Court Opinion

ID: 9609396
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 03:26:50.890631+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:25:31.952182
License: Public Domain

Utter, J.
(concurring) — I concur with the views stated by the majority. The parameters within which government may control religion are narrow and circumscribed by U.S. Const, amend. 1 and Const, art. 1, § ll.2 Government may, under some circumstances, intervene when religious schools fail, as they allegedly did here, to meet minimum safety standards.
For a First Amendment claim to be valid, the claimant's theological conviction must be sincere. United States v. Seeger, 380 U.S. 163, 185, 13 L. Ed. 2d 733, 85 S. Ct. 850 (1965). In addition, the conviction must be founded upon religious, not secular beliefs. Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205, 216, 32 L. Ed. 2d 15, 92 S. Ct. 1526 (1972). If these two conditions are met, the First Amendment guarantees freedom of belief and can grant freedom to act in accordance with those beliefs. Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U.S. 296, 303, 84 L. Ed. 1213, 60 S. Ct. 900, 128 A.L.R. 1352 (1940).
The United States Supreme Court, however, has distinguished between the right to believe and the right to act, noting that while the right to hold a particular belief is absolute, all " [cjonduct remains subject to regulation for the protection of society." Cantwell, at 304. State enactments which burden the free exercise of religion will supersede First Amendment protections when the State establishes a compelling state interest for the enactment and "no alternative forms of regulation would combat such *15abuses without infringing First Amendment rights." Sherbert v. Verner, 374 U.S. 398, 407, 10 L. Ed. 2d 965, 83 S. Ct. 1790 (1963). As stated in Yoder, at 215:
The essence of all that has been said and written on the subject is that only those interests of the highest order and those not otherwise served can overbalance legitimate claims to the free exercise of religion.
What is required is not only an absence of discrimination, protected under other constitutional guaranties, but a constitutional obligation imposed upon secular government, by the free exercise clause of the First Amendment, to "accommodate" religion. Zorach v. Clauson, 343 U.S. 306, 96 L. Ed. 954, 72 S. Ct. 679 (1952). As the impact upon religious exercise approaches what constitutes a practical prohibition, the burden of justification requires proof that the state interest is not only compelling, but cannot be sufficiently served in any other way. Moreover, it becomes incumbent upon the State to justify its requirements with some "particularity". Wisconsin v. Yoder, supra at 236.
The majority recognizes properly that minimum safety standards may be established under the general police power of this state, and that these regulations apply to private, religious schools as well as other entities. I agree with the balancing tests suggested by the majority and believe they should be applied in this case after proper fact finding has been done by the trial court.

U.S. Const, amend. 1 provides that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." Const. art. 1, § 11 states that "no one shall be molested or disturbed in person or property on account of religion ..."