The last forty-eight hours have witnessed the rendering of several momentous decisions by the United States Supreme Court. At least two of these have an impact on questions of religious liberty, which the present article will consider.
Accommodation to Religious Observances
The most decisive of the Court’s 2023 rulings relative to religious liberty was the decision in favor of one Gerald Groff, an evangelical Christian postal worker who sought exemption from delivery responsibilities on Sunday because of his religious faith [1]. On account of its contract with Amazon, which conducts business on a 24/7 basis, the U.S. Postal Service required Groff to work on his chosen day of rest.
The High Court ruled unanimously, across ideological lines, that the USPS had violated federal law by failing to accommodate Groff’s convictions relative to Sunday observance [2].
Groff’s case was not only supported by the General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists, but also by a broad coalition of religious groups, including the American Center for Law and Justice, the American Hindu Coalition, the Sikh Coalition, the Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America, the Council on American-Islamic Relations, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, and the Baptist Joint Commission [3]. The breadth and diversity of this religious coalition shouldn’t surprise anyone, as numerous religious communities of widely varying beliefs cherish the right to keep certain days sacred and thus free of unnecessary labor.
In the words of Bill Knott, the former Adventist Review editor who now serves as associate director of Public Affairs and Religious Liberty for the General Conference:
The ruling is expected to have far-reaching implications for workers across the country. By raising the standard for employers to justify denying religious accommodation, the Court's decision provides greater protection for employees with sincerely held religious beliefs. It sends a clear message that employers must make reasonable efforts to accommodate their employees' religious practices, even if it requires some degree of hardship.
The decision in Groff v DeJoy is seen as a significant victory for religious freedom advocates who have long argued for stronger legal protections [4].
Public Commerce and Religious Liberty
A more controversial decision by the Court was its ruling in favor of a Christian website designer not wishing to create wedding sites for same-sex couples. Free speech, a right which the High Court has bent over backwards to accommodate in recent decades, was cited by Justice Gorsuch as the basis for the majority decision in this case:
All manner of speech – from ‘pictures, films, paintings, drawings, and engravings,’ to ‘oral utterance and the printed word’ – qualify for the First Amendment’s protections; no less can hold true when it comes to speech like Ms. Smith’s conveyed over the Internet [5].
Justice Sotomayor, writing for the minority, cited “the government’s compelling interest in ensuring that all Americans have equal access to the public marketplace” [6]. Her dissent underscored the public nature of the business in question, and thus the problem that arises when the owner of such a business asserts the right to choose his or her customers:
Today, the Court, for the first time in its history, grants a business open to the public a constitutional right to refuse to serve members of a protected class. . . . Specifically, the Court holds that the First Amendment exempts a website design company from a state law that prohibits the company from denying wedding websites to same-sex couples if the company chooses to sell those websites to the public [7].
However, anyone familiar with the convictions of devout religionists understands that services such as weddings are often intertwined with religious faith and the beliefs which attend such faith. Many such religionists disapprove, for example, of marriages between persons of different religious traditions. Devout Protestants might choose, because of their theological opposition to the Catholic Mass (which forms a key part of Catholic wedding ceremonies), to not offer wedding-related services to Catholic couples. Should those in the wedding industry who hold convictions like the above be forced to provide services to couples whose relationships and beliefs run counter to these convictions?
In other words, conservative Christians in various lines of the wedding industry who disagree with same-sex marriage on theological and moral grounds aren’t the only religionists whose faith might be challenged by the beliefs and practices of the couples seeking their services.
Perhaps, instead of marketing such a business as open to the public, such vendors could indicate to potential customers that their business is intimately connected with, and governed by, their religious faith, and that on these grounds they reserve the right to refuse service to those whose beliefs and practices they cannot in conscience facilitate.
Analysis
The aforesaid High Court decisions certainly put the lie to the notion, so popular just now among religio-political conservatives, that the American legal establishment is on a rampage to persecute Christians. What is especially significant is that in the case involving the postal worker wanting Sundays off, the Court’s ruling included all nine justices, from the most conservative to the most liberal. Like the Hosanna Tabor case of 2012, which unanimously affirmed the right of religious institutions to hire and fire workers based on the institution’s religious faith [8], not to mention the Court’s unanimous 2021 decision upholding the right of Catholic foster care agencies to refuse to adopt children out to gay couples [9], the Supreme Court has maintained without qualification—across its philosophical divide—that certain prerogatives on the part of religious believers and religious organizations are off limits to encroachments by the secular state.
The inspired forecast regarding the final conflict of the ages, of course, reminds us that such allowance for religious liberty will not last forever. Especially will this prove true regarding observance of the Bible Sabbath. Seventh-day Adventists, of course, uphold the right of all religious believers to observe their chosen day or days of rest as their consciences determine. The unqualified support of our General Conference religious liberty department for the rights of the postal worker in the case just decided bears witness to this reality. Other cases, like the one involving the wedding website vendor, may not be as clear, on account of the issue of public accessibility on the part of businesses open to the public. As in similar cases, ways and means must be found whereby the rights of all—those adhering to a particular faith as well as those denying that faith—can be maintained so long as what Ellen White calls the “shield of omnipotence” remains in place over the United States of America [##10|Ellen G. White, SDA Bible Commentary, vol. 7, p. 975.##].
REFERENCES
1. Bill Knott, “Supreme Court Issues Historic Ruling Strengthening Religious Accommodation Protections for Workers,” Adventist News Network, June 29, 2023 https://adventist.news/news/supreme-court-issues-historic-ruling-strengthening-religious-accommodation-protections-for-workers
2. Ariane de Vogue and Tiemey Sneed, “Supreme Court revives case brought by postal worker seeking religious accommodation,” CNN, June 29, 2023 https://www.cnn.com/2023/06/29/politics/supreme-court-groff-dejoy-postal-worker/index.html
3. Knott, “Supreme Court Issues Historic Ruling Strengthening Religious Accommodation Protections for Workers,” Adventist News Network, June 29, 2023 https://adventist.news/news/supreme-court-issues-historic-ruling-strengthening-religious-accommodation-protections-for-workers
4. Ibid.
5. Ariane de Vogue and Devan Cole, “Supreme Court limits LGBTQ protections with ruling in favor of Christian web designer,” CNN, June 30, 2023 https://www.cnn.com/2023/06/30/politics/supreme-court-303-creative-lgbtq-rights-colorado/index.html
6. Ibid.
7. Ibid.
9. 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
10. Ellen G. White, SDA Bible Commentary, vol. 7, p. 975.
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