Like the 1967 Loving v. Virginia Supreme Court decision regarding interracial marriage equality, the June 26, 2015 Obergefell v. Hodges decision legalizing same-sex marriage upholds equality under the law with regard to equal access to marriage. Both cases were decided under the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment that was ratified in the wake of the Civil War.

Obergefell v. Hodges addressed the matter of Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio, and Tennessee having denied the plaintiffs equal access to marriage based upon the religious beliefs of opponents—religious beliefs the plaintiffs obviously did not share. Leading to Loving v. Virginia, frank religious language had appeared in the Loving couple’s felony conviction for miscegenation, creating at least the appearance, and perhaps the legal reality, that Judge Leon Bazile forced the Lovings to comply with religious beliefs that were written into the laws of the State of Virginia.

Similarly, the Catholic hospitals that treat 1 in 6 Americans cite religious mandates to deny patients and their families equal access to (even life-saving) abortion and contraception services, even when the religious beliefs of those patients and families do not prohibit abortion or contraception. The 2014 Burwell v. Hobby Lobby decision grants imaginary legal constructs (corporations) incapable of holding religious beliefs or participating in religious rituals the “religious freedom” to overrule their employees’ personal religious ideals in favor of the religious directives of the company. Similarly, the 2014 Greece v. Galloway decision grants politicians the power to begin every taxpayer funded public meeting with exclusively Christian prayers. It appears that corporations, hospitals, organizations, and individuals that deny access to abortion or contraception on religious grounds, and government representatives in official settings who participate in official government funded prayer favoring a single religion, violate not only the 14^th Amendment, but also the 1st Amendment as well.

Politically powerful advocates of these practices alternately appear unaware, unconcerned, and pleased that their claims of religious freedom force their subordinates to comply with their religious beliefs. If those with power over you can make you comply with religious practices contrary to your own personal beliefs, your free exercise of religion is impinged. In contrast, if your subordinates are allowed to participate in practices your religion forbids, your free exercise of religion is preserved—even if your responsibilities as a citizen indirectly facilitate the free exercise of religion by those over whom you have economic and political power.

American citizens who are patients of hospitals, employees of corporations, and/or participants in public meetings cannot retain their personal and religious freedoms when they are denied equal access to public and or medical services and are forced to comply with or participate in the religious beliefs, practices, or rituals of corporations, elected representatives, employers, or hospital owners. United States law requires that businesses, hospitals, workplaces, and government settings be free of racial discrimination. These settings should be free of religious coercion as well.

Currently, nothing protects Americans from forced compliance with or unwilling participation in the religious practices of the economically and politically powerful. However, both Loving v. Virginia and Obergefell v. Hodges are important steps toward a society in which United States citizens will no longer surrender their own religious beliefs (if any) to the religious ideals of those with economic or political power over them.

By Groff Schroeder

Published August 26, 2015 with quotation below:

"Religion is like a pair of shoes. Find one that fits you, but don't make me wear your shoes."

                                                                           --- George Carlin