Lawmakers Embraced Religion to Allow Discrimination
In its professed zeal to protect religious Texans, the state Legislature has included within an increasing number of laws exemptions for those with “sincerely held religious beliefs.” Social conservatives believe the phrase will protect lawyers who refuse to represent gay clients or pharmacists who refuse to issue certain types of contraceptives, and the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender community believe the phrase will become a license to discriminate. Unfortunately, lawyers remain uncertain about the scope of “religious liberty” that it seemingly protects.
One might begin with some practical examples of conduct that are not protected under almost all current readings of the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment or the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), which is the basis of almost all current litigation involving national law.
Consider Jehovah’s Witnesses who might demand that their children not receive blood transfusions because of their undoubtedly sincere belief that it is the “drinking of blood” that is prohibited by the Bible. There are now multiple cases that reject this claim of parental authority, however sincerely religious it might be, because of the obvious threat to the life of the child. Courts have therefore ordered that transfusions be given.
So one should wonder whether a religious parent could invoke a “spare the rod and spoil the child” defense if charged with child abuse; could an abusive husband quote the Bible to defend “chastisement” of his wife for disobedience? One would hope not.
Read more: http://www.texasmonthly.com/burka-blog/lawmakers-embraced-religion-allow-discrimination/
