noting that “states are free to enact and enforce facially neutral laws of general applicability even though they may interfere with the religious practices of some individuals.”
How later courts described this case
- noting that “states are free to enact and enforce facially neutral laws of general applicability even though they may interfere with the religious practices of some individuals.”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
CONCURRING OPINION BY
Senior Judge QUIGLEY.
In my judgment, St. Elizabeth’s justify ably points out significant areas of legitimate concern. For example, it suggests that subjectivity will be involved with respect to the nature of evaluating issues concerning self-esteem. It also suggests that compliance with civil rights rules (however laudable generally) and other non-discrimination issues, could cause the requirement of hiring persons who do not share similar religious beliefs. St. Elizabeth’s further points out that the government requirement of designated educational degrees could again impact on this day care center in a way contrary to St. Elizabeth’s religious mission.
However, as the majority correctly points out, St. Elizabeth’s is “short on specifics” sufficient to support a present religious liberty issue.
We can only hope that when an issue arises — probably by agency action with respect to certificate of compliance (license?) an adequate procedure will exist to not only safeguard children from harm, but provide respect for the religious liberty issues not presently, in advance of events, threatened here.