In a news conference last week, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints reiterated its commitment to basic freedoms in the public square. Many of the media reports focused on the church's support for housing and employment rights for LGBT citizens, but there was less attention given to the church's affirmation of the religious freedom of organizations teaching and practicing sexual morality. That limited response is not surprising from a secularized society becoming increasingly intolerant of religious liberties and points of view.
An example of this can be found in California, where the state's Supreme Court unanimously voted to “prohibit state judges from belonging to the Boy Scouts on grounds that the group discriminates against gays.” This ruling comes in spite of the fact that the Boy Scouts of America allows all young men to fully participate regardless of sexual orientation, although restrictions for Scout leaders remain.
Regardless, it's disturbing to see a public organization tasked with upholding fundamental constitutional rights blatantly ignore the individual rights of its employees, including the right to free speech, free exercise of religion and freedom of assembly.
Stanford law professor Michael McConnell co-authored a brief submitted to the California Supreme Court that put this misguided decision in very practical terms. He noted that many adult Scout leaders assume those roles as part of their religious communities.
“Prohibiting a judge who is a member of a religious congregation from participating in its Scout troop (or Cub Scout pack) prevents the judge from fully participating in the life of his or her religious congregation, and in that congregation’s ministry,” he wrote. “It comes close to a religious disqualification based on the judge’s religious activities (and could even be a form of attainder or 'black-listing,' a practice with a very unfortunate history). The United States Constitution explicitly prohibits religious tests for any public office. The prohibition also runs afoul of the protection of religious rights of parents with regard to the building of character of their children ... which is a key purpose of the Boy Scouts.”
McConnell is absolutely right. Yet too many who recognize the essential nature of the First Amendment are silent when such obvious attacks on religious freedom are not only tolerated but are even given state sanction. To some, freedom of religion is apparently only acceptable when religion agrees with the state. That flies in the face of why the Bill of Rights was written in the first place. If the free exercise of religion only applies to religious principles that are popular, then freedom of religion no longer exists.