Maritime Park Worker Sues After Being Fired For Helping With Baptism

Courthouse News Service reported last week on a religious discrimination suit filed in a California federal district court.  A maintenance worker at the Maritime National Historic Park in San Francisco, who is also a Baptist minister, says he was fired for helping to baptize a visitor in the ocean.  The baptism took place while the minister Roger Holly was on his lunch break and was not in uniform. Holly, who is African-American, had previously complained about racial discrimination.

Recent Prisoner Free Exercise Cases

In Thompson v. Holm, (7th Cir., Jan 4, 2016), the 7th Circuit, reversing the district court, ruled that withholding a Muslim inmate's meal bags for two days during Ramadan constituted a substantial burden on his free exercise rights. The court, also rejecting several other defenses, urged the district court to appoint counsel for plaintiff on remand.

In Rosales v. Watts, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 267 (SD GA, Jan 4, 2016), a Georgia federal magistrate judge recommended that  an inmate be allowed to proceed with many of his claims alleging that prison authorities truncated the "Spiritual Mass" ceremony for Santeria practitioners and refused to order Santeria supplies including bead necklaces with Ache. UPDATE: The magistrate's recommendations were adopted at 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 33357, March 15, 2016.

In Michaels v. West, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1826 (ND WV, Jan. 7, 2016), a West Virginia federal district court adopted a magistrate's recommendation (2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 174184, Nov. 25, 2015) and dismissed for failure to exhaust administrative remedies an inmate's complaint that he was denied the vegetarian diet required by his Asatru religious beliefs.

In Todd v. CDCR, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1944 (ED CA, Jan. 7, 2016), a California federal magistrate judge recommended that, consistent with a remand from the 9th Circuit, the complaint by an inmate who was a minister in the White supremacist Creativity religion move ahead.  Plaintiff complains about confiscation of religious material, failure to provide a fruitarian (or acceptable alternative kosher diet), placing of the Holy Books of Creativity on the banned list, and refusal to recognize Creativity as a religion.

In Young v. Rodriguez, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1965 (ED  CA, Jan. 7, 2016), a California federal magistrate judge permitted a Rastafarian inmate to move ahead with his complaint that he was not permitted to wear his religiously required head covering-- a crown-- into the health care facility visiting room.

In Rezaq v. Federal Bureau of Prisons, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2288 (SD IL, Jan. 8, 2016), an Illinois federal district court permitted a Muslim inmate to proceed under RFRA (but not under the 1st Amendment) complaining that prison authorities did not have a pre-dawn morning pill line during Ramadan.

In Wallace v. Mayfield, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1137 (ED AR, Jan. 6, 2016), an Arkansas federal district court adopted a magistrate's recommendation (2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 174100, Dec. 14, 2015) and denied a preliminary injunction to an inmate who claimed his free exercise rights were infringed when he was forced to shave his beard and cut his hair. Plaintiff sought to enjoin retaliation for filing the lawsuit.

In Coleman v. Lincoln Parish Detention Center, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2633 (WD LA, Jan. 7, 2016) a Louisiana federal district court adopted a magistrate's recommendation (2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 174236, Dec. 7, 2015) and dismissed a Muslim inmate's complaint that he was denied the right to participate in weekly Jummah services and when he filed a grievance was transferred to another facility.

Court Allows RFRA Challenge To ACA Individual Mandate To Proceed

A Missouri federal district court yesterday refused to dismiss for failure to state a claim under RFRA a suit by a state legislator and his wife asserting their religious rights are burdened by the Affordable Care Act's mandate requiring them to purchase health insurance which includes contraceptive coverage.  In Wieland v. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, (ED MO, Jan. 8, 2016),  Paul and Teresa Wieland, who are Roman Catholics, assert that paying for or participating in a healthcare plan that includes coverage for contraceptives, or providing such insurance coverage for their three daughters, violates their sincerely-held religious beliefs. (The daughters were 12, 18 and 19 when the suit was brought.) The court, relying on 8th Circuit precedent, said:

it is not the Court’s role to second-guess the reasonableness of a plaintiff’s sincerely-held religious beliefs....

The court concluded that while the government may be able to prove that the religious exercise burden is justified by a compelling governmental interest, that is not something plaintiffs have an obligation to disprove at this stage in order to avoid dismissal.  The court however did dismiss plaintiffs' 1st Amendment free exercise and free speech claims, as well as their substantive due process and Administrative Procedure Act claims. (See prior related posting including link to complaint.)

Mother's Move To Eskimo Village Does Not Justify Reduction In Her Child Support Obligations

In Sharpe v. Sharpe, (AK Sup. Ct., Jan. 8. 2016), the Alaska Supreme Court in a 3-2 decision upheld a trial court's denial of a mother's motion to reduce the amount she is required to pay under a child-support order. The mother, who is the non-custodial parent of an 10 year old daughter, gave up her high-paying Alaska pipeline job to move back to her Yup'ik Eskimo community.  She adopted a subsistence lifestyle there to meet her her cultural, spiritual, and religious needs and help her in her battle with alcohol. Under Alaska rules, the court can order a parent to pay more than would otherwise be justified by his or her current income level if the parent is "voluntarily and unreasonably" unemployed or underemployed. The majority concluded that this was a voluntary and unreasonable decision by the mother to earn less than she is capable of earning.

On appeal, the mother also argued that the child support order burdens her free exercise of religion as protected by the Alaska Constitution.  She contended that the order in effect requires her to give up her Native religious and cultural heritage to maintain a stressful job in Anchorage. The majority rejected her claim because it had not been raised at trial.

Justice Winfree dissenting argued in part:

Today’s decision has enormous negative implications. It trivializes and devalues Alaska Natives’ cultural, spiritual, and religious connections to their villages and their subsistence lifestyle.  It requires a non-custodial Native parent in rural Alaska to pay child support based on what the parent could earn in urban Alaska regardless of the legitimacy of choosing to live in rural Alaska.... [I]t infringes on constitutionally protected religious and privacy rights. 

Texas Gov. Abbott Accuses State Bar's CLE Committee of Religious Discrimination

Texas Lawyer reported yesterday that Texas Governor Greg Abbott has now weighed in on a refusal by the State Bar's Minimum Continuing Legal Education Committee to certify a law professor's continuing legal education program for "Legal Ethics/ Professional Responsibility" credit.  Under Texas MCLE rules, all lawyers must take 15 hours per year of continuing legal education, 3 hours of which must be in legal ethics/ professional responsibility.  The State Bar's Accreditation Standards provide:

"Legal Ethics and Legal Professional Responsibility" shall include, but not be limited to the accreditation of those topics involving disciplinary rules of professional conduct, rules of disciplinary procedure, and the use and availability of alternative dispute resolution and pro-bono services....

"Legal Ethics and Legal Professional Responsibility" shall not include programs or topics that deal with government or business ethics, individual religious or moral responsibilities, training in personal organizational skills, general office skills, time management, leadership skills or stress management.

Applying these standards, the State Bar's MCLE Committee refused to approve St. Mary's law school professor Bill Piatt's CLE program on "Christian Ethical Perspectives: Faith and Law Today" for ethics credit. Sponsors of the program are appealing to the State Bar of Texas board of directors.  Gov. Abbott's general counsel has written to the State Bar president urging a change in the definition of "legal ethics" in the MCLE rules, contending that the current definition is "based on a shallow and impoverished understanding of legal ethics and an unduly narrow view of legal education."  He suggested that the refusal to accredit could be seen as religious discrimination against the program sponsors.  A week later, Gov. Abbott posted a blunter statement on his Facebook page:

I'm accusing Texas State Bar of religious discrimination for denying continuing education credit for Christian legal ethics programs. The Texas State Bar leaders should be compelled to read my winning arguments upholding the Ten Commandments and "One Nation Under God."

The parties are meeting next week to try to work out a solution before the Jan. 21 appeal hearing.

President Sends Greetings On Orthodox Christmas

Yesterday the White House released a statement (full text) from the President and Mrs. Obama wishing "a blessed Christmas to Orthodox Christians in the United States and around the world."  The statement also "reaffirm[ed] our commitment to protect religious minorities, including Christian minorities, who too often face violence and persecution throughout the world."

Israeli Civil Court Orders Chief Rabbinate To Release List of Foreign Rabbis Whose Testimony It Will Accept

In Israel on Wednesday, Jerusalem district court Judge Nava Ben-Or ordered Israel's Chief Rabbinate to release its internal list of rabbis in other countries whose affidavits will be recognized for purposes of proving Jewish identity.  Residents who have moved to Israel from abroad can only have access to a Jewish marriage ceremony or Jewish burial in Israel if they are formally recognized as Jewish by the Rabbinate.  According to the Times of Israel:

In her decision, Judge Nava Ben-Or declared herself “shocked” by the apparent lack of transparency in this matter most central to everyday existence.

“This is a person’s life, we’re talking about very serious matters,” she said, describing a situation in which people wait indeterminately for the rabbinate to decide their fates, saying they hear nothing and are not being answered.

“It is a right to start a family,” Ben-Or said. “I am ashamed that in a functioning state this information cannot be provided. It is an unprecedented scandal. It is not Jewish, and inhumane.”

Settlement Reached In Suit Over NYPD Surveillance of Muslims

In 2013, a suit captioned Raza v. City of New York was filed in a New York federal district court challenging the constitutionality of the New York Police Department's surveillance program directed at Muslim religious and community leaders, organizations, businesses and at mosques. (See prior posting.) The NYPD was already operating under the Handschu Guidelines that grew out of a consent decree in an earlier case on NYPD surveillance activities.  In 2013, a motion was also filed in that case claiming that the consent decree had been violated. A press release from the ACLU yesterday reports that after several months of negotiations the parties have agreed on a settlement in both cases.  The settlement involves court adoption of modifications to the Handschu Guidelines to offer greater protections.  As summarized by ABC News:

Under the deal, the Handschu guidelines will specifically ban investigations based on race, religion or ethnicity. Other provisions require the department to use the least intrusive investigative techniques possible and to consider "the potential effect on the political or religious activity of individuals, groups or organizations and the potential effect on persons who, although not a target of the investigation are affected by or subject to the technique."

The settlement also sets time limits for ending investigations that ultimately fail to turn up threats — 18 months for preliminary investigations, three years for full investigations and five years for terror conspiracy cases. The civilian representative, appointed by the mayor, will attend monthly meetings of police officials and NYPD lawyers who review the investigations and will have authority to report any suspected violations of the agreement to City Hall or a federal judge.

The full text of the guideline modifications are set out as Exhibit B to the January 7 Notice of Motion for Approval of Settlement in the Handschu case. A Memorandum of Law in support of the motion was filed by plaintiffs.  A Joint Motion Seeking Entry of Settlement was also filed in the Raza case, as was a Stipulation of Settlement.  Under the settlement, the NYPD will also remove a controversial report titled Radicalization in the West from the NYPD website, and the city will pay $1.671 million for plaintiffs' attorneys' fees.

Court Rejects Federal Challenges To School Ban On Graduate Wearing Eagle Feather

Having previously denied a preliminary injunction in the case (see prior posting), this week an Oklahoma federal district court dismissed a lawsuit brought by a Native American high school senior challenging a school policy that barred her from wearing an eagle feather on her mortar board tassel at her high school graduation. The feather had been given to her by a tribal elder, and it would be a sign of disrespect not to wear the feather which is sacred according to her religious beliefs. In Griffith v. Caney Valley Public Schools, (ND OK, Jan. 5, 2015), the court rejected plaintiff's free speech claim, concluding that graduation attire is school-sponsored speech, and that the school had a legitimate pedagogical reason for restricting decorations on graduation caps.   It rejected her First Amendment free exercise claim, finding that the regulation is a neutral rule of general applicability.  Finally the court refused to exercise its supplemental jurisdiction to decide plaintiff's claim that the school's restriction violates Oklahoma's Religious Freedom Act.  Plaintiff remains free to refile that claim in state court.

Amish Contempt Citation Upheld; Free Exercise Issue Avoided

A Wisconsin state appeals court this week, avoiding the free exercise issue that appellants attempted to raise, upheld the contempt judgment against members of an Old Order Amish family who failed to obtain building and sanitary permits for their residence.  In In re the Contempt in: Eau Claire County v. Borntreger, (WI App., Jan. 5, 2016), the court held that the state constitutional issue that the Borntregers want to raise was not the subject of the contempt decision under appeal, but of the earlier grant of summary judgment to the county which the Borntregers failed to appeal. The court explained appellants' contentions:

The Borntregers argued their decision not to pursue building and sanitary permits was protected by article I, section 18 of the Wisconsin Constitution. The Borntregers subsequently filed a motion to dismiss on this ground, asserting the “county ordinance and the state statutes [the County] relies upon violate the defendants’ freedom of worship and liberty of conscience.” The Borntregers argued they would not sign any application, including those for building or sanitary permits, “that states they will adhere to building codes or adhere to all applicable codes, laws, statutes and ordinances.” The Borntregers reasoned that signing such a form would constitute a false statement because they had no intent to comply, and the making of false statements is prohibited by their religion.

However the trial court rejected their claim, concluding that the Borntregars' beliefs were not burdened by the application process.  The applications merely contained an acknowledgement that the proposed construction is "subject to" applicable codes. The court said that signing this merely confirms the applicant's awareness of the rules, and is not a promise to comply.

Meanwhile the Eau Claire Leader-Telegram yesterday reported that the Borntregars, as well as 20 other Old Order Amish families, have now obtained building permits after the Wisconsin legislature changed the applicable law. The state now allows Amish not to install smoke and carbon monoxide detectors, and to have simple plumbing.  However they still need permits for items like foundations, structure and entrances, and the Amish are willing to obtain these.

Two RLUIPA Zoning Decisions From Last Month

Two RLUIPA zoning cases of interest were decided last month.  In Mesquite Grove Chapel v. DeBonis, (9th Cir., Dec. 18, 2015), the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a zoning official's denial of a permit to develop land zoned for church use.  The court, rejecting plaintiff's RLUIPA challenge, said in part:

The primary burdens presented here—relocating or submitting a modified application—were not substantial, especially because Mesquite presented no evidence that other sites are unsuitable.

RLUIPA Defense blog reports on the decision.

In Matter of Septimus v Board of Zoning Appeals for the Incorporated Village of Lawrence, (NY Nassau Co. Sup. Ct., Dec. 16, 2015), a New York trial court upheld a creative judgment by a Zoning Board of Appeals in a case in which a synagogue sought to have a restriction on weekday use of its building-- part of it original zoning arrangements-- lifted so that it could hold regular weekday services.  Neighbors objected because of concern about traffic. The BZA lifted the restrictive covenant precluding weekday services for a one year trial period, with the issue to be re-evaluated after the year had passed.  The court found that under RLUIPA the original ban on weekday use constitutes a substantial burden, and the BZA's trial approach is the least restrictive means of furthering a compelling governmental interest in maintaining the integrity of an established residential neighborhood.  New York Law Journal reports on the decision.

First Same-Sex Marriage Case In China Moves Forward

In China's Hunan Province, a court has accepted jurisdiction for the first time in a case seeking to legalize same-sex marriage in the country.  According to a Reuters report yesterday, plaintiff Sun Wenlin says that last June an official in the Furong district civil affairs bureau rejected his application to marry his same-sex partner. Wenlin argues that China's marriage law protects the freedom to marry and provides for gender equality.

Dentist Sued For Harassing Staff With Constant Playing of Christian Music

According to yesterday's Clarkston News, four former employees of a Lake Orion, Michigan dentist have filed a religious discrimination and religious harassment lawsuit in state court against dentist Tina Marshall and her pastor.  After Marshall and her daughter joined the Christian ministry of Dr. Craig Stasio, Marshall increasingly insisted on playing Christian music in the dental office. Even though her employees objected, eventually she insisted on playing the music all the time, even when the building was empty, "to keep the demons out." The suit alleges that Marshall also conducted daily morning prayers with staff members, which eventually became mandatory.  She also prayed over patients receiving dental treatment.  Employees resisted the music, and some of them either resigned or were fired.  Eventually Marshall called on Stasio to restructure the office, and all but one of the current employees were fired and replaced by members of Stasio's ministry.  The lawsuit alleges discrimination in violation of Michigan's Elliott Larsen Civil Rights Act.

Alabama Chief Justice Tells Probate Judges To Continue Refusing To Issue Same-Sex Marriage Licenses

Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore is once again seeking to defy federal courts on the issue of same-sex marriage. (See prior posting.)  In March 2015, the Alabama Supreme Court in the Alabama Policy Institute ("API")  case ordered probate judges in the state to discontinue issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples despite federal district court orders already holding Alabama's ban on same-sex marriage unconstitutional. (See prior posting.)  Of course, in June 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court handed down the Obergefell decision, finding bans on same-sex marriage in Ohio, Tennessee, Michigan and Kentucky unconstitutional.  Three days later, the Alabama Supreme Court invited parties in the API case to file briefs addressing the effect of the Obergefell decision on the Alabama order in API.  Subsequently two probate court judges petitioned the Alabama Supreme Court for orders protecting their refusals to issue same-sex marriage licenses.  All of these matters remain pending before the Alabama Supreme Court.

Today, Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice Roy Moore issued an Administrative Order (full text) addressing what he described as the "confusion and uncertainty" that exists among Alabama probate judges.  He says that "an elementary principle of federal jurisdiction [is that] a judgment only binds the parties to the case before the court," suggesting that technically Obergefell  is not binding on Alabama judges.  He went on:

As Administrative Head of the Unified Judicial System of Alabama, authorized and empowered pursuant to Section 12-2-30(b)(7), Ala. Code 1975, to "take affirmative and appropriate action to correct or alleviate any condition or situation adversely affecting the administration of justice within the state," and under Section 12-2-30(b)(8), Ala. Code 1975, to "take any such other, further or additional action as may be necessary for the orderly administration of justice within the state, whether or not enumerated in this section or elsewhere"...

IT IS ORDERED AND DIRECTED THAT: Until further decision by the Alabama Supreme Court, the existing orders of the Alabama Supreme Court that Alabama probate judges have a ministerial duty not to issue any marriage license contrary to the Alabama Sanctity of Marriage Amendment or the Alabama Marriage Protection Act remain in full force and effect.

AL.com reports on today's order.

California Judges Will Still Be Able To Lead Church Boy Scout Troops

January 21, 2016 is the effective date of an amendment adopted last year to the California Code of Judicial Ethics that eliminated previous exceptions to the ban on California judges holding membership in any organization-- other than a religious organization-- that discriminates on the basis of race, sex, gender, religion, national origin, ethnicity, or sexual orientation. A previous exception for non-profit youth organizations had allowed judges to continue their activities with the Boy Scouts.  (See prior posting.)

In a little-noticed Oral Advice Summary (full text) posted Nov. 12, 2015, the California Committee on Judicial Ethics Opinions opened the door to judges continuing to participate in church-sponsored scout troops that bar gay leaders. The Committee said in part:

The Advisory Committee commentary to canon 2C advises that determining whether an organization practices invidious discrimination depends on such "relevant factors as whether the organization is dedicated to the preservation of religious . . . or other values of legitimate common interest to its members. . . ."

Historically, BSA has prohibited youth and adult membership based on sexual orientation. In January, 2014, BSA adopted a policy that no youth will be denied membership on the basis of sexual orientation. In July, 2015, BSA adopted a policy that BSA employees and non-unit-serving volunteers will not be denied membership on the basis of sexual orientation. The policy also states that chartering organizations, such as those sponsoring local troops, have the right to select adult scout leaders based on the chartering organization’s religious and moral values concerning sexuality.

Given these policies, the requesting judge must determine for himself whether or not his church-sponsored BSA troop excludes adult gay members based on his troop’s commonly-held religious values concerning sexuality....

Yesterday News Now reported on the November Oral Advice.

Northern Ireland Court Acquits Pastor Charged With Internet Broadcast of Anti-Muslim Sermon

In Belfast, Northern Ireland yesterday, a Magistrate's Court acquitted 78-year old Pastor James McConnell who had been indicted on two charges under Britain's Communications Act 2003 for anti-Muslim comments he made in a May 2014 sermon that was streamed online. The Belfast Telegraph reports that McConnell was charged with improper use of a public electronic communications network and causing a grossly offensive message to be sent by means of a public electronic communications network.  At issue were the pastor's statements that Islam is a "doctrine spawned in hell," that it is heathen and satanic, and that he does not trust Muslims. The court ruled that while the statements are offensive, they did not reach the level of being "grossly offensive."  The court also concluded that the pastor had not intentionally caused offense. According to the court:

He is a man with strong, passionate and sincerely held beliefs. In my view Pastor McConnell's mindset was that he was preaching to the converted in the form of his own congregation and like-minded people who were listening to his service rather than preaching to the worldwide internet.

His passion and enthusiasm for his subject caused him to, so to speak, 'lose the run of himself'."

He added that "the right to freedom of expression includes the right to say things or express opinions that offend, shock or disturb..."

UPDATE: Here is the full text of the opinion in DPP v. McConnell.  Law & Religion UK has additional discussion of the decision.

Suit Challenges County's Historic Preservation Grants To Churches

Yesterday's Parsippany Daily Record reports that the Freedom From Religion Foundation and a local resident have filed suit in a New Jersey state court challenging the inclusion of churches and houses of worship as recipients of county historic preservation grants from Morris County (NJ).  Some 32% of the $22.6 million in grants since 2003 have gone to churches.  The suit contends that these grants violate Art. I, Sec. 3 of the New Jersey Constitution that provides:

nor shall any person be obliged to pay tithes, taxes, or other rates for building or repairing any church or churches, place or places of worship, or for the maintenance of any minister or ministry, contrary to what he believes to be right or has deliberately and voluntarily engaged to perform.

The county argues that churches should be eligible because of their historic value.  The suit initially seeks a temporary injunction to bar payment of any grants awarded in the past two years that have not yet been disbursed.  In 2014, the county awarded $1.2 million to 12 churches or houses of worship for items such as restoration of roofs or facades, and for document preservation.

Unusual Amicus Brief In SCOTUS Challenge To Texas Abortion Regulation

The U.S. Supreme Court has set March 2 for oral argument in Whole Woman’s Health v. Cole, a challenge to Texas regulations that could result in 75% of the state's abortion clinics being forced to close. (Case page from SCOTUblog). National Law Journal reports on an unusual amicus brief (full text) filed in the case this week.  The brief was submitted by 107 women lawyers, as well as 6 current law students, with the aim of demonstrating the importance of abortion rights to members of the legal profession.  According to the brief:

Amici are lawyers who have obtained abortions and who have participated in a wide variety of different aspects of the legal profession, including at private law firms, corporations, multinational governmental organizations, nonprofit organizations, and law schools....

Amici obtained their abortions at different ages and life stages, under a variety of circumstances, and for a range of reasons both medical and personal, but they are united in their strongly-held belief that they would not have been able to achieve the personal or professional successes they have achieved were it not for their ability to obtain safe and legal abortions.

Air Force Academy Says Football Players Can Continue Pre-Game On Field Prayers

Yesterday's Christian Post reports on last month's controversy over U.S. Air Force Academy football players praying together in the end zone before the start of games. The Military Religious Freedom Foundation complained after several players kneeled in prayer on the field before the start of the December 5 Falcons contest against the San Diego State Aztecs.  MRFF argued that pre-game prayer pressures non-Christian athletes to join in.  Before the Falcons final game on Dec. 29, the Air Force Academy countered with a statement, saying in part:

The United States Air Force Academy will continue to reaffirm to cadets that all Airmen are free to practice the religion of their choice or subscribe to no religious belief at all.  The players may confidently practice their own beliefs without pressure to participate in the practices of others.

Mass. High Court Says Foster Parenting Can Be Denied Over Religious Belief In Corporal Punishment

In Magazu v. Department of Children and Families, (MA Sup. Jud. Ct., Jan. 4, 2016), the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court upheld a decision by a state agency denying an application by a Christian couple to become foster and pre-adoptive parents because the couple uses corporal punishment as a form of discipline in their home.  State rules, particularly concerned with the emotional needs of abused and neglected children who often are placed in foster care, bar the use of corporal punishment by foster parents.  The couple agreed that they would not use corporal punishment on a foster child, but refused to agree to refrain from spanking their own daughters in private when appropriate. According to the Court:

The Magazus assert that, in accordance with their sincerely held Christian beliefs, they use appropriate corporal punishment on their own two daughters as a matter of loving parenting and biblical understanding. They contend that the department's denial of their application to become foster parents substantially burdens their right to the free exercise of religion under art. 46, § 1, of the Amendments to the Massachusetts Constitution.... 

The Court disagreed, saying in part:

although the department's decision imposes a substantial burden on the Magazus' sincerely held religious beliefs, this burden is outweighed by the department's compelling interest in protecting the physical and emotional well-being of foster children.

(See prior related posting.)