Fields argues his religious beliefs were substantially burdened because the defendants punished him for refusing "to engage in conduct that was contrary to his religious beliefs (i.e., attending the place of worship of another religion and being subjected to proselytizing by that religion)."... However, nothing in Fields' proposed Second Amended Complaint suggests that Defendants' actions in any way inhibited or curtailed Fields from practicing his religion.... Although Fields alleges that officers who attended the event were subjected to proselytizing, nowhere does he allege that such presentations were mandatory or that any such presentations would have inhibited or curtailed Fields from practicing his sincerely held religious beliefs....(See prior related posting.) Yesterday's Tulsa World has more background on the decision.
Objective coverage of church-state and religious liberty developments, with extensive links to primary sources.
Friday, December 02, 2011
Court Rebuffs New Claims By Officer Disciplined For Refusing To Attend Event At Mosque
In Fields v. City of Tulsa, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 136522 (ND OK, Nov. 28, 2011), an Oklahoma federal district court rejected an attempt by a Tulsa police officer to file a second amended complaint in his suit against the Tulsa Police Department. Officer Paul Fields was disciplined by the Department when he refused to attend, and refused to require officers under his command to attend, a "Law Enforcement Appreciation Day" hosted by the Islamic Society of Tulsa at a local mosque. Fields wanted to add a 1st Amendment speech claim and a claim under the Oklahoma Religious Freedom Act. In rejecting Fields' religious freedom arguments, the court said: