Minersville Vs. Barnette Case Study

In Minersville vs. Gobitis and West Virginia B.O.E vs. Barnette, the freedoms given unto the minority religious groups were in danger of being taken away and in the end, from the Barnette decision, the overturning of Gobitis opened the door for many other minority groups to realize what rights they have and the majority which included school and public officials could not take those away from them. In future cases that involved minority religious groups, one that involved Seventh-day Adventists was Sherbet v. Verner, in which an Adventist women’s unemployment benefits and compensation were denied after being fired for her denying Saturday work. Saturday was the original day of the Sabbath, and after the woman’s conversion to Seventh-day Adventism …show more content…
The ordinance was argued by the Jehovah’s Witnesses in argument that it violated their first amendment rights of free exercise of religion, freedom of press, and the right to free speech. In the ordinance established by the Stratton local legislature, it restricted “canvassers” from going door to door. Canvassers were political campaign works who were used to go from door to door and remind people on Election Day to go vote, and in some cases encourage the person who they are working for to be elected while doing such actions. In this particular case, the Jehovah’s Witnesses were being profiled and stereotyped into the same situation as which the definition of Canvassing is. The legislature also said to do canvassing required a license. The law generalized most subjects that could be involved in soliciting or canvassing that included trick-or-treaters, persons from ___ church, and etc. However, the law itself singled out the Jehovah’s Witness religious group by its name and did not do so with any there sect or church. The Jehovah’s Witness group pointed out this issue and also discussed statements made by the local mayor that could be argued as discriminatory against them and could be labeled as anti-Jehovah’s Witness statements and bias against them undermining the recently established law. Before the Supreme Court had heard these, the Jehovah’s Witness themselves had argued that their right to free exercise of religion and their right to free speech had been violated under this law, the only argument that could have been made from a Bill of Rights standpoint could come from a right to privacy regarding the citizens protected under this new legislative law. However, such right is not present