Claim Against School Board That Refused to Display "Satan Loves the First Amendment" Banner Can Go Forward

[1.] The factual allegations from today's decision by Robert Scola (S.D. Fla.) in Stevens v. School Bd. of Broward County:

The Plaintiff, The Reverend Dr. Timothy "Chaz" Stevens, is an ordained minister of The Church of Satanology and Perpetual Soiree. The Church "promote[s] religious plurality, secularism, and the separation of church and state through public expressions of minority viewpoints." As such, "displaying banners with messages advocating for religious freedom and First Amendment principles is a form of sacred observance, deeply and doctrinally rooted in The Church's belief that such advocacy is a moral and spiritual obligation." Displaying banners with phrases such as "Satan Loves the First Amendment" "are essential to fulfilling [the Church's] religious mission."

Between December 2023 and September 2024, the Defendant, the School Board of Broward County, Florida …, allowed religious organizations, such as Calvary Chapel and Potter's House, to display banners at West Glades Middle School, in Parkland, Florida, and Coral Springs High School, in Coral Springs, Florida, respectively. Such displays "carried religious messages and were permitted without issue." These banners were displayed despite the school board's policy "prohibit[ing] using school facilities to promote religious, commercial, or political interests without board approval and requir[ing] that signage not be 'sectarian in nature.'" Specifically, the policy states:

[F]acilities owned or leased by the School Board shall not be used for advertising or otherwise promoting the interests of any commercial, religious, political or other non-district agency or organization except as permitted through Board approved agreements, School Board policies, or State Statutes.

In October 2023, Stevens asked a high school and a middle school that they "display a 'Satan Loves the First Amendment' banner"; both refused, and removed banners for Calvary Church that had been displayed on the schools' property. The school board also "adopted a new policy that 'provide[s] better oversight' of the banner approval process by having '[a] regional superintendent [] approve requested banners,'" but the court held that "because Reverend Stevens has plausibly alleged an unofficial custom or policy of viewpoint discrimination (as the Court discusses below), the new policy does not affect the Court's analysis on the school board's motion to dismiss."

[2.] The court concluded that Stevens had adequately alleged that the school board's practices violated the Free Speech Clause:

The school board has arguably created a limited public forum at its schools by allowing some advertisements to be displayed on school grounds. "[G]overnmental entities establish limited public forums by opening property limited to use by certain groups or dedicated solely to the discussion of certain subjects." … [In] a limited public forum …[,] "the government 'may impose restrictions on speech that are reasonable and viewpoint-neutral.'"

For a restriction to be viewpoint neutral, "the 'government must abstain from regulating speech when the specific motivating ideology or the opinion or perspective of the speaker is the rationale for the restriction.'" Restrictions are reasonable when they are "wholly consistent with the government's legitimate interest in preserving the property for the use to which it is lawfully dedicated, and prohibited speech must be naturally incompatible with the purposes of the forum." …

As alleged, the school board's policy … is facially viewpoint neutral, and Reverend Stevens does not argue that such policy is unreasonable…. [But] the instances cited in the complaint plausibly allege "a practice or custom" of viewpoint discrimination by the school board ….

[3.] The court also concluded that Stevens had adequately alleged an Establishment Clause violation, given his allegations that the school has "put[] up some religious banners while declining to display his religion's banners":

The Establishment Clause "mandates government neutrality between religion and religion, and between religion and nonreligion." … [T]he Supreme Court has replaced the Lemon test [formerly used in Establishment Clause cases] with one that focuses on "historical practices and understandings." Despite its notice of supplemental authority, the school board does not attempt to show that any Establishment Clause claim by Reverend Stevens is insufficient under the Supreme Court's new Establishment Clause standard….

[4.] The court allowed Stevens' FRFRA (Florida Religious Freedom Restoration Act) claim to go forward as well:

Under the FRFRA, "a plaintiff has the burden of showing that: 1) he or she has engaged in the exercise of religion; and 2) that the government has substantially burdened this religious exercise." Only then does "the burden shift to the government to demonstrate that its action: 1) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and 2) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest."

Under the FRFRA, the exercise of religion means "an act or refusal to act that is substantially motivated by a religious belief, whether or not the religious exercise is compulsory or central to a larger system of religious beliefs." The statute thus covers "conduct that, while not necessarily compulsory or central to a larger system of religious beliefs, nevertheless reflects some tenet, practice or custom of a larger system of religious beliefs." …

At the motion to dismiss stage, the Court must, of course, accept the allegations in the complaint as true…. Reverend Stevens alleges that the Church of Satanology "mandate[s] that members engage in public forums to promote the constitutional principles of the First Amendment," and as such "viewing public displays—such as banners—[are] vital expressions of [the Church's] religious philosophy." Moreover, "[f]or adherents, displaying banners with messages advocating for religious freedom and First Amendment principles is a form of sacred observance, deeply and doctrinally rooted in The Church's belief that such advocacy is a moral and spiritual obligation."

Therefore, Reverend Stevens has adequately alleged that he "has engaged in the exercise of religion." The school board's arguments as to the lack of evidence regarding the Church's tenets are better addressed on a motion for summary judgment or at trial, not on a motion to dismiss. And by preventing Reverend Stevens from displaying these banners, the school board has allegedly "substantially burdened this religious exercise."

In its motion, the school board only argues that Reverend Stevens cannot plead the elements of a FRFRA claim for which he has the burden. The school board's arguments as to its compelling state interest will not be considered given that they were only made in the reply and "not raised in the motion itself."

[5.] Finally, the court rejected Stevens' claim under Florida Statute § 871.04, which provides,

No person … shall publish … with reference to an establishment any advertisement that the patronage of any person is not welcome, or is objectionable, or is not acceptable because of the person's religion….

The court concluded that the statute doesn't apply here, in part because

Reverend Stevens does not allege that a banner was published on school property stating that he was not welcome because he is a member of the Church of Satanology…. The thrust of Reverend Stevens's complaint is that his church was prohibited from posting banners while other churches were allowed to do so. Those actions fall outside the ambit of § 871.04.

Comments

[SRG2]

From the decision: The school board argues that under Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602 (1971), Reverend Stevens’ establishment Clause claim fails and should be dismissed. (Def.’s Mot., at 10-12.). But as the school board later acknowledged in a notice of supplemental authority, the Supreme Court has replaced the Lemon test with one that focuses on “historical practices and understandings.”

Amusing to find that the overturning of the Lemon test works out in favour of the plaintiff.

[Josh R]

I think we know what became of Reverand Arthur Kirkland.

[ReaderY]

I continue to think that government should be permitted to not fund any religion so that people get to avoid having to fund religions they dislike.

And I think Justice Alito’s arguments to the contrary are complete hokum. Let me advance what I think is a new argument. The Supreme Court has no more right to label people’s disapproval of other people’s religions “animosity” than the City of Hialeah had to call the animal sacrifice in Lukumi Bablo Aye animal cruelty. Both are simply part of what religions do and have long done. Disapproval of other religions is as ordinary a religious practice as sacrifice. I don’t see why one is any less deserving of government accommodation than the other.

[Josh R]

This case wasn't about funding. Instead, the school board created a limit public forum and thus must treat all viewpoints equally.

The requiring of the funding of religions government doesn't like is not based on the animosity towards these religions. It's based on the Free Exercise Clause which The Court has held requires the state to overcome strict scrutiny to justify leaving out religions it does not like.

[John F. Carr]

According to the complaint the lawsuit seeks

a. A declaration that this is an outrage.
b. An injunction granting Satan the same right to banner space that decent religions have.
c, k. Money.
d, e, f, h, j. Specifically, money for emotional distress and reputational damage.
g. Money for "the deep sense of injustice" plaintiff feels.
i. Money for production of advertising he couldn't display and revenue lost due to lack of advertising.
l. Attorney's fees.

I think this is a case where a declaratory judgment would serve as well as an injunction. I don't see how the plaintiff should get much money. His lawyers, on the other hand, should do well.

https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69267410/stevens-v-school-board-of-broward-county-florida/

[JasonT20]

b. An injunction granting Satan the same right to banner space that decent religions have.

I suppose no "decent religion" would,

"promote religious plurality, secularism, and the separation of church and state through public expressions of minority viewpoints."

Or,

display "banners with messages advocating for religious freedom and First Amendment principles..."

Decent religions insist that their dogma is the only correct one, that they can use the government to promote their dogma when they have the majority, and all other religions can just suck an egg.

[Longtobefree]

"displaying banners with messages advocating for religious freedom and First Amendment principles is a form of sacred observance, deeply and doctrinally rooted in The Church's belief that such advocacy is a moral and spiritual obligation."

Any judge that believes this would probably believe that men can become women.

[John F. Carr]

The claim shows a real problem with modern religious freedom doctrine. When we got freedom of religion people had a shared concept of religion. You didn't have to accept the ability of the Pope to decide who got into heaven. You didn't even have to go to church on Sunday. You didn't have to accept Christ as your savior.

In our modern litigious times people started to claim a religious duty to do all sorts of things. Employer says no facial piercings. Employee joins the Church of Body Modification and claims the hardware is religious garb. The First Circuit said no to that one because the employee's appearance was an unreasonable burden, not because her fashion choice was secular.

[Rossami]

re: "When we got freedom of religion people had a shared concept of religion."

I would beg to disagree. Like freedom of speech, we don't need an explicit freedom of religion for the religion we all agree with. If we had had a "shared concept of religion", the idea of religious freedom would never have been articulated, much less established as an explicit constitutional right.

The fact is that we needed freedom of religion because the people of the time disagreed sharply about what religion was and what it required. The exact nature of their disagreements are different than we're arguing about today but they were just as deeply felt (and just as petty when looked at from the outside) as anything you're complaining about now. And just like now, there were those who claimed that the relgious "beliefs" of others were pretextual and could not possibly be sincerely held.

While you are correct that pretexts are a problem for any law dependent on something as fundamentally unprovable as belief, it is not at all a modern problem. It was there from the beginning.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Or they can be a member of an indigenous group who used body modification historically for sacred reasons.

There was much more unanimity of what "religion" meant in 1787. Still there was some dispute. Colonial people said doffing hats went against their religion. Such silly people!

[JasonT20]

In our modern litigious times people started to claim a religious duty to do all sorts of things.

Right, they might even claim that they have a religious duty to make sure that their employees don't have their birth control covered by insurance the way that the law requires. Or they might have a religious duty to only bake cakes or take wedding photos for "traditional" marriage ceremonies. The nerve of some people!

[not guilty]

I wonder. Should counsel for Zacky Rahimi have moved to dismiss the indictment because application of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(8) to him is prohibited by the RFRA -- that his popguns were objects of religious veneration that his faith required him to possess?

[David Nieporent]

Look, lots of religious liberty cases are based on fake claims of belief. Nobody's religion actually forbid vaccination; that was just something people who had irrational secular beliefs about covid claimed to try to evade vaccination requirements. But judges can't actually go around calling out plaintiffs who make these sorts of claims, because there's no real way to adjudicate them unless the person was dumb enough to tell someone else, "I don't really believe this; I'm just saying it to win."

[ReaderY]

I think there should be a higher standard for sincerity than at present. In particular, I think there needs to be evidence the belief existed before the situation making it convenient to have it arose.

[Drewski]

It's really hard to get past, "I believe my religious leader speaks to God and he told me God says X. I've followed him for years." It's even frequently a truly sincere religious belief.

[Roger S]

Those people have a sincere opposition to vaccination, at least. The plaintiff here does not believe in Satan.

[SRG2]

He probably doesn't believe in an entity called Satan, unlike Christians. He does believe in a set of moral principles where Satan represents a metaphorical incarnation of those principles.

Do you think he is less deserving of the exercise of his religious freedom than a Christian, say?

[Roger S]

He is not exercising his religious freedom. He is just saying something silly.

[Randal]

He is just saying something silly.

This is what the rest of us think about what Christians say. All religious belief appears silly from the outside.

[Roger S]

Part of why we have the 1A is to protect Christianity from people like you.

[Katall]

I don't believe that view has any merit. The 1A was to stop the government from doing things that were done by the kings of England, one of which was to establish a national church, which was used to persecute people of other religions, i.e., Catholics. Thus, the 1A was not enacted, even in part, to protect Christianity from anything. It was to protect individual religious practice from government intervention.

[Roger S]

Catholics are Christians. The 1A was not to protect nonsensical Satanic slogans.

[Katall]

Hmmm. I think it was to protect non-Christians of all stripes (at that time, it would include Muslims, Jews, Deists, Shakers, Eastern Orthodox, Greek Orthodox, agnostics, and atheist), as well as Christians of all stripes, from government intervention. There was no Church of LDS at the time of the founding, so, I guess they were not protected. I wonder if you group LDS with Satanists. Also, where would you put the adherents of the Flying Spaghetti Monster or Rastafarians?
As for "nonsensical". . . I guess that, in your view, the 1A was enacted to protect nonsensical Christian slogans? As an example, many pastors espouse the theory that "Jews are going to Hell". In my view the 1A protects the right to say that. In your view, maybe not.

[JasonT20]

At least one of the landmark religion cases was brought by the ACLU on behalf of Jehovah's Witnesses. Are they Christians? How about Mormons? Does the 1A only protect Christians because there were so few non-Christians* in the Founding Era? They are still a minority today, if you go by self-identification in surveys and polls.

Why do you get to decide whether someone using Satan as a figurehead for their religion is a real religion or a nonsensical, satirical one that doesn't count for 1A purposes? Some people might think that the idea of a virgin birth is nonsensical. Or turning water into wine so that the parents at a wedding won't be embarrassed by not being able to provide it. Or raising someone from the dead, only to not do that for anyone else that dies. Well, except for that one other time...

*At least, few that would challenge a majority intent on using their majority to have the government promote their religion over others.

**Edit: I realize now that I repeated a lot of Katall's points.

[Roger S]

The 1A was written to protect religious practices, as the authors at the time understood religion. At the time, that mostly meant branches of Christianity. It did not mean worshiping the spaghetti monster, which is just a joke.

Whether some people believe the virgin birth nonsensical is beside the point. It was considered religion, when the 1A was adopted.

[SRG2]

The FFs were quite capable of declaring which religions were covered by 1A - they were well aware of other religions and odd variations within Christianity. Hence their failing to specify Christianity in 1A indicates that they didn't intend to limit 1A to Christianity.

I assume you're a Christian Nationalist, which explains your inability to see this.

[ChazStevensOfficial]

"Happy is he who smashes babies against the rocks." - Psalm 137:9.

Stay tuned, and I'll be sharing quaint tidbits about biblical rape, murder, bestiality, cannibalism, slavery, and drunk orgies!

[Randal]

Many Christians don't truly believe that Christ was actually magical. Many Jews don't believe in god. Taking all aspects of one's religion literally is a) uncommon and b) not necessary for your First Amendment rights to protect you.

[not guilty]

"The plaintiff here does not believe in Satan."

How do you claim to know that, Roger?

[Roger S]

It is obvious. The judge does not have to go along with every preposterous claim that a plaintiff makes.

[santamonica811]

I think the idea of a cloven-hove, red, horned entity is idiotic. But then, equally idiotic is the idea of a bearded white-robed men who lives above the clouds (ie, many people's view of "God.").

But if you take Satan--rather than as a physical person/entity--as a reification of a set of values, and take God (Allah, Buddha, et al) as a reification of slightly different values, then you could count me as a Satanist in that respect. If religions like Satanism and Pastafarianism stand for freedom of thought and speech, and for focusing on objective science, then I admit that's more in line with my particular set of values, rather than accepting on faith words that other humans wrote down centuries or millennia ago.

If there was no belief in a God in 2025 America, someone would quickly invent him, in order to gain a ton of special legal rights that our First Amendment jurisprudence give, and that are not given to non-believers.

If the facts of this particular case did not involve the word "Satan" (and all that it conveys to many people, along the lines of anti-Christianity, human sacrifice, burning for all eternity in pools of fire, et al), then I think a lot of the posters here would be loudly advocating for this Differently-Named Religion to get equal treatment.

[ChazStevensOfficial]

Satan doesn't rape altar boys, but boy (pun!), do those Catholics love 'em.

[not guilty]

"Look, lots of religious liberty cases are based on fake claims of belief. Nobody's religion actually forbid vaccination; that was just something people who had irrational secular beliefs about covid claimed to try to evade vaccination requirements. But judges can't actually go around calling out plaintiffs who make these sorts of claims, because there's no real way to adjudicate them unless the person was dumb enough to tell someone else, 'I don't really believe this; I'm just saying it to win.'"

Actually, judges can and should do that, and counsel defending an RFRA claim should vigorously litigate the sincerity of an RFRA plaintiff's as a question of fact. Even the execrable decision in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., 573 U.S. 682, 717 n.28 (2014), noted:

To qualify for RFRA's protection, an asserted belief must be "sincere"; a corporation's pretextual assertion of a religious belief in order to obtain an exemption for financial reasons would fail. Cf., e.g., United States v. Quaintance, 608 F.3d 717, 718–719 (C.A.10 2010).

The Hobby Lobby Court observed that "[t]he companies in the cases before us are closely held corporations, each owned and controlled by members of a single family, and no one has disputed the sincerity of their religious beliefs." 573 U.S. @ 717. I submit that was piss poor lawyering on behalf of the government. David Green and his kinfolk never even looked into what birth control measures their insurance covered until Obamacare became a hot political issue.

[not guilty]

Congress and, in the case of state RFRAs state legislatures, should clarify what constitutes a "substantial burden" upon the exercise of religion. The courts seem to have read the adjective out of the statute.

I haven't researched the matter, but does anyone know of a case wherein the "burden" on an RFRA claimant's religious exercise was found to be insubstantial or trivial?

In United States v. Quaintance, 608 F.3d 717 (10th Cir. 2010), criminal defendants charged with conspiracy and possession with intent to distribute marijuana moved to dismiss the indictment based on the RFRA. The District Court conducted a three day evidentiary hearing, during which the district court received live testimony from ten witnesses as well as argument and briefing from counsel. Id., at 720.

The district court held, as a matter of law, that the defendants' professed beliefs were not religious but secular. In addition and in any event, the district court found, as a matter of fact, that the defendants did not sincerely hold the religious beliefs they claim to hold, but instead sought to use the cover of religion to pursue secular drug trafficking activities. Id., at 718. The defendants pleaded guilty, reserving the RFRA issue for appeal.

The government conceded that criminal punishment for the charged crimes constituted a substantial burden, leaving the defendant-appellants to prove the religiosity and sincerity prongs of their prima facie defense. The Court of Appeals, in an opinion written by then-Judge Gorsuch, affirmed the convictions based on the district court's finding that the defendants' beliefs were insincere, without reaching the district court's alternative holding that the Quaintances' proffered beliefs were not even religious in nature. Id.,</i at 724.

[ChazStevensOfficial]

Chaz here.

Well, let me lay it out for you, as I see it.

When I say that displaying banners advocating for religious freedom and the First Amendment is sacred observance, I mean exactly that. It’s the whole point of this fight. The Church of Satanology and Perpetual Soirée isn’t just some satire for giggles—it’s a doctrine built to challenge the old, tired status quo that gives a pass to mainstream religions while marginalizing minority voices. My banner? It’s a sermon in cloth. “Satan Loves the First Amendment” isn’t just cheeky; it’s doctrine, baby. It’s how my Church practices its faith—by holding a mirror up to society’s hypocritical favoritism.

What about displaying a cross in public? Or preaching on the sidewalk?

Now, some might scoff at this. Maybe they think the sincerity of my beliefs is on trial here. It’s not. Legally speaking, the court doesn’t get to decide if they *like* my beliefs or if they think my Church is legit. Their job is to figure out if my claims meet the test laid out under the Florida Religious Freedom Restoration Act (FRFRA) and the First Amendment. And let’s be clear: when the School Board lets banners from Calvary Chapel or Potter’s House hang while blocking mine? That’s viewpoint discrimination, plain and simple.

This case isn’t about whether my Church is mainstream or palatable. It’s about whether a government entity gets to play favorites with public spaces and stifle my voice. And yeah, the First Amendment doesn’t just protect speech you like—it protects all of it, even when it comes wrapped in a banner that says Satan’s got a soft spot for free speech.

So, if you think my claim is absurd, just know this: what’s truly absurd is the idea that equal protection under the law doesn’t apply to everyone. And I’ll go to the mat for that every single time.

[Soronel Haetir]

I keep thinking "If you don't like these Satanists, just wait until the real thing comes along". After all, what could be the more natural constituency for a Church of Satan than seven and eight year old boys?

[Katall]

You mean, of course, the same natural constituency as for Baptists and Catholics?

[Soronel Haetir]

Actually, no. Baptist faith has to be instill through teaching. I do believe that the untutored behavior of young boys would be very much in line with the doctrines of an actual Satan. That is why so much effort has to be used going the other way.

[Katall]

Ah. All young boys are Satanic, so they have to be brainwashed? I guess that goes along with Baptist thinking, as they are imbued with original sin and cannot be baptized until they accept the teachings (unlike in some other sects of the Christianity cult, where baptism is at birth). If only some young boys are Satanic, and some have Baptist leanings (without being taught), then they would be the ones that would be the natural consistency for Baptists. . .

[Dan Schiavetta]

Rochin v. California, 342 U.S. 165 (decided January 2, 1952): Defendant vomited out two capsules of (illegal) morphine at hospital after being force-fed an emetic. After police broke into his house and dragged him there. All this without a warrant. Yeah, Due Process (“shocks the conscience”) violation. Capsules should have been suppressed, conviction vacated. No dissents.

Kiefer-Stewart Co. v. Joseph E. Seagram & Sons, 340 U.S. 211 (decided January 2, 1951): distillers’ agreement to set prices above which wholesalers could not resell was conspiracy in violation of Sherman Act (overruled by Copperweld Corp. v. Independence Tube Corp., 1984, to the extent that a parent corporation can’t be said to conspire with its affiliate)

Cincinnati, New Orleans & Texas Pacific Ry. Co. v. Bohon, 200 U.S. 221 (decided January 2, 1906): wrongful death suit against railroad and its employee can’t be split for the purposes of removing the suit against the railroad on basis of diversity; it’s an inseparable controversy (this was before the Federal Employers Liability Act, which created vicarious liability and made suing the employee separately unnecessary)

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Satan is sometimes used as a metaphorical concept with some historical precedent. Satan challenged God. He was not just a symbol of evil. He could also be a protest symbol.

Some people form a "religion" to do this. People don't take them seriously as a religion. But, line drawing here can be difficult, even granting this guy seems to be using "Satan" more as a protest device than a traditional religion.

The use of someone like Satan to challenge traditional religious beliefs is anything but new at any rate. For instance, there was the Gospel of Judas Iscariot back in the Third Century, a gnostic work challenging traditional Christian beliefs.

Gnostic religions had some weird aspects too, including a bunch of convoluted symbolism and names of "powers" and so on.

[Roger S]

The 1A protects religious beliefs. This Satan statement is not religious, and is not a belief.

[SRG2]

1A protects religious exercise. There is no mention of belief. And it is trivial to think of statements that are not themselves religious but nonetheless arise out of religious belief.

[Katall]

Is "Jesus loves you" a religious statement? Is it a belief? I think it is.
So to can be "Satan loves the first amendment". I am unclear what type of religious messages were allowed under the policy, but I would not be surprised if Roger S thought that they, too, were not religious messages.

The bottom line is: if the school will allow religious messages, it must allow messages from all religions. It matters not if they think the religions do not espouse a genuine conviction. It is a slippery slope and the (likely) troll religion of Satanism shows the problems inherent in allowing religion into public institutions.

[Roger S]

It shows the problems with allowing beliefs pretending to be non-Christian religions.

[Katall]

Really? Are we now to have a governmental arbiter of what constitutes a religion? Why not get us a Grand Inquisitor (what could go wrong)?
If we are going to say that Christian religions should be promoted, which one? Catholicism? Methodism? Baptism (which version)? LDS? And which version of the Bible should be used? King James? The original Greek/Hebrew?
There is too much variation to say which is right. That is, precisely, the reason government (at least in the US) should not be in the business of religion.

[Roger S]

When there is a law for religious freedom, it has to mean that the government is the arbiter of what is and is not a religious freedom. There is no other way.

[Katall]

Perhaps. What would you have that law be? Where would you draw the line (other than to say "Satan loves the first amendment" is not a religious statement)? Tis a slippery slope and you are on your way to the bottom.

[Randal]

He wants it to be Christians-only. Duh. You must be new here.

[Roger S]

We might disagree on where to draw the line, but it has to be drawn somewhere. Otherwise every activity would qualify as a religious freedom.

[SRG2]

Otherwise every activity would qualify as a religious freedom

Like refusing to be vaccinated, for example.

[not guilty]

Roger S: "The 1A protects religious beliefs. This Satan statement is not religious, and is not a belief."

SRG2: "1A protects religious exercise. There is no mention of belief. And it is trivial to think of statements that are not themselves religious but nonetheless arise out of religious belief."

It seems that with his first sentence, Roger has got something right, akin to a blind hog finding an acorn. Under the First Amendment, the right to believe is absolute; the right to act is subject to reasonable regulation designed to protect a compelling state interest.

The best discussion of the belief/action dichotomy that I am aware of is State ex Rel. Swann v. Pack, 527 S.W.2d 99 (Tenn. 1975), which arose out of a civil action to abate a public nuisance. The trial judge had enjoined the respondents from handling poisonous snakes or using deadly poisons in any church service in Cocke County but authorized the consumption of strychnine. The Court of Appeals modified the injunction so as to enjoin respondents from handling, displaying or exhibiting dangerous and poisonous snakes in such manner as will endanger the life or health of persons who do not consent to exposure to such danger. Id. at 114.

The Supreme Court of Tennessee opined:

The right to the free exercise of religion is not absolute and unconditional. Nor is its sweep susceptible of discrete and concrete compartmentalization. It is perforce, of necessity, a vague and nebulous notion, defying the certainties of definition and the niceties of description. At some point the freedom of the individual must wane and the power, duty and interest of the state becomes compelling and dominant.
* * *
The fact that one acts from the promptings of religious beliefs does not immunize against lawless conduct.

But, again, the scales are always weighted in favor of free exercise and the state's interest must be compelling; it must be substantial; the danger must be clear and present and so grave as to endanger paramount public interests.

Id., at 111.
The Supreme Court remanded to the trial court with instructions to enter an injunction perpetually enjoining and restraining all parties respondent from handling, displaying or exhibiting dangerous and poisonous snakes or from consuming strychnine or any other poisonous substances, within the confines of the State of Tennessee. The Court elaborated on its consideration of less restrictive alternatives:

We fully appreciate the fact that the decision we reach imposes stringent limitations upon the pursuit of a religious practice, a result we endeavored to avoid. After long and careful analysis of alternatives and lengthy deliberations on all aspects of this problem we reached the conclusion that paramount considerations of public policy precluded less stringent solutions. We gave consideration to limiting the prohibition to handling snakes in the presence of children, but rejected this approach because it conflicts with the parental right and duty to direct the religious training of his children. We considered the adoption of a "consenting adult" standard but, again, this practice is too fraught with danger to permit its pursuit in the frenzied atmosphere of an emotional church service, regardless of age or consent. We considered restricting attendance to members only, but this would destroy the evangelical mission of the church. We considered permitting only the handlers themselves to be present, but this frustrates the purpose of confirming the faith to non-believers and separates the pastor and leaders from the congregation. We could find no rational basis for limiting or restricting the practice, and could conceive of no alternative plan or procedure which would be palatable to the membership or permissible from a standpoint of compelling state interest. The very considerations which impel us to outright prohibition, would preclude fragmentation of the religious services or the pursuit of this practice on a limited basis.

Id., at 117.

[Roger S]

Yes, there are some limits to what a free religious exercise can be.

[SRG2]

Thus disappointing adherents of thugee.

[santamonica811]

"...We considered the adoption of a "consenting adult" standard but, again, this practice is too fraught with danger to permit its pursuit in the frenzied atmosphere of an emotional church service, regardless of age or consent. ..."

Thanks for including this text.
I think the court was saying (politely), "We'd like to have a 'consenting adult' standard...but ya'll are fucking nuts, you're adult fucking nuts, and we therefore can't trust you to act like adults during your religious services. These are goddamn venomous snakes, for God's sake!!! But, if this court has to treat you like retarded children, then fine . . . we will."

[SRG2]

It's an excellent decision: https://casetext.com/case/state-ex-rel-swann-v-pack

[Katall]

duplicate. sorry

[tuphat]

As a kid growing up attending a nondenominational Christian church, hardly a Sunday service went by without a prayer that included thanks to God for living in a country where we could worship freely. To me, feeling gratitude ("love") for the First Amendment can be, without a doubt, a "religious belief," regardless of to whom/what that gratitude is directed.

[ChazStevensOfficial]

Christians account for about 70% of our population, so that informed our decision when founding this religion.

Originally wanted to go with Druidism, but once again, the Druids take it in the shorts.

[tuphat]

"Thetans love the First Amendment, too, but mainly for the tax breaks."

[santamonica811]

"Come for the tax breaks; stay for the engrams!"

[Peter Kreeft taught me LOGIC, BEWARE !!!!!!!]

IF I had to pick a 'religion' that attracts the stupid it would be Scientology. Tom Cruise, rejected from being a Catholic priest, ends up a devout Scientologist. and there are scores more.

You can call that religious freedom but that alreayd biases the case to say that. How about school board has the right not to display asshole statements.

[SRG2]

The particular appeal of Scientology to Tom Cruise (and John Travolta) is that it teaches that homosexuality can be cured. Hence if you're a gay man who wants to be straight and thinks he ought to be straight, Scientology appears to offer you a solution.

[ChazStevensOfficial]

I am an artist and engineer by profession. Here I am, a pro se federal litigant (likely looking at a 3% success rate). But I am undeterred. My previous work single-handedly forced DeSantis to weaken Florida's insidious book ban.

Satan loves an underdog.

[SRG2]

How did you get the handle "Chaz" when your given name is Timothy?

Good work, btw!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaz_Stevens

[ChazStevensOfficial]

Tequila, a topless bar in Matthews, NC, and a stripper named Sandy.
Circa 1987.

[SRG2]

Excellent!

[tuphat]

Re: religious snake handling -- I know constitutional lawyers don't care too much about jury nullification, but see below coverage of Tennessee GJ refusing to indict under the discussed statute.
https://newrepublic.com/article/116223/snake-handling-pastors-acquitted-due-religious-freedom

ETA: Three years later this same preacher was arrested for shooting up his momma-in-law's house.