What RFRA Hath Wrought-Part 2

By Mike Appleton, Weekend Contributor

“Those situations in which the Court may require special treatment on account of religion are, in my view, few and far between, and this view is amply supported by the course of constitutional litigation in this area.”

-Sherbert v. Verner, 374 U.S. 398, 423 (1963) (Harlan, J., dissenting)

Were Maurice Bessinger still alive, he would undoubtedly be a strong supporter of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. Had that law been available in 1964, history might well read differently.

Mr. Bessinger owned a small chain of barbecue restaurants in South Carolina known as “Piggie Park.” As a matter of company policy, African Americans were prohibited from consuming food on the premises of his restaurants and were required to place and pick up orders from the kitchen window.

When a class action was filed against Mr. Bessinger under the public accommodations provisions of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, among his defenses was the claim that the Act violated the First Amendment because “his religious beliefs compel him to oppose any integration of the races whatsoever.” Newman v. Piggy Park Enterprises, Inc., 256 F. Supp. 941 (1966). The court had no sympathy for his defense. “Undoubtedly,” it said, “defendant Bessinger has a constitutional right to espouse religious beliefs of his own choosing, however, he does not have the absolute right to exercise and practice such beliefs in utter disregard of the clear constitutional rights of other citizens. This court refuses to lend credence and support to his position that he has a constitutional right to refuse to serve members of the Negro race in his business establishments upon the ground that to do so would violate his sacred religious beliefs.” 256 F. Supp. at 945.

Mr. Bessinger partially prevailed at the trial court on interstate commerce grounds, but lost on appeal and was assessed attorney’s fees for his trouble, the Fourth Circuit finding that in view of a prior Supreme Court ruling upholding the constitutionality of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the assertion that he was not bound because the law “contravenes the will of God” and constituted interference with “the free exercise of the Defendant’s religion” was legally frivolous. Newman v. Piggy Park Enterprises, Inc., 377 F.2d 433 (4th Cir. 1967), aff’d, 390 U.S. 400 (1968).

Had the Religious Freedom Restoration Act been in effect when Mr. Bessinger was sued, might he have prevailed? Perhaps.

To place our discussion in proper context, a bit of Free Exercise history is in order. And the best place to start is with the first instance in which the Supreme Court was called upon to determine the parameters of freedom of religion, the case of Reynolds v. United States, 98 U.S. 145 (1878). The defendant was a Mormon, prosecuted for the offense of bigamy. His defense was that the doctrine of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints mandated the practice of polygamy as a religious duty, a duty of such consequence that its breach entailed “damnation in the life to come.” 98 U.S. at 161. It was undisputed that Mr. Reynolds had taken a second wife (while still married to his first) in strict accordance with the prescribed rituals of his faith.

The direct issue was whether religious expression could be alleged as a defense to a criminal indictment. However, the Court framed it rather more broadly. “Religious freedom is guaranteed throughout the United States, so far as congressional action is concerned. The question to be determined is, whether the law now under consideration comes within this prohibition.” 98 U.S. at 162.

The Court began its analysis by noting the absence of a definition of “religion” in the Constitution, and then proceeded to rule without providing one. Instead, it turned to the writings of James Madison and Thomas Jefferson, giving particular deference to the latter’s famous letter to the Danbury Baptist Association, in which he wrote, “Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God; that he owes no account to none other for his faith or his worship; that the legislative powers of the government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence the act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should ‘make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,’ thus building a wall of separation between church and State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore man to all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.” 98 U.S. at 164. The Court deemed Jefferson’s words “an authoritative declaration of the scope and effect of the amendment thus secured.” Congress could not legislate concerning matters of belief, but “was free to reach actions which were in violation of social duties or subversive of good order.” Id.

The Court next observed that polygamy had been forbidden in western society by both common and statutory law for centuries, punishable by death. And marriage, although a “sacred obligation,” was nevertheless “a civil contract, and usually regulated by law.” 98 U.S. at 165. Therefore, it concluded, “it is within the legitimate scope of the power of civil government to determine whether polygamy or monogamy shall be the law of social life under its dominion.” Id.

The Reynolds decision did not create a formula for adjudicating religious freedom claims, but it did lay down several important principles. First, freedom of religion is not absolute. Second, no precise definition of “religion” is necessary or desirable because neither belief nor unbelief can be legislated. Third, actions motivated by religious belief are subject to regulation when they conflict with duties imposed upon society as a whole. “Laws are made for the government of actions, and while they cannot interfere with mere religious belief and opinion, they may with practices,” the Court noted. 98 U.S at 166. In its view, to permit religious practices to trump laws regulating conduct would “permit every citizen to become a law unto himself.” 98 U.S. at 167. In short, religious freedom must sometimes be balanced against other compelling societal values.

It is true, of course, that the Reynolds court expressed a somewhat restricted vision of religious freedom. But the primary concerns of the Court were freedom of belief and freedom of worship. It should be remembered that the First Amendment was drafted from the perspective of a European history of religious warfare characterized by the burning of churches and the execution of religious dissenters. The Founders surely understood that a repetition of that history could only be avoided by a constitutional commitment to religious pluralism. Thus the Establishment Clause abandoned the notion that a central government had the power to define and enforce religious orthodoxy. The Free Exercise Clause recognized the primacy of the individual in matters of belief and unbelief and in the form and manner of worship. However, the First Amendment was not intended to abolish government’s ability to legislate limitations on human conduct which an actor has declared to be a form of protected religious expression.

Over the course of the following decades, and culminating with the opinion in Employment Division v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872 (1990), the Supreme Court crafted various tests designed to achieve the balance suggested in Reynolds. The ebb and flow of that jurisprudence, and the ways in which RFRA changed all the rules, is another topic.

The views expressed in this posting are the author’s alone and not those of the blog, the host, or other weekend bloggers. As an open forum, weekend bloggers post independently without pre-approval or review. Content and displays of art are solely their decision and responsibility.


476 thoughts on “What RFRA Hath Wrought-Part 2”

  1. Squeeky
    The biggest threat to children comes from the home environment in which they are raised. Some homes exclude their LGBT child. Those children either end up on the street, addicted to drugs or end their lives. THAT is the biggest threat to our children… We should be so lucky to have a Surgeon General that realizes this and understands how such a home environment can expedite these unnecessary consequences. We should be grateful he’s calling on professionals to intervene… and to save a life in the process.

    1. The odds of being struck by lightning according to the national weather service is 1 in 1,107,143

      The odds of a child being abducted by a stranger is 1 in 2,980,769

      University of Southern California sociology professor Barry Glassner wrote about missing children in his book The Culture of Fear: “In national surveys conducted in recent years 3 out of 4 parents say they fear that their child will be kidnapped by a stranger. They harbor this anxiety, no doubt, because they keep hearing frightening statistics and stories about perverts snatching children off the street. What the public doesn’t hear often or clearly enough is that the majority of missing children are runaways fleeing from physically or emotionally abusive parents.”

      The fear and its associated mollycoddling and paranoia is in my view more damaging to the child population than the reality veiled by the perceived threat.

  2. Louie Gohmert on Gays…
    … Because what Moses said.
    [soundcloud url="https://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/200950783" params="color=ff5500" width="100%" height="166" iframe="true" /]

  3. Annie
    Freedom has nothing to do with them.
    = = =
    Of course it does… IF you believe like they do.
    You’re free to believe in their Bible laws or they’ll nail you to their cross.

  4. But of course the Best Christian in America defines “marriage” for us…
    … As the Bible said it is to be.

  5. The speech that put the bill to bed in the Florida Senate that would have made it illegal to allow adoptions for LGBT people…

  6. Sorry, Annie… that summons is for Mr. Sempa (eat da poo poo) to appear in court with Mr. Lively.

  7. “Since the Lawrence decision declared anti-sodomy laws unconstitutional, ADF has taken its extremist agenda abroad, working in Jamaica, Belize, and India to support laws that imprison gay people for having sex. The organization annually expands its network of international (and domestic) lawyers at its Legal Academy, a week-long lawyer training event that, among other things, teaches attendees how to “battle the radical homosexual legal agenda.” In exchange, the trainees are obligated to provide 450 hours of free legal services over a three-year period to ADF or other organizations “that forward the mission of the alliance.” According to ADF, nearly 1,800 lawyers have participated in its training program.

    ADF partners with more than 300 like-minded institutions, including the rabidly anti-LGBT Pacific Justice Institute, the Thomas More Law Center, the Family Research Council (a hate group), the Heritage Foundation, and the now-defunct “ex-gay” organization Exodus International. ADF’s relentless legal campaign against LGBT equality led the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) to describe the organization as “virulently anti-gay.” Unsurprisingly, the group has been at the forefront of the fight against same-sex marriage – ADF attorneys represented the defendants in the Proposition 8 case before the Supreme Court in 2013, and have defended same-sex marriage bans in over 25 states.”


  8. “While the group prefers to talk about its “religious liberty” work when in the media spotlight, ADF also actively works internationally to promote and defend laws that criminalize gay sex. ADF’s formal support for anti-sodomy legislation dates to at least 2003, before the Supreme Court made its landmark decision in Lawrence v. Texas. ADF, which was at the time still known as the Alliance Defense Fund, filed an amicus brief in the case, defending state laws criminalizing gay sex. In its brief, ADF spent nearly 30 pages arguing that gay sex is unhealthy, harmful, and a public health risk.”

Comments are closed.