{"title":"Religious Liberty, Immigration Sanctuary, and Unintended Consequences for Reproductive and LGBTQ Rights","authors":"Laura Keeley","doi":"10.7916/CJGL.V37I2.2785","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This Note considers the idea that potential religious liberty claims could be made by faith-based communities to provide sanctuary for undocumented immigrants and pays particular attention to potential unintended consequences those claims could have in the areas of reproductive and LGBTQ rights. Arguments to justify religious liberty in the name of sanctuary could be used in the future by different parties in attempts to limit reproductive rights and discriminate against LGBTQ persons. The announcement by President Trump of the creation of a new oversight entity in the Department of Health and Human Services, the Conscience and Religious Freedom Division, is an example of this religious-liberty-as-discrimination phenomenon. This Note proposes that any religious liberty claims made in the name of sanctuary should 1) be evaluated in the domain of antidiscrimination law and not analogized to much broader “conscience clauses”; 2) advocate for a narrower construction of religious liberty jurisprudence and religious liberty-protecting statutes, such as the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA); and 3) push courts to evaluate the sincerity of sincerely held religious beliefs.","PeriodicalId":416153,"journal":{"name":"CSN: Ethics","volume":"43 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2018-02-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"CSN: Ethics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.7916/CJGL.V37I2.2785","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
This Note considers the idea that potential religious liberty claims could be made by faith-based communities to provide sanctuary for undocumented immigrants and pays particular attention to potential unintended consequences those claims could have in the areas of reproductive and LGBTQ rights. Arguments to justify religious liberty in the name of sanctuary could be used in the future by different parties in attempts to limit reproductive rights and discriminate against LGBTQ persons. The announcement by President Trump of the creation of a new oversight entity in the Department of Health and Human Services, the Conscience and Religious Freedom Division, is an example of this religious-liberty-as-discrimination phenomenon. This Note proposes that any religious liberty claims made in the name of sanctuary should 1) be evaluated in the domain of antidiscrimination law and not analogized to much broader “conscience clauses”; 2) advocate for a narrower construction of religious liberty jurisprudence and religious liberty-protecting statutes, such as the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA); and 3) push courts to evaluate the sincerity of sincerely held religious beliefs.
本说明考虑到基于信仰的社区可能提出潜在的宗教自由要求,为无证移民提供庇护,并特别关注这些要求可能在生殖和LGBTQ权利领域产生的潜在意想不到的后果。以庇护之名为宗教自由辩护的论据,将来可能会被不同党派用来限制生殖权利和歧视LGBTQ人群。特朗普总统宣布在卫生与公众服务部(Department of Health and Human Services)设立一个新的监督机构——良心与宗教自由司(Conscience and Religious Freedom Division),就是这种“宗教自由即歧视”现象的一个例子。本说明建议,任何以庇护之名提出的宗教自由主张应1)在反歧视法的范围内进行评估,而不是将其类比为更广泛的“良心条款”;2)主张对宗教自由法理学和保护宗教自由的法规进行狭义的建构,如《宗教自由恢复法案》(religious Freedom Restoration Act, RFRA);3)推动法院对虔诚宗教信仰的真实性进行评估。