June 19, 2019
On Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court decided not to hear a religious liberty case from Oregon. The court did, however, vacate the Oregon decision, which fined cake decorators $135,000 for declining to create a cake for a same-sex wedding. The Supreme Court directed the Oregon Court of Appeals to reconsider its decision in the case in light of the Masterpiece Cakeshop case from Colorado, which was decided by the top court last year.
In other words, Oregon will have to determine whether the principle established in the Colorado decision (the state cannot single out citizens for disfavored treatment because of their sincere religious beliefs) applies.
The questions the Supreme Court and many other courts are wrestling with were addressed in Sutherland Institute’s most recent publication, Religious Liberty: Striving for Inclusion, and at an event where the publication was launched. Chapters written by experts Tim Schultz (president of the First Amendment Partnership), Robin Fretwell Wilson (professor at the University of Illinois law school), Hillary Byrnes (assistant general counsel for the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops), and Howard Slugh (co-founder of the Jewish Coalition for Religious Liberty) directly address these legal questions.
Curtis’ remarks highlight a crucial insight for finding workable policy solutions in a time of significant partisan division: build discussions on a foundation of what you can agree on.
At a Sutherland Institute Congressional Series event this week, Rep. Chris Stewart said that if people lose confidence in elections, “you have lost the foundation … for a government and society to survive.” Fortunately, Utahns trust in elections is high.
Speaking at a Sutherland Institute Congressional Series event this week, Rep. Chris Stewart said he believes that federalism is the only way for America to overcome its divisions.