first amendment » ADL Blogs
Posts Tagged ‘first amendment’
October 8, 2014 0

Gun Range Owner’s Offensive Ban on Muslim Patrons is Unlawful

jan-morgan-gun

Jan Mor­gan

Cit­ing to pub­lic safety con­cerns stem­ming from the 9/11 attacks and a recent Okla­homa work­place behead­ing, Arkansas gun range owner Jan Mor­gan last week pub­licly declared her busi­ness a “Muslim-Free zone.”  Although this odi­ous and unlaw­ful dec­la­ra­tion has been removed from her Face­book page, a mes­sage on Morgan’s Twit­ter account states that the rule still stands.

In a dia­tribe jus­ti­fy­ing her deci­sion,  Mor­gan wrongly claims that Islam is not a reli­gion.   And there­fore, she erro­neously con­cludes that Mus­lims are not enti­tled to First Amend­ment guar­an­tees of reli­gious free­dom.  Mor­gan also falsely asserts that she has the option to bar Mus­lim patrons from her gun range.  But this ban bla­tantly vio­lates the Arkansas Civil Rights Act of 1993, which  pro­hibits  “… any estab­lish­ment, either licensed of unli­censed, that sup­plies … ser­vices to gen­eral pub­lic … “ from dis­crim­i­nat­ing against a per­son “… because of … religion.”

Later admit­ting that the anti-Muslim ban dis­re­gards the law,  Mor­gan nonethe­less declared  that she “will do what­ever is nec­es­sary to pro­vide a safe envi­ron­ment for my cus­tomers, even at the cost of the increased threats and legal prob­lems this deci­sion will likely pro­voke.”  Although she relies on the Sec­ond Amend­ment to remain in busi­ness, Mor­gan wants to ignore fed­eral and state Equal Pro­tec­tion Clause prin­ci­ples cod­i­fied in anti-discrimination laws.  Pick­ing and choose among legal pro­tec­tions is sim­ply not an option in our nation of laws, and Mor­gan would be wise to revoke her offen­sive ban against Mus­lim patrons.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,

July 14, 2014 0

Hobby Lobby Elicits Varied Editorial Responses

On June 30, the Supreme Court in Bur­well v. Hobby Lobby affirmed the right of family-owned com­pa­nies to deny employ­ees, based on the reli­gious beliefs of the employer, health insur­ance cov­er­age for con­tra­cep­tives. As Pro­fes­sor Erwin Chemerin­sky warned at the ADL’s 2014 Supreme Court Review, the deci­sion could have far-reaching impli­ca­tions for work­ers’ civil and reli­gious rights.newspapers-hobby-lobby

Edi­to­r­ial boards for the nations’ top news­pa­pers opposed the land­mark deci­sion by a 2–1 ratio. Of the fifty news­pa­pers with the high­est cir­cu­la­tion, twenty-five dis­agreed with the Supreme Court’s posi­tion in Hobby Lobby. Thir­teen sup­ported the deci­sion. Twelve offered no opin­ion on the topic.

Of those peri­od­i­cals that opposed the deci­sion, some objected to the Supreme Court’s increas­ing will­ing­ness to grant legal pro­tec­tions to cor­po­ra­tions that tra­di­tion­ally have been reserved for human beings. The Cleve­land Plain Dealer insisted that “cor­po­ra­tions are not ‘per­sons’ who think, breathe and exer­cise first-amendment rights or prac­tice reli­gious beliefs,” and warned that “[t]reating them as if they are will inevitably nar­row free­doms for oth­ers.” The Detroit Free Press called the deci­sion an expan­sion of “the majority’s already inflated notion of cor­po­rate personhood.”

Other oppo­nents view the deci­sion as a set­back for repro­duc­tive rights. The San Jose Mer­cury News crit­i­cized the Court for fail­ing to rec­og­nize the impor­tance of access to con­tra­cep­tives for women’s rights: “World­wide, the sin­gle great­est fac­tor in lift­ing soci­eties out of poverty is women gain­ing the abil­ity to con­trol when they become preg­nant.” The Min­neapo­lis Star Tri­bunesaid that “allow­ing an employer to choose which type of con­tra­cep­tion mer­its cov­er­age reverts to an ear­lier, darker age in atti­tudes about women’s role in reproduction.”

Still oth­ers fear that the deci­sion opens the door to fur­ther ero­sion indi­vid­u­als’ rights and gov­ern­ment entan­gle­ment in the exer­cise of reli­gion. The New York Times called the deci­sion “a rad­i­cal depar­ture from the court’s his­tory of resist­ing claims for reli­gious exemp­tions from neu­tral laws of gen­eral applic­a­bil­ity when the exemp­tions would hurt other peo­ple.” USA Today warned of the “deeply dis­turb­ing propo­si­tion” that the deci­sion could force the gov­ern­ment to judge “whether a business’s reli­gious prin­ci­ples merit spe­cial treat­ment that its more sec­u­lar com­peti­tors don’t get.” The Wash­ing­ton Post urged Con­gress to limit the dam­age of the deci­sion by leg­isla­tively over­turn­ing it.

Sup­port­ers, how­ever, hail Hobby Lobby as a bold recog­ni­tion of reli­gious lib­erty. The Wall Street Jour­nal called the deci­sion “an impor­tant vin­di­ca­tion of reli­gious lib­erty in this (still, bless­edly) con­sti­tu­tional repub­lic.” The New York Daily News cel­e­brated that Court’s con­clu­sion that “own­ers of closely held com­pa­nies should not be forced to sac­ri­fice their reli­gious lib­erty sim­ply because they incor­po­rated to do business.”

How­ever one views the Court’s deci­sion, Hobby Lobby clearly touches on many polit­i­cal and legal fault lines. The ADL believes that the deci­sion threat­ens many anti-discrimination laws and will work to limit its impact.

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

November 30, 2012 1

Renewed Concerns About “Legislative Prayer”

As we approach 2013, the 30th anniver­sary of the U.S. Supreme Court’s deci­sion on leg­isla­tive prayer, the issue has come alive again.

Thirty years ago, in an ami­cus curiae brief sub­mit­ted to the U.S. Supreme Court oppos­ing the Nebraska Legislature’s prac­tice of des­ig­nat­ing a chap­lain to open its ses­sions with a prayer, ADL noted that the prac­tice was not only uncon­sti­tu­tional but unwise, because it would be polit­i­cally divi­sive.  The Court nev­er­the­less upheld the prac­tice in Marsh v. Cham­bers, carv­ing out a lim­ited excep­tion to the First Amendment’s Estab­lish­ment Clause, which man­dates the sep­a­ra­tion of church and state, for non-sectarian prayers.

Ever since, lower courts have wres­tled with whether and how prayers can be non-sectarian, and recently there has been a new wave of cases.  Courts in at least five states are now con­sid­er­ing var­i­ous forms of prayers before state and local leg­isla­tive bod­ies, county and/or city com­mis­sions, and it may just be a mat­ter of time before the U.S. Supreme Court revis­its the issue.   It has, in fact, become polit­i­cally divi­sive.  When and if a case reaches the Supreme Court, the Court should pro­hibit such “leg­isla­tive prayer” once and for all.

Over the past three decades, courts have already issued widely diverg­ing opin­ions, essen­tially con­firm­ing that a prayer can never truly be non-sectarian.  Some courts have deter­mined that prayers in the name of Jesus, Abra­ham, or Mohammed are not sec­tar­ian or do not advance reli­gion.  Of course, even a seem­ingly non-denominational prayer is likely to cause divi­sions among Chris­tians, Jews and Mus­lims.  And most courts have failed to con­sider that any such prayer would exclude adher­ents of  poly­the­is­tic or East­ern faiths such as Hin­duism or  Bud­dhism, not to men­tion the grow­ing seg­ment of Amer­i­can soci­ety that iden­ti­fies as human­ist or atheist. 

Leg­isla­tive prayer is not only divi­sive, but also a dis­trac­tion from the job of gov­ern­ing that can end up in costly lit­i­ga­tion.  If leg­isla­tive bod­ies deem it nec­es­sary to sol­em­nize their ses­sions, the best prac­tice would be a moment of silence.  It allows offi­cials and cit­i­zens to silently pray or med­i­tate in the faith or beliefs of their choos­ing, with­out gov­ern­ment offi­cials con­vey­ing any actual or per­ceived mes­sage of reli­gious pref­er­ence or exclusion.

Tags: , , , , , , , ,