SuperCitizen

Religious-liberty law has shifted substantially in recent years. Key Supreme Court decisions:

Employment Division v. Smith (1990) held that neutral, generally applicable laws don't require religious exemptions.
The Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA, 1993) restored a strict-scrutiny test for federal laws.
Burwell v. Hobby Lobby (2014) extended RFRA protections to closely held corporations.
Fulton v. Philadelphia (2021) and 303 Creative v. Elenis (2023) expanded religious accommodations.

Ongoing debates include religious exemptions from anti-discrimination laws (especially LGBTQ); religious schools' eligibility for state programs; conscience-based exemptions from medical procedures; and prayer in public schools.

Spectrum of framings

How adherents on each side of the conventional left / center / right spectrum frame this issue — written so each camp would recognize the framing as charitable.

left

Progressives generally favor narrower religious exemptions, especially where they conflict with anti-discrimination laws.

center

Many centrists favor accommodations that respect both religious practice and non-discrimination, often through case-by-case balance.

right

Most conservatives strongly favor robust religious-liberty protections, including for corporations and against anti-discrimination requirements.

Perspectives

Each perspective is presented in terms its advocates would recognize, with the concerns they treat as paramount. None is endorsed.

Robust religious-liberty advocates
Religious liberty is a foundational constitutional commitment. Government should accommodate sincere religious practice except where overriding interests demand otherwise — and broad anti-discrimination laws do not always qualify.
- Free Exercise protections
- Religious-school participation in public programs
- Conscience exemptions
Anti-discrimination / non-establishment advocates
Religious-liberty claims should not become a license to discriminate or impose religious practice on others. Public accommodations and government programs require equal treatment regardless of religious belief.
- Anti-discrimination protections
- Establishment Clause limits
- Equal access regardless of belief
Pluralist-balance advocates
Religious liberty and anti-discrimination both deserve protection. Carefully drawn exemptions that don't eliminate access to services for others can honor both — through narrow tailoring and case-by-case adjudication.
- Narrow tailoring of exemptions
- Balancing competing rights
- Case-by-case adjudication

Voices on this issue8

Commonly-cited public figures who have taken a position on this issue. Grouped by their conventional left/center/right lean. Tap a voice to see their full position record.

left3

right5

Related lessons

bill-of-rights

Discuss this issue with the Coach →