Menu
- Issues Overview
- Protecting Institutional Religious Freedom
- Religious Hiring
- Faith Leaders Protest Narrow Religious Exemption
- Religious Leaders to the President: Don’t Curtail Our Religious Hiring Freedom
- Misleading ABA Guide to Workplace Law
- Important Supreme Court “Ministerial” Employment Case
- Maintaining Freedom for Faith-Based Service
- Signs of the Times: Rising Washington Tide Against Religious Hiring
- Religious Hiring Struggles in Canada
- PBS Airs Religious Hiring Story Featuring IRFA President and Baltimore Rescue Mission
- Strings Without Government Money
- Are Faith-Based Rules Changing?
- Faith-Based Services and the Contraceptives Mandate
- Colorado Christian University rejects the HHS contraceptives accommodation
- IRFA Submits Comments on HHS Contraceptives Mandate
- Contraceptives Mandate Action Memo for Parachurch Groups
- March 2012 ANPRM About Contraceptives Asks Questions, Does Not Solve Issues
- Audio FAQ on Federal Contraceptives Mandate
- Protest Letter Sent to HHS Secretary About Two-Class Religious Scheme
- Faith Leaders Protest Narrow Religious Exemption
- President Obama’s Faith-Based Initiatives
- President Bush’s Faith-Based Resources
Copyright
Copyright © 2021 IRFA, Inc.
All rights reserved.
Contact Us
Mailing Address:
P.O. Box 48368
Washington, DC 20002-0368
Copyright © 2024
Powered by Oxygen Theme.
Equal protection is only individualistic?
Earlier this week, a federal judge in Oklahoma ruled that the state’s definition of marriage as one man and one woman is a violation of the US Constitution, relying on the intellectually loose US Supreme Court decision authored last summer by Justice Anthony Kennedy in the Windsor case.
The Oklahoma judge wrote, “Equal protection is at the very heart of our legal system and central to our consent to be governed. It is not a scarce commodity to be meted out begrudgingly or in short portions. Therefore, the majority view in Oklahoma must give way to individual constitutional rights.”
But something is missing here. If constitutional rights are to be vindicated–even equal protection rights–then judges must acknowledge that constitutional rights go beyond simply “individual” rights.
Children, for example, are not simply individual rights bearers; for their rights to be vindicated, if children are to flourish and be safe, the courts must protect the authority of their parents or guardians. Students are not just individuals; they have different convictions and values, and so respect for students requires protection of the institutional freedom of different kinds of schools. Honoring employee rights requires protecting the rights of varied kinds of employers and the rights of unions.