Below is my column this morning on conflicts forming around non-discrimination laws and free exercise. Much of the attention this term in the Supreme Court has focused on the campaign finance ruling striking down limits on corporate spending. However, an equally (if not more) important case has been given little attention before its oral argument on April 19, 2010. Christian Legal Society v. Martinez is the classic “sleeper case”: a case that has a low profile but could have a sweeping impact on our society. While the immediate issue is the refusal of the Hastings College of Law in California to recognize the Christian Legal Society (CLS) as an official student organization, it is a case that could address a growing conflict between anti-discrimination laws and the free exercise of religion. The question is whether anti-discrimination laws are themselves discriminatory against some faith-based organizations. Notably (while it was cut for space), we have followed other cases around the country and the world. This includes Philadelphia evicting the Boy Scouts from a historic building after over 70 years (here).
This is not a unique problem for the United States. For example, in England, the famous Jewish Free School (founded in 1732) denied entry to a student because he was not viewed as Jewish under orthodox rules since his mother was not Jewish as opposed to his father. (His mother converted to Judaism). An appellate court ruled that the use of such religious principles violated anti-discrimination laws and that the school had to admit students that it does not consider Jewish (here).
Universities have also struggled with the line between non-discrimination and religious values. Harvard recently was criticized for setting aside time in a student gym for only women to accommodate the customs of Muslim women who could not exercise in the presence of males (here).
Here is the column:
Continue reading “Faithful Discrimination: Are Non-Discrimination Policies Themselves Discriminatory?” →
Rep. Henry C. “Hank” Johnson Jr., chairman of the Judiciary Subcommittee on Courts and Competition Policy, has taken on an important and worthy cause — reforming the federal rules to remove barriers to average citizens and public interest groups in the forms of financial costs and penalties. It is a move that should be supported by lawyers and lay persons alike — who should contact other members of the subcommittee and committee to convey their support. This is a bill that does not have any headline grabbing elements and, unlike Chairman Johnson, members may not see the value in supporting its passage. For that reason, civil libertarians and citizens need to rally behind Chairman Johnson.
