宗教案例真理

First, the facts of the case


The plaintiff, is a Seventh-day Adventists will be (the Seventh-Day Adventist Church) followers. She refused to work on Saturdays (her faith provisions of the Sabbath) was the state of South Carolina dismissed. (Sabbath, is to stop work, rest days, but also out of believers worship God in each day. And most of the Christian Church on Sunday - the day of resurrection of Jesus Christ - rest is different is that Seventh-day Adventists will follow the Jews traditional, closed on Saturday.) in her own attempt to live in the area to find a job also, but did not find her work, that do not need her on Saturday.

Then, according to South Carolina, her unemployment benefits law (Unemployment Compensation Act) application for unemployment benefits. In accordance with the law, applicants must have the ability to work and ready and willing to accept suitable work (be able to work and is available for work); but if the applicant refused to accept the employment provided by the employer the appropriate department or work and no good reason (good cause), then it can not get unemployment benefits.

South Carolina Employment Commission to provide the plaintiff will not accept for her work on the grounds, rejected the plaintiff's application. The Committee also believes that personal reasons, whether religious or other reasons, not as a justification for refusing a suitable job. State Supreme Court upheld the Employment Commission's decision that refused to give her her unemployment benefits did not impose any restrictions of religious freedom. Plaintiff then appealed to the Supreme Court.


Second, the resulting decision

Finally, the Supreme Court vote 7 to 2, quashing the South Carolina Supreme Court ruled that freedom of religion prohibits the burden of government by providing the conditions for religious freedom to restrict the right to receive government benefits.

Case by the majority opinion writer Justice Brennan, the other Black, Clark, Goldberg Justice and Chief Justice Warren support the majority opinion. Douglas, while supporting the majority opinion, Justice Stewart's conclusion, but for some reason were collaborative submissions. Justice Harlan issued a dissenting opinion is to get the support of Justice White.


Third, in this case the main point of contention

The main contention point of the case can be summarized in the following two points:

1. Whether the relief the plaintiff refused to give her freedom of religion to impose any burden?

2. If you refuse to give her relief did to her had the burden of freedom of religious activities, the existence of compelling
Government's interest as a violation of First Amendment rights of the plaintiff to justify?


Fourth, the case of the majority opinion, collaborative analysis of opinions and different views

(A) of the majority opinion

Compete for th

e first point, Justice Brennan in his majority opinion in the book that, just ask her because she refused to accept the violation of religious work, and depriving her of access to government unemployment benefits eligibility of the practice of their religious freedom unconstitutionality of the burden imposed. On the second point of contention is that there is no compelling governmental interest makes the violation of First Amendment rights of the plaintiff to become legitimate. Following further analysis of the main reasons the majority opinion.

1. Refused to grant relief is unconstitutional?

Justice believes that if the purpose or effect of a law impede the faithful to participate in religious services, then the law is unconstitutional, even if the burden of religious freedom have only indirectly. Majority opinion, although in a sense, the plaintiff refused to give unemployment benefits to her religious liberty is only an indirect effect (indirect result), while there is no criminal sanctions to force them to work six days a week. But this is only the beginning of the problem, not its end. Majority opinion of the Employment Committee's decision forced the plaintiff to make hard choices as follows: (1) the loss of religious belief and government benefits, or (2) give up religious belief in order to receive government benefits. "The choice imposed by the government to impose the burden on its religious freedom to worship and participate in the behavior of their fine on Saturday as serious."


Majority opinion, Supreme Court of South Carolina unemployment compensation is based on the plaintiff's privilege (privilege) rather than their rights (right) and explained that the law is not unconstitutional, is untenable. Majority opinion that denied benefits or access to benefits set, privileged conditions, also violations of religious beliefs and freedom of expression. Majority opinion cites the Speiser v. Randall to support its argument. Decision in this case, the Supreme Court that made certain forms of speech to deny the tax exemption privileges of the people, in fact, be punished for their speech, so the decision limits the provisions of the tax exemption is invalid. Majority opinion, again requiring the plaintiff to obtain relief funds to her violation of the fundamental principles of its religious terms, in fact, punishing her religious activities.


2. Whether there is a compelling governmental interest?

Majority opinion, if a government's legal burden imposed on religious activities, unless the government can meet the rigorous review standards, or the law is unconstitutional. Merely indicates that there are some plausible governmental interest (colorable state interest) is not enough, in this highly sensitive constitutional area, only the best interests of those who endanger the rights of the most serious abuse, can be restricted. South Carolina worry that some applicants will shamelessly pretend to work on

Saturday brought against fraudulent applications, which will not only weaken the unemployment compensation fund but also hinder the work of employers arrange on Saturday. But the majority opinion found that the record in this case there is no evidence to support the state government for the fraud concerns. Also believe that the majority opinion, even if such evidence exists, and its violations of religious freedom can become a justification is questionable. Because, even if there is a false application for Employment Fund and jeopardize the possibility of disruption of work, the Government must adduce evidence to prove there is no other alternative restrictions do not infringe freedom of religion means to fight with the false application.