In June 2022, the High Court ruled 6-3 in favor of a high school football coach who was fired for silently praying on the field after games. Relying on both the First Amendment Free Speech and Free Exercise Clauses, the High Court ruled that the Bremerton School District violated both provisions when it fired Coach Joe Kennedy for having prayer on the 50-yard line of the football field after the game, even though the school district argued that his prayer violated the Establishment Clause.
Therefore, the decision in Kennedy v. Bremerton School District requires balancing Davis’ free exercise rights with the plaintiffs’ marriage rights without picking a constitutional winner and loser. In Kennedy, the Supreme Court further amplified and sharpened the free exercise rights applicable to Davis’ qualified immunity defense in this case. The High Court made clear that the Free Exercise Clause protects the ability of those who hold religious beliefs of all kinds to live out their faiths in daily life through the performance of, or abstention from, physical acts. The Kennedy decision rejects the proposition that where a free exercise right is in tension with another constitutional guarantee, one must yield to the other.
In 2018, SCOTUS ruled 7-2 in Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, a historic case that protects the right to free exercise of religion against the LGBT “sexual orientation” law that was being used to force a Christian baker to violate his conscience. The Court ruled that the Colorado Civil Rights Commission violated the neutrality required by the First Amendment by making disparaging comments against Jack Phillips’ religious beliefs regarding same-sex “marriage.” Jack Philips, the owner of Masterpiece Cakeshop, refused to use his artistic talents and expression to promote a same-sex ceremony.
The Masterpiece Cakeshop decision forbids judicial hostility towards Davis’ religious beliefs about marriage. In fact, the Supreme Court held that “official expressions of hostility to religion” violate free exercise rights. Therefore, under Masterpiece Cakeshop, such judicial hostility towards Davis’s religious beliefs violates her free exercise rights.
In Kentucky, applicants can go to any authorized location to obtain a marriage license. In fact, one of the plaintiffs in this case traveled two hours to work each day. Yet he refused to travel an additional five minutes from his residence to the nearest adjacent county to obtain the license. That does not present a burden to obtain a license. He clearly only wanted to obtain his license from the Rowan County office with Davis’ signature on it.
Liberty Counsel Founder and Chairman Mat Staver said, “The First Amendment and the Free Exercise Clause guarantees there is no constitutional winner or loser regarding upholding sincerely held religious beliefs. The Supreme Court’s decision in the Kennedy case affirmed that. Kim Davis has a right to live out her religious beliefs just as the plaintiffs have a right to obtain a marriage license. Therefore, she is not liable for damages because she was entitled to a religious accommodation based on her sincerely held religious beliefs about marriage.”