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 compelli