The Time A Corporation Cited Religious Freedom As A Way To Avoid Desegregation

[DonViejo]

In her dissent in the Hobby Lobby case today, Justice Ginsburg mentioned a 1968 precedent in which the owner of a chain of barbecue restaurants in South Carolina “refused to serve black patrons based on his religious beliefs opposing racial integration.”

The Hobby Lobby majority emphasized that their ruling applied only to contraceptive coverage but would not undercut laws prohibiting racial discrimination. The conservative Justices said that the latter are “precisely tailored” to meet the government’s compelling interest in eradicating racial discrimination, while the Affordable Care Act provision falls in this case because it is not the least restrictive means to meet the government’s interest in providing women access to contraception.

At the time that that case, Newman v. Piggie Park Enterprises, was being decided, the majority of Americans had religious objections to interracial marriage and many preachers made the religious case for segregation. Efforts to defend the purported right of Christian schools to discriminate against African Americans greatly shaped the modern-day Religious Right.

In its 8-0 decision in Piggie Park, the Supreme Court upheld the Fourth Circuit Court’s ruling against the restaurant chain and found that it was not exempt from the Civil Rights Act of 1964 simply because its owner had religious objections to the law.

more

http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/time-corporation-cited-religious-freedom-way-avoid-desegregation

[misterhighwasted]

1. Excellant Post DONVIEJO. Says much as to what we are dealing with today.

Thank You for posting this eye opening information.

I ask permission to Repost & Link: Your post offers necessary & critical information to what my message is about. Yours, here, just connects the dots and make the urgency that much more serious.
Thank You

Perhaps we need a forum just for this serious issue. A lot of great information & opinion gets lost in fast moving threads.
It really should be all in a Forum of its own.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025175199

[DonViejo]

2. Do it, you don't need my permission to repost this. eom

[bettyellen]

3. kick, and a big fuck you to anyone who dismisses "social justice warriors"

[happyslug]

4. As I mentioned yesterday, this is why the Majority did NOT rule on First Amendment grounds.

Scalia and Kennedy were on the Court when the Peyote Case was decided. In the Peyote case, an American Native American had used Peyote in a Native American Religious ceremony and was arrested for abuse of a known narcotic. In the Decision WRITTEN by Scalia and agreed to by Kennedy as part of the Majority decision in that case, Scalia wrote that if a law was General in nature and not intended or aimed at a religious doctrine of any religion, then the First Amendment did NOT apply to such general laws. In the Peyote Case that meant the mere fact that the Peyote was made illegal by a General Law, the fact it was also used in Native American Religious Ceremonies did not protect the user from being prosecuted under the General Law banning the use of Peyote.

Right after that decision, Congress passed the "Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (RFRA), 107 Stat. 1488, 42 U. S. C. §2000bb" and this decision is based on that Act of Congress, NOT the First Amendment.

In the RFRA, the courts MUST balance between the General law and the Right of Freedom of Religion. The decision of this court is based on THAT ACT not the First Amendment. I suspect for the simple reason if the First Amendment came into play, Scalia and Kennedy would rule as they did in the Peyote Case, i.e. ruled AGAINST Hobby Lobby. Thus the First Amendment is barely mentioned in the Majority Decision, for to address it risked losing either Kennedy or Scalia.

The Hobby Lobby Actual Court Decision:

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/13-354_olp1.pdf

Newman v. Piggie Park Enterprises, Inc. - 390 U.S. 400 (1968):

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/390/400/case.html


The Peyote Case, "Employment Division, Department of Human Resources of Oregon v. Smith (No. 88-1213), 1990":

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/494/872

[Bernardo de La Paz]

5. Background and Analysis. Excellent post. Thank you! Put it in your journal. nt