With the closing of the 2020-21 U.S. Supreme Court term, it is time to take stock of recent rulings by the Court relative to various aspects of religious freedom.
Many conservative Christians, including some Adventists, believe religious liberty in the United States to be under fierce assault from alleged secularists on the progressive end of the political spectrum. They see political liberalism, within the judicial system and elsewhere, as determined to suppress and even extinguish Christianity, at least that version which holds to the supremacy of Biblical authority in matters of faith and practice.
Do recent rulings by the U.S. Supreme Court offer evidence of such a trend?
Catholic Foster Care in Philadelphia
On June 17, 2021, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the city of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, violated the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution by freezing the contract of a Roman Catholic foster care agency because the latter refused to adopt children out to same-sex couples, believing that marriage should rightly exist solely between one man and one woman [1].
The High Court’s decision in favor of Catholic Social Services was unanimous [2], even though three of the conservative justices—Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, and Clarence Thomas—objected to the rationale behind the majority ruling because they wanted the decision to go further in protecting religious organizations from state intrusion [3].
Like most if not all Catholic facilities, including its social service agencies, the Philadelphia foster care service in question accepts taxpayer money [4], which the city of Philadelphia and others held was just cause for subjecting the agency to the city’s anti-discrimination laws, which forbid discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation “unless an exception is granted” [5]. Because the city created a process by which such exceptions could in fact be granted, Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts—who wrote the majority opinion [6]—said the city could not deny an exception to the Catholic foster care agency [7].
Chief Justice Roberts, himself a devout Catholic, wrote further in his decision: “It is plain that the City’s [Philadelphia’s] actions have burdened CSS’s (Catholic Social Services) religious exercise by putting it to the choice of curtailing its mission or approving relationships inconsistent with its beliefs” [8].
Steve Vladeck, CNN Supreme Court analyst and professor at the University of Texas School of Law, explained that the limited rationale behind the Court’s unanimous decision in this case “may also explain why none of the three more progressive justices dissented” [9]. However, recent Supreme Court cases involving religious organizations have found most if not all of the Court’s liberals supporting the rights of such organizations to practice and uphold their beliefs. The 2012 Hosanna Tabor case, involving a Lutheran church school teacher fired from her job for theological reasons [10], was decided 9-0 in favor of the church school and its sponsoring denomination. The same unanimous verdict was applied by the High Court in the Zubik vs. Burwell case of 2016, involving two Texas Baptist universities who were sued for not including abortion or birth control for the unmarried in their health care plans for students and faculty [11]. It helps to remember that both of the above cases were decided unanimously by the Court at a time when its ideological divisions were much sharper than they are today.
More recently, in another case involving religious institutions and what is known as the “ministerial exception” to anti-discrimination laws, the Supreme Court in 2019 carved out a broad exception to workplace anti-discrimination laws that allows religious schools to include lay teachers (as distinct from clergy) as among those subject to an exemption from civil rights laws, such as Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act [12]. This case, though settled by 7 to 2 (with Justice Sotomayor and the late Justice Ginsburg dissenting) [13], still represented a broad consensus in favor of religious organizations extending to at least two of the liberal justices on the Court.
The case involving the Philadelphia Catholic foster care agency, decided unanimously by the Court in favor of the Catholic agency, thus represents a judicial consensus that in recent years has included most if not all of the High Court’s progressive members.
The fact that the Philadelphia foster care agency accepts taxpayer funds for its support [14], yet received unanimous support from the High Court in upholding its religious beliefs while accepting such aid, should allay the fears of some (including many Adventists) who worry that the acceptance of state aid by the church’s educational centers could jeopardize the ability of such entities to uphold such controversial tenets as opposition to the LGBT lifestyle while simultaneously receiving assistance from the government. Whatever challenges may be posed for the church by acceptance of such aid, the recent Supreme Court ruling should go far in demonstrating that the reception of such assistance isn’t likely to interfere with the ability of such institutions to uphold the beliefs and lifestyle standards of the church that sponsors them, including those beliefs that oppose intimate relationships condemned in the Bible.
Christian Students at Gwinnett College
On March 8, 2021, the U.S. Supreme Court sided with two Christian students at Georgia’s Gwinnett College who had been forbidden to express their religious beliefs in what was designated as a free-speech zone on campus [15]. The Court’s decision in favor of the Christian students was 8-1, the only dissenter being Chief Justice Roberts, with all three of the Court’s progressives siding with the Christian students [16].
The only reason Roberts voted against the suit brought by the Christian students was because (1) the restrictions protested by the students have since been abolished by the school [17]—an outcome often predictable when an institution faces embarrassment over controversial regulations—and (2) the students in question have since graduated and are thus no longer affected by whatever rules may or may not exist at their alma mater [18]. Roberts’ rationale may seem strange to many observers across the philosophical spectrum, but the above reasons constitute the basis of his decision, whatever one thinks of their validity.
What is most significant about this case, however, is not the opinion of Chief Justice Roberts, but rather, the opinion of the three progressives on the Court. The fact is that despite rampant fears on the Right of progressives seeking to regulate speech allegedly viewed by the latter as “politically incorrect,” the fact is that leading progressive voices have for some time protested efforts by fellow progressives on college and university campuses to regulate speech with which they differ [19]. The decision by the three progressive Supreme Court justices in favor of the Christian students at Gwinnett College should not, therefore, come as any great surprise. What is more, the so-called “speech codes” designed to forbid on various campuses the use of language held by certain groups to be offensive have faced consistent rejection by the American judiciary, regardless of the philosophical leanings of the deciding judges [20].
Conclusion
The work of a trustworthy watchman is to keep a careful balance between sounding warnings even at the distant approach of danger, and refraining from the kind of knee-jerk alarmism that conditions people against warnings of any kind. Especially when it comes to religious liberty, Seventh-day Adventists have a particular obligation to base warnings on solid and verifiable facts, not flourishes of ideological paranoia from either direction.
What should be clear from recent U.S. Supreme Court cases is that the right of religious institutions and individuals to express, uphold, and apply their faith, even with reference to controversial cultural issues, can rightly be termed settled law. Whether secular forces in our society will in the future acquire sufficient strength to pose a credible threat to such liberty is a separate issue. But if recent High Court decisions and the consensus they reveal are any clue, such a future is in no way imminent.
A recent article on another website rightly laments the failure of certain ones on various North American Adventist campuses to apply the “religious exemption” in existing civil rights laws to their dealings with practicing LGBT students in such settings [21]. But that, too, is an issue separate from the perceived threat to this exemption in the current U.S. judicial system. Frankly, it would be better for certain voices in contemporary Adventism to spend more energy upholding and applying the church’s Bible-based standards within the denomination than worrying so much about legal threats to such standards in the larger society, which hard evidence suggests to be remote at best. The recent High Court rulings noted in this article make it plain as day that any Bible-believing institution refusing to dismiss students or employees who engage in unscriptural sexual practices are not refusing to do this because of any credible threat of legal reprisal. Other reasons, having nothing to do with public law, appear to be operative in such cases.
In the end, the predictions of Scripture and the Spirit of Prophecy writings are clear that religious liberty will indeed be abolished in the United States of America. But when this happens, it won’t be at the behest of the LGBT movement or any overtly secular elements. Rather, it will be at the hands of devout religionists who will see God’s wrath at work in natural and other disasters [22], and who will claim that the enforcement of Sunday observance will return America—and by extension, the rest of the world—to divine favor [23]. While rejoicing for now that the rights of religious conservatives are being protected by a judicial consensus on America’s highest court, we must keep our focus on the prophetic future and the ultimate threats that future will bring.
REFERENCES
1. Ariane de Vogue, “Supreme Court rules in favor of Catholic foster care agency that refuses to work with same-sex couples,” CNN, June 17, 2021 https://www.cnn.com/2021/06/17/politics/supreme-court-fulton/index.html
2. Jessica Gresko, “Catholic foster care agency wins Supreme Court verdict,” Associated Press, June 17, 2021 https://apnews.com/article/supreme-court-catholic-agency-same-sex-foster-care-004b978239e41675524859ae79a5333b
3. De Vogue, “Supreme Court rules in favor of Catholic foster care agency that refuses to work with same-sex couples,” CNN, June 17, 2021 https://www.cnn.com/2021/06/17/politics/supreme-court-fulton/index.html
4. Ibid.
5. Gresko, “Catholic foster care agency wins Supreme Court verdict,” Associated Press, June 17, 2021 https://apnews.com/article/supreme-court-catholic-agency-same-sex-foster-care-004b978239e41675524859ae79a5333b
6. Ibid.
7. Ibid.
8. De Vogue, “Supreme Court rules in favor of Catholic foster care agency that refuses to work with same-sex couples,” CNN, June 17, 2021 https://www.cnn.com/2021/06/17/politics/supreme-court-fulton/index.html
9. Ibid.
11. http://www.becketfund.org/etbuhbu/
12. Yonat Shimron, “Supreme Court broadens scope of ministerial exception,” Associated Press, July 8, 2020 https://apnews.com/article/supreme-court-of-the-united-states-business-courts-supreme-courts-religion-f5ae6a964560a9d8adf9792eb4803a36
13. Ibid.
14. De Vogue, “Supreme Court rules in favor of Catholic foster care agency that refuses to work with same-sex couples,” CNN, June 17, 2021 https://www.cnn.com/2021/06/17/politics/supreme-court-fulton/index.html
15. Devin Dwyer, “Supreme Court sides with Christian students silenced on Georgia campus,” ABC News, March 8, 2021 https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/supreme-court-sides-christian-students-silenced-georgia-campus/story?id=76320592&cid=clicksource_4380645_3_heads_hero_live_headlines_hed
16. Ibid.
17. Ibid.
18. Ibid.
19. See Tim Harris, “Berkeley Professor Robert Reich and Ann Coulter Agree on First Amendment,” Real Clear Politics, April 30, 2017 (Discussion on ABC’s “This Week,” April 30, 2017 http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2017/04/30/berkeley_professor_robert_reich_and_ann_coulter_agree_on_first_amendment.html; Nina Burleigh, “The Battle Against ‘Hate Speech’ on College Campuses Gives Rise to a Generation That Hates Speech,” Newsweek, May 26, 2016 http://www.newsweek.com/2016/06/03/college-campus-free-speech-thought-police-463536.html; Frank Bruni, “These Campus Inquisitions Must Stop,” New York Times, June 3, 2017 https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/03/opinion/sunday/bruni-campus-inquisitions-evergreen-state.html?ref=opinion&_r=1; Bari Weiss, “When the Left Turns On Its Own,” New York Times, June 3, 2017 https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/01/opinion/when-the-left-turns-on-its-own.html?action=click&contentCollection=Opinion&module=RelatedCoverage®ion=EndOfArticle&pgtype=article; Thomas Healy, “Who’s Afraid of Free Speech?” The Atlantic, June 2017 https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/06/whos-afraid-of-free-speech/530094/;
Michelle Goldberg, “The Worst Time for the Left to Give Up on Free Speech,” New York Times, Oct. 6, 2017 https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/06/opinion/liberals-free-speech.html;
Bob Brown, “Editorial: A bunch of punks attacked free speech at UVA. The school responded well,” Richmond Times-Dispatch, Feb. 26, 2018 http://www.richmond.com/opinion/our-opinion/editorial-a-bunch-of-punks-attacked-free-speech-at-uva/article_0b2a09c6-915a-5994-aeff-3de07ad23803.html; Fareed Zakaria, “The Threat to Democracy—From the Left,” Washington Post, Sept. 13, 2018 https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/a-new-threat-to-democracy--from-the-left/2018/09/13/7e3fbb72-b790-11e8-94eb-3bd52dfe917b_story.html?utm_term=.3b3aff1f1fd0
20. “State of the Law: Speech Codes” https://www.thefire.org/legal/state-of-the-law-speech-codes/#:~:text=Public%20institutions%20of%20higher%20learning,are%20vague%20and%2For%20overbroad; see also David L. Hudson, “Free Speech on Public College Campuses Overview,” Freedom Forum Institute, March 2018 https://www.freedomforuminstitute.org/first-amendment-center/topics/freedom-of-speech-2/free-speech-on-public-college-campuses-overview/
21. Wayne Blakely, “Reviewing the July 3 NAD Public Affairs Religious Liberty Panel Discussion,” Fulcrum7, July 6, 2021 https://www.fulcrum7.com/blog/2021/7/6/reviewing-the-july-3-nad-public-affairs-religious-liberty-panel-discussion
22. Ellen G. White, The Great Controversy, pp. 589-590.
23. Ibid, p. 587.
Pastor Kevin Paulson holds a Bachelor’s degree in theology from Pacific Union College, a Master of Arts in systematic theology from Loma Linda University, and a Master of Divinity from the SDA Theological Seminary at Andrews University. He served the Greater New York Conference of Seventh-day Adventists for ten years as a Bible instructor, evangelist, and local pastor. He writes regularly for Liberty magazine and does script writing for various evangelistic ministries within the denomination. He continues to hold evangelistic and revival meetings throughout the North American Division and beyond, and is a sought-after seminar speaker relative to current issues in the Seventh-day Adventist Church. He presently resides in Berrien Springs, Michigan