Why Many Religious Liberty Groups Are Silent about the Supreme Court’s Decision on Trump’s Travel Ban


Jed Shugerman was quoted in a Washington Post article about recent federal rulings related to religious liberty.

Jed Shugerman, a law professor at Fordham University, said he agreed with the June 3 decision about the Colorado baker, saying it was written in a neutral way to push back against the apparent anti-religious bias shown against the Christian baker by the state commission which penalized him. The commission compared the conduct of the baker, who agreed to sell the couple a cake, but not a wedding cake, to slavery and the Holocaust.


“It’s now today hard to look back at [the June 3 ruling]as a principled compromise,” Shugerman said.


“The big picture is, if you take a step back, it’s troubling that when it comes to religious liberty, there are certain religions that get a lot of protection for conscience, for their members, their freedoms,” he said, noting the 2014 Supreme Court decision known as Hobby Lobby, which found that corporations can’t be forced to violate their own religious beliefs. In that case, the owners of the craft-store chain were opposed to providing for employees certain kinds of birth control.


“But bias against Muslims just coincidentally doesn’t get a judicial notice,” Shugarman said. “We have to start asking questions about whether this court is committed to religious liberty or to Christian liberty?”

Read full article.


Comments are closed.