I agree that Sherbert and Yoder are futile and Lukumi Babalu has taken the correct approach. The accomodationist approach is utilized in Sherbert and Yoder has indeed caused a slippery slope. For example, in Sherbert, a woman refused to work on Saturday due to her religion and being a member of the Seventh-day Adventist Church. Her employer denied this private accommodation to not work on Saturday resulted in being fired from her job. The South Carolina Employment Security Commission denied her benefits since there was unacceptable religious justification for her refusing to work Saturday. The Court ultimately sided with Sherbert stating the eligibility restrictions for unemployment compensation imposed a significant burden on Sherbert’s ability
…show more content…
For example, the neutrality approach can be seen in Lukumi Babalu. In this case, there was the Church of Lukumi Babalu, which practiced animal sacrifices as a form of worship. After the announcement of the Church being established in a city in Florida, the city immediately passed ordinances prohibiting the possession of animals for sacrifice or slaughter, with specific exemptions for state-licensed activities. The Court struck down these ordinances because they did not pass strict scrutiny, and thereby, discriminated Lukumi Babalu on the basis of religion. The ordinances did not pass strict scrutiny even though there were compelling state interests in public health and animal cruelty. It did not pass because the ban was not by least-restrictive means. The practices of the religion were not held to least-restrictive means with the state interest of public health and animal cruelty, since there were other least-restrictive means to further those interests. The key here is strict scrutiny is being applied to controversial religious practices. This is crucial because strict scrutiny does its best to protect civil liberties. This is the best form of interpreting the free exercise clause because it is the most fair for both non-religious and religious people. With strict scrutiny, everyone is fair game to neutral criminal
For example, the neutrality approach can be seen in Lukumi Babalu. In this case, there was the Church of Lukumi Babalu, which practiced animal sacrifices as a form of worship. After the announcement of the Church being established in a city in Florida, the city immediately passed ordinances prohibiting the possession of animals for sacrifice or slaughter, with specific exemptions for state-licensed activities. The Court struck down these ordinances because they did not pass strict scrutiny, and thereby, discriminated Lukumi Babalu on the basis of religion. The ordinances did not pass strict scrutiny even though there were compelling state interests in public health and animal cruelty. It did not pass because the ban was not by least-restrictive means. The practices of the religion were not held to least-restrictive means with the state interest of public health and animal cruelty, since there were other least-restrictive means to further those interests. The key here is strict scrutiny is being applied to controversial religious practices. This is crucial because strict scrutiny does its best to protect civil liberties. This is the best form of interpreting the free exercise clause because it is the most fair for both non-religious and religious people. With strict scrutiny, everyone is fair game to neutral criminal