pages: RecreationandParkCommission/2017-12-14.pdf, 19
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
RecreationandParkCommission | 2017-12-14 | 19 | In Molko v. Holy Spirit Assn. (1988) 46 Cal.3d 1092, 1112-1113, the court explained the principles to be applied in analyzing the religion clauses: "The religion clauses protect only claims rooted in religious belief. [Citation.] ] The free exercise clause protects religious beliefs absolutely. [Citation. ] While a court can inquire into the sincerity of a person's beliefs, it may not judge the truth or falsity of those beliefs. [Citation. ] The government may neither compel affirmation of a religious belief [citation], nor penalize or discriminate against individuals or groups because of their religious beliefs [citation], nor use the taxing power to inhibit the dissemination of particular religious views. [Citation.] "However, while religious belief is absolutely protected, religiously motivated conduct is not. [Citations. ] Such conduct 'remains subject to regulation for the protection of society.' [Citation. I Government action burdening religious conduct is subject to a balancing test, in which the importance of the state's interest is weighed against the severity of the burden imposed on religion. [Citation. ] The greater the burden imposed on religion, the more compelling must be the government interest at stake. [Citations. ] A government action that passes the balancing test must also meet the further requirements that (1) no action imposing a lesser burden on religion would satisfy the government's interest and (2) the action does not discriminate between religions, or between religion and nonreligion. [Citation.]" The religion clauses were more recently described in Rowe v. Superior Court (1993) 15 Cal.App.4th 1711, 1725, as follows: Commonly referred to as the establishment and free exercise clauses, they together permit and require that government maintain a 'benevolent neutrality which will permit religious exercise to exist without sponsorship and without interference. [Citation.] "The 'benevolent neutrality' required by the First Amendment involves a delicate balance between the avoidance of sponsorship on the one hand and interference on the other. The United States Supreme Court has noted that the two religion clauses exist in 'tension' with one another [citations] and has 'struggled to find a neutral course between [them], both of which are cast in absolute terms, and either of which, if expanded to a logical extreme, would tend to clash with the other.' [Citation.] The free exercise clause "does not relieve an individual of the obligation to comply with a 'valid and neutral law of general applicability on the ground that the law proscribes (or prescribes) conduct that his religion prescribes (or proscribes). (Employment Div., Ore. Dept. of Human Res. v. Smith (1990) 494 U.S. 872, 879, quoting United States v. Lee (1982) 455 U.S. 252, 263, fn. 3.) Footnote No. 4 Here, not only is the free exercise clause implicated, so also is the constitutional right to associate with those of similar beliefs. "Congress shall make no law prohibiting the right of the people peaceably to assemble " (U.S. Const., 1st Amend.) '[I]mplicit in the right to engage in activities protected by the First Amendment [is] a corresponding right to associate with others in pursuit of a variety of political, social, economic, educational, religious, and cultural ends." (Roberts v. United States Jaycees (1984) 468 U.S. 609, 622.) In Widmar v. Vincent, | RecreationandParkCommission/2017-12-14.pdf |