About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline
LOG IN
LOG IN

46 J.L. & Educ. 415 (2017)
Protecting against Discrimination or Violating the Freedom of Religion: Balancing One of Americans' Most Important Liberties

handle is hein.journals/jle46 and id is 430 raw text is: Protecting Against Discrimination or Violating the Freedom of Religion? Balancing One of Americans' Most Important Liberties I. INTRODUCTION The First Amendment to the United States Constitution contains two important clauses to protect religious freedom. The Free Exercise Clause acts as a protection from government intrusion into the religious practices of individuals in the United States.1 The Establishment Clause, on the other hand, restricts what the government can do to support and advance, or establish, a state-sponsored religion.2 The Supreme Court has emphasized that there is a play in the joints between these two clauses.3 However, schools often do not know exactly what is and is not permitted within First Amendment law and state legislation.4 Furthermore, religious schools face difficult questions regarding the Establishment Clause when accepting government funds - in this case from the California State Legislature. Assuming for the sake of this article that religious schools are permitted to receive state funds without constituting an establishment of religion, the question of what conditions government can attach to funding for religious entities remains up to interpretation. More specifically, religious schools that accept state funding and grants must strike a difficult balance. By accepting government funds, do they exchange, among other things, the privilege to discriminate under the Free Exercise clause according to their religious beliefs? Asked a different way, should religious schools who accept state money be entitled to retain their exemption from non-discrimination laws conflicting with their religious teachings and tenets? 1. Cutter v. Wilkinson, 544 U.S. 709, 718 (2005). 2. Engel v. Vitale, 270 U.S. 421, 424 (1962). 3. Walz v. Tax Com. of N.Y., 397 U.S. 664, 669 (1970). 4. Sarah Isgur, PLAY IN THE JOINTS: THE STRUGGLE TO DEFINE PERMISSIVE ACCOMMODATION UNDER THE FIRST AMENDMENT, 31 Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy 371-373 (2008), http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol3l-Nol- Isguronline.pdf.

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.



Short-term subscription options include 24 hours, 48 hours, or 1 week to HeinOnline.

Purchase Access

Contact us for annual subscription options:

Contact Us

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

Log In

profiles profiles most