Support the Café

Search our Site

What does the Abercrombie & Fitch case have to do with marriage equality?

What does the Abercrombie & Fitch case have to do with marriage equality?

Yesterday’s media was full of the Supreme Court decision that Abercrombie & Fitch, the clothing retailer, discriminated against a Muslim woman who attended an interview wearing a headscarf by failing to accommodate this religious practice and using it as a reason not to hire her.

Today, Mark Silk, writing for the Religion News Service, examined the case a little more closely.

Back in 1990, Scalia set Free Exercise jurisprudence on its ear when, in Employment Division v. Smith, he rounded up four other justices behind the position that individuals could not claim a violation of their constitutional right to free exercise against a “neutral law of general applicability” — that is, against a law that does not aim to discriminate against a religious practice and which applies to everyone.

In EEOC v. Abercrombie, Scalia wrote for a nearly unanimous court in favor of the view that Abercrombie’s preppy dress code, which precluded headgear-wearing employees (i.e. a neutral and generally applicable rule), violated Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act when it was used to deny employment to a Muslim woman who was understood to be wearing a headscarf for religious reasons.

Silk in turn points to Noah Feldman on the Bloomberg View, who accounts for the differing opinions of conservatives on the court, from Samuel Alito, who came out even more strongly in favor of the need for religious accommodation, through Antonin Scalia, who wrote the majority decision, to Clarence Thomas, the only conservative justice to apply the old principles of the Smith rule.

Behold the current trifurcation in conservative views about religious liberty and exemptions. At the most pro-religious extreme is Alito, author of the Hobby Lobby decision and vanguard of the new maximalist conservative position in favor of religious exemptions. In the middle is moderate Chief Justice John Roberts and, in this case, Scalia, trying to follow the civil-rights laws without giving away all the ground to plaintiffs seeking religious exemptions. At the other extreme is Thomas, displaying  — at least in this case involving a Muslim woman — the traditional conservative’s skepticism of religious exemptions, a position once occupied by Scalia.

… To understand why Scalia didn’t want to go as far as Alito, you have to think back to when conservatives didn’t like minorities, including religious minorities, to seek exemptions from general rules.

“That was then,” says Silk.

Now we are in an era when the religious minorities are Catholic and evangelical Protestant individuals and institutions that want exemptions from neutral and generally applicable health insurance and anti-discrimination laws. The Religious Freedom Restoration Acts, about which there has been such fuss lately, would never have been put in place but for Smith.

Silk goes on to wonder how Scalia’s new view will play out in other cases to come before the Supreme Court.

The question is: When will they apply their new/old understanding of religious discrimination to the First Amendment itself? Thus far, conservatives on the Court seem to have been reluctant to reverse Smith for fear of offending Scalia. Now that he’s given up the fight, the reversal could come as early as this month, when the justices deliver their much-awaited final word on same-sex marriage.

Find Mark Silk’s opinion here; Noah Feldman’s blog here.

Posted by Rosalind Hughes

Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

Café Comments?

Our comment policy requires that you use your real first and last names and provide an email address (your email will not be published). Comments that use non-PG rated language, include personal attacks, that are not provable as fact or that we deem in any way to be counter to our mission of fostering respectful dialogue will not be posted.

7 Comments
Newest
Oldest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Paul Woodrum

I wonder if Alito would recognize the right to refuse to pay taxes that support military killing or state executions (Texas has one scheduled for today and enough drugs for eight more of the twelve scheduled) on the basis of one’s religious beliefs. I think the court is pushing the religious right to opt out of neutral laws way to far for frequently frivolous reasons.

Mike Boyle

I think what the article is getting at is not gay marriage per se, but the aftermath of the gay marriage ruling (assuming the SC rules in favor of marriage equality). Under the Alito understanding of religious freedom, there is a generalized right under the First Amendment to opt-out of otherwise neutral laws on the basis of one’s religious beliefs. In other words, Alito thinks that the original Indiana RFRA should apply to everyone everywhere in the country.

Paul Powers

I don’t see any connection either. The Abercrombie case involves the interpretation of a federal statute. There’s no constitutional issue because A&F isn’t a governmental entity.

The marriage equality cases do involve constitutional issues: whether state laws prohibiting same-sex marriage violate the 14th Amendment and whether states without same-sex marriage must recognize valid same-sex marriages performed in other states.

John Chilton

I presume I’m missing something, but I fail to see the connection of marriage equality to the rest of Silk’s op-ed. I’d be grateful if anyone could explain.

David Allen

I wish someone could explain the whole thing, I didn’t understand any of it!

Bro David

John Chilton

Bro David, this explains the Smith case and how we came to have the federal RFRA:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_Freedom_Restoration_Act#Background_and_passage

Facebooktwitterrss
Support the Café
Past Posts

The Episcopal Café seeks to be an independent voice, reporting and reflecting on the Episcopal Church and the Anglican tradition.  The Café is not a platform of advocacy, but it does aim to tell the story of the church from the perspective of Progressive Christianity.  Our collective sympathy, as the Café, lies with the project of widening the circle of inclusion within the church and empowering all the baptized for the role to which they have been called as followers of Christ.

The opinions expressed at the Café are those of individual contributors, and, unless otherwise noted, should not be interpreted as official statements of a parish, diocese or other organization. The art and articles that appear here remain the property of their creators.

All Content  © 2017 Episcopal Café