Originally published in Deseret News.

Is religious freedom a wedge issue? The unanimous agreement between all the justices in a decision just issued by the U.S. Supreme Court suggests the answer is no. The Court’s example provides an important corrective to the framing of some commentators and advocacy groups.

The facts of this case initially seem unreal — the state of Wisconsin determined that the Catholic Charities Bureau was not “religious enough” to qualify for a tax exemption available to religious organizations in the state. Piling on, the Wisconsin Supreme Court agreed because Catholic Charities did not proselytize or exclude non-Catholics from its services.

Thankfully, the U.S. Supreme Court has now corrected that decision and ruled unanimously that the state cannot prefer one religion over another on the grounds of the church’s teachings.

The Court’s opinion was written by Justice Sonia Sotomayor. She points out, “A law that differentiates between religions along theological lines is textbook denominational discrimination.”

The state had denied the exemption to Catholic Charities simply because the group did not follow the practice of some other churches, which proselytize while providing social services and serve only fellow members. Since doing either of these things would violate the beliefs of the organization, it was treated differently from other religious organizations solely because of this belief.

Justice Sotomayor’s opinion summarizes the legal standard: “When the government distinguishes among religions based on theological differences in their provision of services, it imposes a denominational preference that must satisfy the highest level of judicial scrutiny.” The Court rightly concludes that Wisconsin had no compelling reason that would justify this disparate treatment.

Justice Clarence Thomas joined the Court’s opinion and wrote separately to note another problem with the Wisconsin court’s opinion. The Court treated Catholic Charities as separate from the local Catholic Diocese. This is contrary to the “religious perspective” of the church, which is owed deference by the state. Ignoring the church’s beliefs violated the First Amendment guarantee “to religious institutions [of] broad autonomy to conduct their internal affairs and govern themselves.”

Religion and claims for religious freedom are sometimes characterized as divisive issues. When a presidential commission on religious freedom was recently created, some commentators charged that this would undermine the separation of church and state. The Supreme Court’s decision demonstrates that religious freedom issues need not be divisive. The clear constitutional protection of the right of people of faith to live and of religious organizations to operate consistent with their beliefs is right there in the text of the First Amendment.

This is a threshold principle that no government can ignore without endangering the most basic liberties of its citizens. This is especially true given the fact that verbal expressions of personal faith have defined modern protections for freedom of speech, and gatherings of members of organized religion form the foundations for protections of freedom of association. State and federal lawmakers should ensure that their actions are consistent with this guarantee.

Additionally, reporters, commentators, politicians and advocacy groups should take note that protecting religious freedom is typically a consensus issue for the U.S. Supreme Court, whose role is to ensure that the First Amendment guarantee is protected in legal disputes. In the 12 religious freedom cases decided since 2015, four have been unanimous and four more have garnered only one or two dissenting votes.

There are, obviously, some cases where the justices don’t reach consensus, but these cases should not cause us to lose sight of the strong support religious freedom claims typically receive.

The Court’s support for religious freedom is a bright spot in our current political climate. It demonstrates the wisdom of the Framers of the Bill of Rights in including specific religious exercise protections and vindicates one of the nation’s highest aspirations: that people of faith should be free to act on their beliefs without interference or discrimination.