Opinion ID: 2070061
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Plaintiffs' claims must be rooted in religious belief. Yoder.

Text: 2. If the regulation poses no infringement by the State of [plaintiffs'] constitutional right[] of free exercise, Sherbert, the regulations will be upheld. If the regulation is upheld for this reason, rules three and four are inapplicable. 3. [A]ny incidental burden on the free exercise of [plaintiffs'] religion may be justified by a `compelling state interest in the regulation of a subject within the State's constitutional power to regulate....' Sherbert. 4. No less obtrusive form of regulation is available to the state. Sherbert. 1. THE RELIGIOUS NATURE OF THE CLAIMS There is no dispute as to the religious nature of the plaintiffs' objections to the certification requirement. The trial court found that [p]laintiffs are members of the Fundamentalist Christian movement.... The fundamentalist movement believes the church to be not only a place of worship but [a] place for instruction of the young. An outgrowth of this belief is the belief that the school is an extension of the church or a ministry of the church.... As fundamentalists, plaintiffs object to state regulation of their schools which they consider a mission ordained by God. They further object to the certification of their teachers, believing that the course of study required to obtain a certificate teaches a humanistic rather than a religious approach to education. Defendants note that they agree that plaintiffs' objections to the statute are premised on their religious beliefs.