William_T._Bianco,_David_T._Canon]_American_Polit

116 Chapter 4Chapter 4 || Civil LibertiesCivil Liberties

interference, but if you act on those beliefs the government may regulate your behavior.

And while the government has restricted religious conduct in dozens of cases, the

freedom of religion has been among the most consistently protected civil liberties.

Hundreds of cases have come before the Court in the area of the free exercise

of religion.^36 Here are some examples of the questions they addressed: May Amish

parents be forced to send their children to schools beyond the eighth grade? (No.) May

religion serve as the basis for attaining “conscientious objector” status and avoiding

the draft? (Generally yes, but with many qualifications.) Is animal sacrifice as part of a

religious ceremony protected by the First Amendment? (Generally yes.) May Mormons

have multiple wives? (No.) May people be forced to work on Friday night and Saturday

if those are their days of worship? (No.) Does the First Amendment protect distribution

of religious leaflets on public streets? And religious meetings in public parks? (Yes, for

both, but the latter is subject to “time, manner, and place” restrictions.) May religious

dress be regulated? (Generally not, but in some contexts, such as the military, yes.) Are

all prison inmates entitled to hold religious services (apparently yes, but this is still an

open question) and grow short beards? (Yes.) Are religious organizations subject to

child labor laws? (Yes.) Whew! Keep in mind that this list is by no means exhaustive.

One particular case, brought by plaintiffs who had been fired for using peyote

as part of a religious ceremony and then denied unemployment benefits because

they had broken the law, had broad implications that defined the general basis for

government restrictions of religious expression. The Court ultimately ruled that

the state of Oregon had not violated the free exercise clause in denying the plaintiffs

unemployment benefits. More significantly, with this ruling the Court announced

a new interpretation of the free exercise clause: the government does not need a

“compelling interest” in regulating a particular behavior to justify a law that limits a

religious practice; it only needs a demonstration that the law in question was a “neutral

law of general applicability.”^37 In other words, after this decision it would be easier for

the government to limit the exercise of religion because the Court would no longer

require a “compelling” reason for the restrictions.

Congress responded by passing the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFR A) in 1993,

reinstating the need to demonstrate a “compelling state interest” before limiting religious

Cake shop owner Jack Phillips did

not want to bake a wedding cake

for Charlie Craig and David Mullins

because it would violate his religious

beliefs. In a narrow ruling that did

not settle the broader free exercise

question, the Court sided with the

baker because he had not been

treated fairly by the commission that

heard his case.

Full_05_APT_64431_ch04_102-147.indd 116 16/11/18 1:28 PM