the Holt decision matter to you? If you care about religious freedom, Holt will help those defending it in the courts in at least three ways.
First, the Holt decision will help religious prisoners in other RLUIPA cases, such as Jewish prisoners seeking kosher diets. Second, the Holt decision will help religious plaintiffs in land-use cases, making it harder for local governments to treat poorly zoning requests from churches, synagogues and mosques. Third, the Holt decision will help RFRA plaintiffs because the same favorable legal standard (high justification for government burdens on religion) in RLUIPA also applies to RFRA. The Becket Fund is pursuing several RFRA cases, including defending a Native American church barred by discriminatory Interior Department rules from using sacred eagle feathers in its religious ceremonies. Others involve many nonprofit religious organizations opposing the HHS contraception mandate in cases expected soon to reach the U.S. Supreme Court.
The Holt decision is a solid victory for a prisoner who sought to wear a beard in accord with his Muslim faith. But it’s an even more important victory for religious freedom generally, because it shows that the U.S. Supreme Court’s commitment to religious freedom for Americans of all faiths endures.