Evening. Inave taught religion america for more than 35 years. And i believe that the First Amendment has played a vital role in the vitality of this nation. And i shall read it for you. Congress shall make no laws respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof or abridging the freedom of speech or of the press or the right of the people to peacefully assemble and to petition the government for a. D dress of grievances the to come first, which is where religious freedom is often called americas first freedom. Establishment actually comes even before religious freedom. Often people dont understand what establishment is. 1833, massachusetts this established. Established. What that means is people no longer had to pay taxes to support my own religious ancestors, the congregationalists. If you want to know why establishment when a way, imagine how popular it was to pay taxes for somebody elses preacher. That is one of the reasons it went away. In also, that is a period American History of revivalism. People started going to camp songs, andinging they didnt like having to support these basically european style former religion. Wouldnt you rather go to a camp meeting and sing . That is the end of establishment in that sense. See this, as we will evening, the end of issues about establishment. Similarly, free exercise of religion is difficult for people to understand, because it sounds simple. My own son, mild old son who is said, has and that really been settled, mom . What does he know. [laughter] one phrase that is not a fear in the constitutions separation of church and state. Up here in the constitution is separation of church and state. That is often misunderstood. It is actually paraphrased from a letter that Thomas Jefferson the dan barry baptist. It was published in the paper in massachusetts. Im going to read some of it to you. Thateving with you religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his god that he owes account to none other than for his faith and his worship. That the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, not opinions. I contemplate with solemn reverence that the whole American People have declared their legislature shall make no law establishing religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. Thus, building a wall of separation between church and state. An hearing to this expression of the supreme will of the nation, on behalf of the rights of all c with, i sh sincere satisfaction all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties a lot of rights of conscience in this letter. This crucial in which the framers used is a relatively new idea. The king did not control what you might believe. A idea. A new idea. Tonight, that panelists will reflect on the constitutional promise of free exercise and the prohibition against malicious establishment religious establishments. We will keep this pretty tight. We are going to look at the baker v. Ce and denver Jack Phillips. This cake for the gay couple, citing that marriage is only a union between man and a woman. Cakehe to create a wedding for an event that celebrates something the ghost against his understanding of the bible would have to be a personal endorsement and participation in the ceremony. A couple sued, alleging that phillips had engaged in prohibited discrimination under colorados public accommodation love. He asserted his right to freely exercise his religious belief. Which has been more recently decided, is the American Legion v. The American Human Association. The state of maryland maintained a 40 foot latin cross in the median of a public highway. Across was first directed 94 years ago as a world war i memorial. The bladensburg peace cross. Residents challenged the government, citing the cross as anditutional unconstitutional establishment of religion. Any material this evening could be on the final exam. [laughter] and with that, i am going to slide over to mr. Shackleford. [applause] mr. Shackelford i have been fighting religious freedoms cases for 30 years. In that time, i have represented all faiths. Catholic, protestant, people of the jewish faith, muslim, native american indians. And so, i thought, if we start peoplescussion if dont care about religious freedom, they are not really going to be that into what we are saying. So let me start with the first why should you care about religious freedom . If youre a person of faith, that is kind of obvious. But what if you are not a person of faith . Youhouldnt be important to should it be important to you . The answer is yes. If you lose this freedom, you lose all your freedoms. There are a lot of ways i can describe this. The quickest way i can do this is, the one thing that a totalitarian regime will never allow is those who hold an allegiance higher than the government. Oppressivee that regime coming into force, you will see the first flashpoint will be religious freedom. At that point, you lose it all. Over andbeen seconded over again as i speak around the country. Oftentimes, i have people come up to me afterwards, particularly from eastern iopean countries, who say, am not a person of faith, but i saw this happen in my country but are gone took on the religious symbols, and within months, we all lost our Political Freedoms. Number one, i think this is something everybody should care about. Number two, some people might say, is there really a problem with religious freedom in the u. S. . Are there any battles going on . The answer is yes. We keep track every years survey of all the, every year, a survey of all the cases. They are increasing at alarming rate. From my own experience, seven years ago, we had 47 cases. Last year, we had 447. The increase is dramatic. And especially against minority faiths. This is a picture of a synagogue we represent in los angeles. This is the second time there second time this synagogue has been defaced. Sixth lawsuit. It is trying to keep the synagogue from existing. We have them in los angeles, dallas, new york. In dallas, for instance, these are Orthodox Jews who walked to the synagogue. The Sticking Point at this point is that they dont have enough Parking Spaces. They dont need Parking Spaces to walk to the synagogue. But if they can keep them from having a synagogue, they all have to move. That is the point. They are trying to move these people out of their community. This is a picture of what happened to the rabbis car. I dont know if you can see this. This is not in germany, this is in the u. S. I just want to focus on the fact that there are battles on religious freedom in the u. S. This is an important issue. This is the basis for the founding of our country. Let me get to the subjects we are supposed to talk about tonight. We are talking about one major case that has been recently decided by the u. S. Supreme court. The establishment cause let me start with the establishment clause. V. Theican legion American Human Association case. A that case, you had memorial, a large cross that was put almost 100 years ago by mothers who lost their sons in world war i and by the American Legion. It was the 49 men in maryland who lost their lives in world war i. That memorial was originally put up on American Legion land, and it sat there. If you go to look at it, it is a nine foot wide, 2. 5 foot up and black listing these plaque listing bees individuals who died. After about 40 years right outside of washington dc, as they build the roads around the scum the government took over the property for health and safety reasons, and all of a sudden, this memorial is now in government property. The government did not want to disturb a Veterans Memorial, so decade later, the American Human Association comes along and there is a large cross on government property, this dilates the establishment violates the establishment clause. In this report, our client is the American Legion. District court, we won. They said this is not a violation of the establishment clause. The establishment clause is to not have a National Church toablished, cannot be forced contribute to agree with the idea that a Veterans Memorial has to be torn down because it is in the shape of a cross is something our founders would find bizarre, i think. So we made those arguments and we won a District Court. In the court of appeals, the threejudge panel ruled 31 this was unconstitutional under the establishment clause. One of the statements in the oral argument by one of the judges was, why dont we just cut the arms off across . That way will off across . Off the cross . That way it will not offend anybody. Decision was against us and the ruling was this was going to have to be moved or destroyed. It would have had to be destroyed. It is not a shape it can be removed. And went to the Supreme Court. This case is important because of the impact a decision would mean either way. If you tear down and say this is unconstitutional, this piece cross up for almost 100 years, only two miles away from this is Arlington National cemetery. You would have to go into arlington and take down the law freestanding crosses in arlington. In fact, you would have to go into every community of every state of our country where there are religious symbols, stars of david, crosses throughout the landscapes. There would be a religious cleansing i think most americans could not conceive of. We argued at the Supreme Court that there is no way that this is a violation of the establishment clause. In fact, we argued there is a case that we shouldnt even be here. The reason we are here is not because of what the constitution says, but because of the aptlyrold lemon case, named, then has been applied to attack all kinds of religious symbols, religious history and traditions of our country that we think is not what the constitution says. They created things like the offended observer standard, which means that if somebody religious property, itivate is not anywhere new what the establishment clause says. They are talking about an establishment like a National Church, picking one denomination, forcing people to support that. We argued in the Supreme Court not only should you uphold this, what you need to get rid of lemon, because it is being used to attack religious symbols and practices across the country, and it is not what our founders intended or what the constitution says. The decision of the Supreme Court came down just two months ago, can we are very pleased to say that the veterans piece cross was upheld. It was a 72 decision. Like most things in the Supreme Court, it was not a real circle decision, because their ofre were seven different decisions handed down. In my view, the lemon case and the lemon test being used is dead. Many commentators are saying that. In the case, they did not officially say it is that. They set in this case, lemon said in this case, lemon is a bad test and is not effective, creatinging it is all kinds of problems and has been for decades. It is time to put it aside. The court did not follow lemon in this case. In fact, they said there is a presumption now that from now on, any of our longstanding symbols, practices, even aregious ones, presumptively constitutional. We dont go on a search and destroy mission trying to score about the religious parts of our history and heritage in the country. And so, that decision has been handed down. Masterpiece cake shop case is a case that was mentioned with jack, a christian man who said he was opposed to samesex marriage. Two men came in and said we want you to do a wedding cake for us. Jack said, look, i will bake you a birthday cakes, you can purchase any of my bakeries, but i cannot create a custom wedding cake because that would violate my faith and my beliefs about samesex marriage. I would be participating in expressing something that i dont believe in. They went to the colorado civil , and theymission found Jack Phillips in violation of their laws. They said this is discrimination. Notthey told him they could do wedding cakes anymore if he was going to take this approach. He had to let go of half of his employees. To as also ordered to go government Reeducation Program about his belief on this issues these issues. He filed a lawsuit. He said this violates my free speech and free exercise rights. The Supreme Court said, look, this is normally a case about a statute protecting the rights and their freedoms, versus the fundamental First Amendment rights of free speech and freedom of religion. They set in this case, we really dont have to go to that, because in this case, the Colorado Civil Rights Commission was itself engaging in religious bigotry by how they handled this case. They were not neutral. They were discriminatory. Why do they say that . Number one, because of the statements of the commissioners. They were very antagonistic to those of faith who held the belief that samesex marriage was against their biblical beliefs. Secondly, they said it was because of how they handle other cases. In addition to Jack Phillips, who was punished, you had another person go to three different bakers and say i would do a kick that says samesex marriage is wrong. They refused to do a cake saying they were offended by that message. Then went to the Colorado Civil Rights Commission and said they are discriminating against me and what i am wanting to do with my cake. Those bakers were offended and had a right not to do those cakes. The Supreme Court set you are treating people differently. This religious person is being differently treated. If youre on one side of the issue you are treated one way, and on the other side of the issue you are treated another way. This is discrimination. Both sides show a trend of us goodg away that is really to providing more religious freedom. And i think we will see that in the future because of the court that we have. I look forward to the discussion and now bringing up mr. Clark. [applause] mr. Clark hello. Thank you for the symposium to to for inviting me participate in this panel. There is no debate religious freedom is a foundational importance in our country. And it should come with no surprise that i believe religious exemptions from certain laws have a legitimate place in our system of order liberty. I was the general counsel of the United Church of christ, which in 2014 successfully brought a lawsuit declaring north carolinas criminalization of the religious solemnization of samesex marriages to be an unconstitutional violation of our clergy is him congressman right to freely exercise the religious beliefs. Aboutr, there is debate where the place for religious exemptions is. For example, the courts have recently been called upon to resolve questions such as whether business providers frequently used in Wedding Services may decline to provide goods and services when the Business Owners religious beliefs do not embrace samesex marriage. Constitutional statutory standards old and new provide guidance to resolve this National Debate in cases like Masterpiece Cake shop. The Supreme Courts current constitutional doctrine distinguishes between laws that target religious practices and neutral laws of general applicability that conflict with the commitments of religious believers. The Supreme Court held in a case of Employment Division versus smith that requiring adherence to a neutral generally applicable law that was enacted for reasons unrelated to religious suppression does not violate the free exercise rights for religious adherent, even though the law has the fact of suppressing religious exercise. Laws ensuring equal access to public accommodation and prohibiting discrimination are neutral because they are not specifically enough did in response to and with the purpose of frustrating anyones religious exercise. These laws have general applicability regulating discrimination against samesex couples regardless of whether such discrimination is based on religious or other beliefs. Accordingly, under the supreme jurisprudence, religious objectors cannot show that the Discrimination Laws violate their free exercise rights under the First Amendment. To the best of my knowledge, every court to address the issue agrees. That being said, i have reservations about the standard enunciated by the court in Employment Division versus smith. It arguably his intentions with the constitutional text the original understanding and the moral imperative to detect unpopular or overlooked religious minorities. I believe that the free exercise of religion clause should be read as it was before the smith decision. And as is now provided for under many religious freedom acts restoration next. To provide religious extension from any law unless the government can demonstrate it is further a compelling interest furthering a compelling interest with impact to the religious believer. I find the antiDiscrimination Laws passed this more stringent test. Providing commercial services and goods is not just important, it is compelling. There is no less restrict it means by which the government can achieve its compelling interest in a and eliminating discrimination than prohibiting it. As the Supreme Court has recognized, no action is more contrary to the spirit of our constitution or more rightfully resented by a citizen who seeks only equal treatment than a deniable service by a business the general public. The court has the cleared by eliminating discrimination and ensuring equal Access Service compelling state interest of the highest order. Any argument that the baker and Masterpiece Cake shop is willing to serve all people because he couplesl cakes to lgbtq for nonwedding celebrations is wanting. Public accommodation laws exist to prevent not only outright exclusion, but also separate and unequal treatment. A suggestion that religious objections should be accommodated where there are wedding goods and Service Providers that do not discriminate on the basis of Sexual Orientation and those samesex couples can go elsewhere is faulty. The governments interest lies not in maximizing the number of establishments that do not discriminate against the protected class, but in , zero, the number of establishments that do. The conduct in issue in classes like Masterpiece Cake shop, making a cake for sale, is commercial activity for profit. Where the claim for an extension involves forprofit conduct in the commercial space, the states interest to protect the rights of all individuals to participate in the marketplace is that its zenith. The claim of the individual seeking the exemption in order to selectively refuse service on religious grounds is at its weakest. Requiring Business Owners to provide their goods and services equally does not require them to endorse against the religious thoses for the purpose goods and services are put. The Discrimination Laws in the owners speech is only incidental to the discriminatory conduct. Everyone can appreciate the difference between acts a person sponsors with conviction and those a person permits because they are legally required to do so. All Constitutional Rights are subject to limitation. Freedom of speech, freedom from selfincrimination, the freedom against seizures, all had to find boundaries. Those religion freedom does not mean it provides a blanket exception to laws that protect our neighbors. To hold otherwise would make every person a law unto themselves. We cannot let makers refuse to bake a cake for an interracial couple on religious grounds. We cannot allow people to burn down other peoples churches because the religion compels him to do so. In which contexts religious exemption still make sense and the government interest is not compelling. Folks whose religion forbids possession of photographs should be allowed to get drivers licenses and use some form of verifiable identity information. Military personnel, kids in school, lawyers and court should have the right to wear religiously required head coverings even in the face of neutral generally applicable prohibitions. And so, there is a spectrum of claims. Deeply society respectful of religious rites and willing to accommodate a fair number of such claims still needs to draw a line number. A line somewhere. Religious views should never excuse failure to an here to governmenting interest where nontrivial harm to others will occur. With respect to establishment clause to respondents and the opinionse, just as the for the majority states the court would extend a resumption of constitutionality in cases involving longstanding monuments, symbols, and practices. He noted that symbols and practices are quite different than erecting or adopting new ones. He argued that it took on a secular meaning. Concluded that the cross is undoubtedly a christian symbol, but it should not blind us to Everything Else that the cross has represented. This is a symbolic resting place for those who never returned home. For others, it is a historical landmark. For many people, destroying or defacing the cross that has wouldfor nearly a century not be neutral or further the respect and tolerance embodied in the First Amendment. There might be something to be said for the fact that we are moving an old religious monument. A concern i had was that government use of religious symbols degrades and exploits religion itself. The secular meetings presented presented inns efforts to minimize its religious meaning are offensive to many christians. The cross symbolizes the christian story about christs death and resurrection. Represents the gift of jesus, offering the promise of eternal life. Meaning is based on this promise of eternal life. It is not a secular meaning of the cross, but an application of the meeting. They should be concerned about the implications of the court saying that one reason the cross that ininue to exist is context, it is not so religious after all. The cross may stand, but at what cost to christianity . Moreover, a problem of the monument from an establishment cross point of view is not just the cross but the plaque at the base that read this memorial cross dedicated to the heroes of Prince Georges County maryland maryland. Georges, religion should not be used to bolster the states secular purpose. Warng a lot and cross a memorial does not make the cross secular. It makes the war memorial sectarian. The relationship between the government and religion in my view is the strict separation enforcement. In summary, i am opposed to constitutional right religious exemption from a law where the law advance is having interest and nontrivial harm is imposed on others. We should protect vision from the effects of government interference, like keeping government out of religious matters. Enqueue. Thank you. Clearly, we are up and running. Now, his opinion suggests, as d on just argued, that because they are longstanding, they are presumptively constitutional. How old does a monument have to be to have the religion leak out . I do notckelford think very long. I would be an important statement. A government that roams the land, tearing down monuments and scrubbing away references to the divine strikes many as aggressively hostile to religion. I think that is over now. The argument is, what they mean by longstanding . Think the court was saying practices thatf are longstanding, for instance, one of the practices is prayer to open up government meetings. They paid for a chaplain out of the federal treasury and they clearly did not think that was a violation. What if that was your local city who said we are going to open our meetings in prayer. With that not be protected . I think it would be protected because it is the type of practice, symbol, etc. That has been here since beginning. Dr. Brooks thistlethwaite perhaps you care to talk to each other. Don just argued that it is insulting to christianity giante you are sitting a cross, the symbol of christianity is secularized. Taking the not powerful central symbol of moving it intod a secular realm, which is insulting to christianity. That is one of my concerns. While the court has not held that this exist for longestablished and existing monument, practices and approaches, while it may not be religiously divisive to maintain those longstanding symbols, it certainly would be religiously divisive for a government to start erecting new ones. I do not think the case should be read as a green light that monument such as that 40 foot tall latin cross can be established by government in the country. I think that the context in which the religious symbols are used is extremely important. I would take exception with kelly saying that we need to protect against the threat of someone going into Arlington National cemetery and pulling up the crosses on the graves for people honored in that cemetery. In that context, those religious symbols, crosses and stars of david are associated with the individual honored in that particular grave. Different than having a religious symbol of one as a, unilaterally stand representor all or to an entire population. I was notkelford talking about the markers on the graves in arlington. In arlington, there is a cost of sacrifice. There is a 10 foot tall cross not associated with one individual. If the piece cross came down because it is religious, i do not see any way he would have to go to arlington to tear down those freestanding crosses. Keep all that you can the old but cannot add anything new, that would discriminate against minority religion because most of what we have is typically christian, therefore it would be a way to keep from having any other monuments. If you are in pittsburgh, what if they decided they wanted to honor those who died in the horrendous attack on the synagogue by putting up the star of david and putting a plaque underneath it . I do not think this division between old and new it is something we should follow. I think we have religious people with religious heritage and i do not think we should take an approach that we do not allow religious symbols. We can have both and it is ok. There is no way to avoid this. Go into the Jefferson Memorial and you will see him talking about liberty from god. It is just part of our history, our heritage. As long as there is religious freedom for everybody, i think it is fine. I do not think that we need to scrub the divine or religious comment from our memorials across the country. Dr. Brooks thistlethwaite it seems to me that in your example, it is constitutionally permissible for pittsburgh to erect a religious memorial establishing religion. Pres. Shackelford i do not think it establishes religion. It was an establishment of religion that they were concerned about. They were after coercion. They wanted freedom. He wanted people to be freed to live out their faith and not be coerced to support something that they did not believe. Dr. Brooks thistlethwaite i am a taxpayer in pittsburgh and i have to pay for the upkeep of this memorial. Do you have any comments on pittsburgh erecting a religious monument . If it is related to a single religion or denomination, i think it is problematic for the government to be doing that. Not only does there have to be equal treatment among religions, but the government also has to be respectful of nonreligion, so the government cannot be in the business of voting religion itself. Respectis key, so with to moses and the 10 commandments it is in in the court, the context of being next to hammurabi and the hammurabi code. Context,preme court moses and the 10 commandments part of numerous types of lawgivers does not establish aligion, but to single out single faith and having the government endorsed that is violating the clause. Dr. Brooks thistlethwaite i will keep faith with the schedule and move on. Timekeeper, to be so i would like to move on to the masterpiece decision. How are these described in the Supreme Court decision . Not resultese leaves in a communitywide stigma . Subjected are they are excluded from what is a getting armal cake to honor their wedding. How can the Government SupportCommunity Wide a stigma . It will result in that. Pres. Shackelford masterpiece says that the government cannot be religiously biased in their tribunal and things like make disparaging comments about religion against one of the plaintiffs, the person they are supposed to be adjudicating. Cases, it is a case out of oregon. A wonderful family. They have five children and melissa started baking goods. They eventually builds up to where they could have a bakery. Their plan was to pass this down to their children. Women andme in, two they said they wanted to buy. Then they said, we want you to do a cake for our wedding. Melissa, her wedding cakes were custom, therefore she had to she them from scratch and was very serious about what she believed about marriage. She always interviewed the clients and put something biblical in there. They said, we cannot do the cake, we could do Everything Else and we are happy to refer you to someone else. The state had at came after them. They were fined. Their business was bankrupt. They were told not to speak publicly about their views because it might upset people. And the commissioner he made the ruling, before they ever had a ruling publicly stated that their beliefs needed to be rehabilitated. That is not due process. That is what masterpiece is talking about. You cannot have a religiously biased court or commission that says the kind of horrible things they said about Jack Phillips, that you cannot bring your religion into commerce. Beliefs toed his slavery and the holocaust. That is what masterpiece is talking about. We need neutral tribunals. Dr. Brooks thistlethwaite you are nodding your head. Find commone can ground on this. Adjudicators of these kinds of claims have to be neutral but also respectful of religious beliefs. There is no disagreement about that. The question where we have some disagreement is, where do you draw the line with respect to where exemptions, from where any Discrimination Laws and any law is drawn with respect to accommodating religious exercise, free exercise beliefs. One case i would want to tease first libertys. As a case regular representing he is a tenant at an apartment complex. If i understand the case properly, he was wanting to conduct a bible study in the commons room of his apartment complex. The apartment complex said, you cannot do that. He wanted to conduct it inside his own apartment and the apartment complex said, you cannot do that either. You first liberty support, file a lawsuit against the apartment complex, arguing in are ahat their actions violation of both state and federal fair housing statutes, which prohibit discrimination against someone for their religious beliefs. The question i would pose to you, using that as a jumping off point, at the apartment complex was owned by an individual and that individual said, my religious needs are that there should be no homage paid to any god but my god, and you are conducting this bible study, using my apartment facility, violating my with the just beliefs, would you say that is to the fair housing antiDiscrimination Laws . Would you be representing the owner of the apartment complex . The religiousord owner of the entity could conduct in accordance with their faith. People know that when they come in, but what you cannot do is be an we had had government and citizenand senior facilities saying you can use the common room for everything but reading the bible. That is a violation of federal and law, but if someone wanted are many that are run by churches and denominations and they have a right to run their housing in accordance with their biblical beliefs. Mr. Clark so it would be ok for can go say that you elsewhere and rent an apartment from somewhere else . Pres. Shackelford sure. It is my apartment. I can control what happens in my apartment. How is that different to not renting to women because it is against your religious beliefs or not renting to muslims because it is against your religious beliefs . Im talking about the owner leasing a apartment. Pres. Shackelford lets say you are a catholic entity and you are only renting to priest. Can use you for not having women priests . People will try. I know you are hypothetical. I want to go back to but we were talking about. These people running their , and every single case, they served all people. They did not turn people away. They just could not endorse every message. I really think that we should all want that. I cannot imagine people would disagree, but can the government really punish a black baker because he will not bake a cake for a klan rally . I do not think anybody would want to force them to participate in something that they disagree with. I think there is a difference between i will not serve you and i cannot endorse every message that you are asking me to participate in. I think that is a huge difference and it is really dangerous that we have the government coming in saying, you will express this message or i will destroy this business, maybe your life. That is why we have the First Amendment because people get offended and they do not like what people say or do. It might be really offensive or inappropriate what they are doing or saying, but they are protected because we want to have people have different beliefs. A better approach is, lets not do business there. I do not want to go there. That is better than saying, i want the government to come in and crush my opponent because they do not believe that i believe. Mr. Clark there is a difference between refusing to bake a cake for anyone espousing racist or other objectionable points of view then there is to say, i will make a wedding cake for some people, but not for some others. There is a significant difference there and that is what the antiDiscrimination Laws are getting at. T is not just exclusion it is being selective and treating people unequally, making them run some kind of gauntlet of humiliation, going from vendor to vendor to find out who will serve them. Dr. Brooks thistlethwaite we are almost out of time on this one. I wanted to raise one question that has come up, relative to prayer before congress. I am a pastor. Prayerdone more public in the 40 years of my ministry than i would guess anyone in this room. I have done so many public prayers that they could compete in a triple bypass from denver. A lot of public prayer. Opinion this is the. Ame thing it is in the cross decision that prayer before congress is described as nine. For innocuous. It does not mean anything. For me as a pastor, what kind of prayer is that . Head, to whom it may concern . You are allowing prayer by taking everything prayer for out of it. It is powerful, specific, addressed, but you only allow it when you say it is benign. It is benign. I testified before the committees and the senator took me up on whether there should be prayer before congress. I think Congress Needs to be prayed for. I just do not want benign prayer so we will say religion performance in this setting by taking everything that is meaningful and transformative out of it. Pres. Shackelford i do not believe that prayer is benign, ever. I would have to read the exact sentence. I do not powerful, but think that there is any doubt that if you are trying to do with the constitution does, that the founders thought there was nothing that was a violation of the establishment clause to open their meetings with prayer. When they were breaking up at the beginning, there is a famous three hour prayer that brought them back together. Dr. Brooks thistlethwaite a lot of them were deas and thought it was pointless to pray anyways. They believedord in prayer, but they found no problem in paying a chaplain. That says that people were trying to misinterpret the establishment because to push out religious practices. Dr. Brooks thistlethwaite do you have anything you would like to weigh in on prayer . Mr. Clark just that these debates are not new. Madison actually opposed congressional chaplains. Pronouncerefused to days of thanksgiving because he thought that was to close a relationship between government and religion. These debates are not new. I do not see them ending anytime soon. It is part of this country to have the discussion about where religious freedom actually extends in this country. I. Brooks thistlethwaite will turn this over to you to walk around and direct your questions. Two things. Said, at one point you to it as ifferring i amwrong, saying paraphrasing because i do not remember the exact words, but it i would theg about gentleman who owns it does not honor a right not to gay wedding. Can you tell me where that comes from . That i do not have the right to honor a sex marriage . Pres. Shackelford when should there be a religious exemption from an antidiscrimination law or from any Governmental Law . Therent of view is that should not be a religious exemption if it is compelling and the means of the law to advance that compelling interest has the least impact of all on the religious believer. Mind, it passes that test. By requiring in the commercial sphere to provide goods and services to all on a equal basis, it is not overcome by that individuals for the just lease. By doing that, as compelled by the law to do it, everyone can understand that they are not personally endorsing the use to which their goods and services are being put to. I live in colorado and i have followed that case. Aware that there Supreme Court dropped the case and it ended up in the bakers favor. After that happened, the state of colorado decided to sue him went on forter that a few more months, unfortunately he had pro bono representation. My question is, that was dropped, but now the woman who brought the case to start with is bringing it up again. What right does she have to haunt this man that way and ruin his life . Where does it say that she has that right . Threw out they judgment against the baker because they found that the adjudicators on the Colorado Civil Rights Commission did not act in a neutral lay and sufficiently respect the religious beliefs being articulated. That did not mean that they were ruling that there was a religious exempt exemption to the law in colorado, so that is why it was possible for the state of colorado, using mutual and religiously respectful adjudicators to revisit the issue. Texas and what i saw is a shield in terms of freedom of religion has been weaponized in cases where they are using it to basically discriminate. Could you own a hotel that didnt rent rooms to gay couples, restaurants, where would you say this is a discriminatory case than expression expressing freedom of religion . I think in all of these cases and let me explain the difference, the big difference between the things you are describing whether it is Jack Phillips or all the other ones, the photographers, bakers, etc. They all serve to gay couples and many of them loved to couples. When it got to participating in a web a wedding which tends to be sacred, they could not participate in a ceremony or expression that violated what they believed, so those are very different. The reason you are seeing all these cases, it is the same christian belief. These are people that dont believe in excluding people, dont believe in excluding people, but they cant endorse every message that people want them to endorse and when it comes to marriage, that is very sacred and not everybody has this belief, but they cannot participate in that between a man and a man or a woman and a woman. They would be facilitating something they think is wrong, so i think those are huge differences and you never see one of these cases where they reserved refuse to serve these people. It is about whether they can participate or spread the message. I know you addressed your question to kelly, i dont know didnt know if you want to weigh in. It does not violate the establishment clause . Historically, there have been many chaplains from many different religions, but with the denomination that was the only denomination that was allowed to speak . Would that violate the establishment clause . I dont think so. Again, the founders, when they picked the chaplain, if you have got someone who is acting and connect incorrectly, they can change it. The chaplain has been many different denominations, i dont think it is any business of the court to get involved in say we dont like the chaplain you picked. So you think of congress were to say we are going to pay a chaplain of only christian denominations and we will not a in a chaplains at all, that would be fine . That could change two years later when theres a new congress. I think the courts would stay out of the taking of the chaplain. I think they would be very comfortable saying which chaplain they could pick. I think the country would react to that and probably replace people that were engaged in that type of conduct, but i doubt the courts would involve themselves in taking a chaplain. I think they would provide freedom for them to do that and in all kinds of quirky ways. Theres a famous opinion by Justice Scalia where he talks about what congress does things and it is very funny and very true. Maybe he did it because of a religious motivation. Maybe he was mad at one of the other legislators. Maybe he did it because he was in a fight with his wife and maybe and you go down all these congressional motivations and he says maybe it was a combination of all of these things. I think getting to what congress is trying to do would be an impossible undertaking because of the different reasons, rationales and real motivations. We dont have time for each of you to have a debate, so we will try to get one question from you and we will come back. We are not trying to discriminate and want to get to as many questions as we can. This is a question for both kelly and don. As christians we dont all agree on samesex marriage, but a question for you is if the courts ruled that a christian ,an say i cant participate where is the line if a hindu couple, muslim couple, jewish couple, no religious. You talked about women with many children. Would it be discriminatory under bakeryw to say we are a who will bake wedding cakes for white, conservative protestant christians during im looking at that down the road. Where is the line to remove speech and a discriminatory practice . Lets just take the race issue on. Race is a different issue. We fought a civil war over race, there is a constitutional amendment that Gave Congress power to create legislation to and all vestiges of slavery. Congress did that. They created a Civil Rights Act racialtlawed discrimination, so i think that is very different. I did not ask a question about race. List,l, it was on the white. The others, i think it is the difference between saying im not serving you and a particular religious belief in what a marriage or wedding is, i think it is not a huge number of people around the country that have the belief of not serving. I dont think there is any , but there are people who have those beliefs. My point is, there is a big this is a big country. Theres no reason to try to find the people with different beliefs and put the screws on them. It is unnecessary and [applause] ofour country has a history wanting people with minority beliefs to be left alone. If you are the quakers, one of the reasons you came here is [inaudible] and i have the government tell you what to do or believe, so i think we go to extraordinary links to avoid those conflicts and i think the religion clause, you toeech, they allow do things that make people mad. We want people to be different and have different beliefs or actions or expressions. Just briefly, i dont believe it is a question of the government putting the screws to religious believers. Advancinge government a compelling interest that has been subscribed to the Supreme Court at the ice order and that is to not discriminate against people. [applause] i would love to move this discussion and get your opinion of when the public the welfare of the public as a whole is more important or less important their religious beliefs and specifically, im thinking about the Measles Outbreak throughout the country which was a Public Health crisis. Could you please address that . Weve had these cases. I think the question is, when does religious freedom fall to major Public Health issues. There has been a lot of actual cases on this. You might have christian scientists, different people and oneferent beliefs of the things that donna and i agreed upon is [indiscernible] which is a horrible Supreme Court decision. It is very difficult to bring a free exercise claim because of what smith took away was the compelling interest test shouldt that test is apply to the free exercise [inaudible] if you have the fundamental rights like free speech and free exercise of religion, you can exercise those rights and the burden is on the government if they are going to interfere with that religious exercise, the burden is on the government to come forward and say no, we are going to infringe upon your rights because we have a compelling governmental interest that requires us to override religion in this case and we are doing get in the least restrictive way that we can. That puts all the burden on the government, but allows the government to come in when there are major things like health, safety, compelling governmental interest. That is the way it should be handled, not the smith decision. Under the smith approach, you cant have alcohol to minors, the police could begin going into catholic churches and when the priest says exercise of religion, they say you dont have any religious freedom protection. I think if we took the proper approach, i think health and safety type things, it is going to override. What if someone said i want to. Acrifice the children that is the way it is supposed to work. As kelly said, that would be. Ur preferred standard it is the direction i think both of us would like to see. We had a case that went to the Supreme Court and they where they sent this back down to the District Court and we did not ring this youre said by the way first claim to us was a freespeech claim, not a free exercise claim and said maybe that is because of the smith claim. And i thinks coming we might be seeing some changes. As a grandmother, im glad to hear it. The last question because we have to move to the final segment. It just so happens you talked about what i was going to ask about. , is it in the governments interest to make a decision, so both of you see a way because everyone is probably regime. Of a repressive what happens to prevent anything from happening and going forward, how does the government decide . Does it take precedent over the constitution and how does that balance decisions . Their interest cannot be in the peoples best interest. My short answer is that is why we have the court system. The court adjudicated whether or is the government articulated and pursuing an interest that is compelling. It is the courts that decide whether they are doing that in the least restrictive means. Reallyelling should mean compelling, meaning you cant not do it. Government,es, the everything is compelling to them and it is not true. If they have a compelling theirst and you find interest is not being protected, you have shown it is not really compelling, so you have to litigate and make sure because the government will always try to justify. Religion covers all the major issues of life. How did we get here . What happens after we die . That crucial and i believe god is reaching out to everyone and i believe you have the freedom and should have the freedom to reach back and live our lives without the government interfering in us living out our faith and when the government is allowed to begin to get into that process of interfering, it is not only dangerous for what it does to us and our freedom, it is a sign that you are about to absorb your for little Political Freedoms and i dont know how many of you have seen this movie hacksaw bridge. It is a story of a guy who served in our military in world war ii. He was a seven day adventist and had very different beliefs. He did not believe and he would not care to let carry a weapon. They did not like that. They bullied him and even tried to courtmartial, but he won his courtmartial because we have religious freedom and thank god we have religious freedom. As a medic without a weapons mens lives 75 because he was this unique religious person who so valued life that whenever one else had left the field and there were left for soldiers dead, he went on a Suicide Mission to drag those people off to save their lives, being shot at. He was behind enemy lines doing this and every single time he said before he went back, god, give me one more. That is why we protect people who have different beliefs. Countryblessing to this that we have people with different beliefs and sometimes we dont know why we should protect them. Those fellow soldiers treated him horribly. They had to apologize later. They did not understand that in being unique and different was a great thing, but that is what our country is all about. This is why i believe the United States of america is the greatest country on the face of the earth because of our allegiance, our dedication to religious freedom and freedom of conscience. I just say we should do everything in our power to make sure that never changes and that is what is so great about this country. Thank you for in part of this discussion and god bless you. [applause] i also want to thank bill symposium for inviting me. Fors an important venue Critical Thinking and im appreciative of it sort and asking to be part of it. Raised the concerns about threats i believe are unfounded. In fact, some of the concerns default to this. The state is targeting religious objectors because they discriminate against samesex couples. [inaudible] therefore, the state is targeting religious objectors because of their beliefs. But this is flawed as it is dangerous, that the conduct of those seeking is your options exemptions does not imply that the states desire to regulate that conduct springs to those beliefs. Public accommodation laws like protect individuals from discrimination on account of their religion. Such laws promote Human Dignity which itself is a religious value by ensuring all individuals can access the commercial marketplace on an equal basis. Lawsublic accommodation vital to American Society and so while i am fiercely supportive of religious freedom, i refuse the notion of equal rights accommodation resulting in societal vision can be explained, or justified by such freedom. With respect to the establishment clause which the Court Conservatives and liberals seem to neglect in recent years is the government use of symbols and religion itself. The use to honor our nations reflects the erroneous assumption that our military is composed entirely of christians or the equally erroneous assumption that the most sacred symbol of christianity somehow honors nonchristians as well. The state violates its obligation to remain neutral and when it spends stories attempting to secularize the cross. The cross is not a secular symbol and neither the court can make it so. I cannot help in closing to. Emind myself it is no one else when reflecting on treating ofers equally, im reminded jesuss second commandant, love a neighbor as thyself. Laws stated that all the it can be found in most of the major religions throughout reflectingnd while on the governmentsponsored tallls such as a 40 foot latin cross, i am reminded of and whenn on the mount you pray, do not be like hypocrites because they love to the on street corners and be seen by others, but when you pray, go into your room and pray to your father who is unseen and your father will reward you. I also cant help but reflect on the story of the doctor and the engineer and lawyer who were arguing over the professions. The doctor says medicines obviously have the greatest legacy, i turn a less to the authority of the bible and in the very first chapter, it is set god put adam to sleep, rib,cted a red obviously medicine had the oldest calling. The engineer disagreed. For before the story of adam needs, it is written that the chaos, god created the heavens and the earth, the greatest engineering marvel of all time. Interrupted, you have proven my point that lawyers are the oldest. Who do you think created all the chaos to begin with . [laughter] hope we have not created too much chaos in sharing our views on religious freedom and i thank you for being so patient and attentive in what we had to share. [applause] thank you for participating in this. This event demonstrates the stability that i think the First Amendment has had a lot to do with securing for this nation. Cspans washington journal, live every day with news and policy issues that impact you. Morning, wednesday author of the price we pay talks about the u. S. Health care system. Be sure to watch live at 7 00 eastern wednesday morning. Heres a look at some of our featured program programming. On christmas day, view this years white house decorations with melania trump. At 12 30 eastern, a discussion on Global Technology issues at the manhattan issue Manhattan Institute and john miller on the history of journalism and fake news. Thursday, a joint Economic Committee hearing on the high cost of raising a family and then constitutional litigator Justin Pearson talks about occupational licensing requirements at the federal society. Mr. Lavrov Speaker Pelosi the house will be in order. For 40 years, cspan has been providing america unfiltered coverage of congress, the white house, the Supreme Court and Public Policy events from washington, d. C. And around the country so you can make up your mind. Created by cable in 1979, cspan is brought to you by your cable or satellite provider. Cspan, your unfiltered view of next, christmas at the white house with First Lady Melania Trump receiving the White House Christmas tree and a and thethe decorations lighting of the National Christmas tree