Debate Desk
Is Religious Liberty Just a License to Discriminate Against Others?
Religious liberty is a first freedom with a long record of protecting minority faiths; courts balance it against other rights case by case.
The claim
Critics say that when religious believers ask for exemptions from laws, they are asking for permission to refuse service to others, particularly LGBTQ people, and that religious freedom should not be a shield for harm.
The answer in three points
- Religious liberty has protected people of every faith. The Supreme Court ruled unanimously for a Muslim prisoner who wished to wear a short beard in Holt v. Hobbs (2015), for a Santeria church in Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye v. Hialeah (1993), and for Amish families in Wisconsin v. Yoder (1972). A right that protects a minority's conscience is a right worth defending.
- The claim in the recent cases is narrow. In 303 Creative v. Elenis (2023), the Court held that Colorado could not force a website designer to create expressive work that conflicted with her beliefs, while noting that she would serve all customers. The question is compelled speech and conscience, not a general freedom to turn away people.
- Courts weigh competing interests. The Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993, passed with near-unanimous support and signed by President Clinton, says government must show a compelling interest and use the least restrictive means when it burdens religion. A court looks at each case, and many claims fail.
Religious liberty and equal treatment are both goods, and courts weigh them case by case with care.
The numbers
- The Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 passed the House by voice vote and the Senate by a vote of 97 to 3, according to Congress.gov.
- The Supreme Court decided Fulton v. City of Philadelphia in 2021, ruling 9 to 0 in favor of a Catholic foster care agency.
- The Supreme Court decided 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis in 2023 by a vote of 6 to 3.
What they will say next
"Civil rights laws forbid discrimination." They do, and they apply broadly. Exemptions are limited, and the cases turn on facts such as the expression involved.
"Religious freedom was used to defend segregation." Some people made that argument, and the courts rejected it, as in Bob Jones University v. United States (1983). The rights are balanced, not absolute.
"Faith-based agencies should follow the same rules." Fulton shows the Court asking whether the government had a real interest in refusing an exemption when it offered others. Foster children benefit when more agencies take part.
"This favors one religion." The cases involve Muslims, Jews, Sikhs, Native Americans and Christians. Religious liberty is for everyone.
Americans of every view are better off when the state respects conscience as far as it can.
"Exemptions hurt the people refused service." The inconvenience can be real, and courts weigh it. In the cases decided so far, other providers were available, and the Court distinguished expressive work from ordinary services.