Supreme Court Denies Review In Two Church Property Cases

Today the U.S. Supreme Court denied review in two unrelated cases involving disputes over church property after the break away of a congregation from its parent body..  It denied certiorari in Presbytery of the Twin Cities Area v. Eden Prairie Presbyterian Church, Inc., (Docket No. 17-582, cert. denied 6/11/2018) (Order List).  In the case, the Minnesota Court of Appeals held that it was proper to apply the "neutral principles of law" approach, rather than applying the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine, to decide ownership of property of a congregation which had disaffiliated from the Presbyterian Church USA. (See prior posting).

The court also denied certiorari in Protestant Episcopal Church in the Diocese of South Carolina v. The Episcopal Church, (Docket No. 17-1136, cert. denied 6/11/2018) (Order List).  In the case, the 5-member South Carolina Supreme Court in 5 separate opinions resolved a property dispute that arose after a split in the Episcopal Church in South Carolina. (See prior posting.)

Vice President Concerned About Aid To Iraqi Christians and Yazidis

Vice President Mike Pence issued a statement (full text) on Friday on promised U.S. aid to Iraq's Christian and Yazidi communities, saying in part:

To save what remains of these ancient and proud peoples, President Trump directed the United States government to stop using slow, ineffective and wasteful United Nations programs and to instead distribute assistance through USAID.... 

While progress has been made to help these beleaguered people, there is more to do to fulfill the commitments made to them and not to mention – our own consciences.

The Vice President will not tolerate bureaucratic delays in implementing the Administration’s vision to deliver the assistance we promised to the people we pledged to help.

The Vice President directed USAID Administrator Mark Green to travel to Iraq in the coming weeks to report back with an immediate comprehensive assessment...

Recent Articles and Book of Interest

From SSRN:

• Kenneth Einar Himma, An Unjust Dogma: Why a Special Right to Religion Wrongly Discriminates Against Non-Religious Worldviews, (San Diego Law Review, Vol. 54, No. 1, 2017).
• Caroline Mala Corbin, Is There Any Silver Lining to Trinity Lutheran Church, Inc. v. Comer?, (Michigan Law Review Online, Vol. 116, p. 137, 2018).
• Richard W. Garnett & Jackson C. Blais, Religious Freedom and Recycled Tires: The Meaning and Implications of Trinity Lutheran, (2016-17 Cato Supreme Court Review 105).
• Richard W. Garnett, Freedom 'for' Religion: (Yet) Another View of the Cathedral, (in Brett G. Scharffs, Asher Maoz, and Ashley Isaacson Woolley, eds., Religious Freedom and the Law: Emerging Contexts for Freedom for and Freedom From Religion (Routledge 2019 Forthcoming)).
• Nadia N. Sawicki, Disentangling Conscience Protections, (Hastings Center Report, Forthcoming).
• Richard W. Garnett, "Afterword," (in S. Hendrianto, S.J., ed., Priests, Lawyers, and Scholars: Essays in Honor of Robert J. Araujo, S.J." (Franciscan Univ. Press 2017)).
• Barry W. Bussey, The Right of Religious Hospitals to Refuse Physician-Assisted Suicide, ((2018) 85 S.C.L.R. (2d)).
• Netta Barak Corren, The War Within, (May 23, 2018).
• B. Jessie Hill, Sex, Lies, and Ultrasound, (89 University of Colorado Law Review 421 (2018)).
• Reva Siegel & Linda Greenhouse, The Unfinished Story of Roe v. Wade, (Yale Law School, Public Law Research Paper (2018)).
• Kevin M. Barry & Jennifer Levi, Blatt v. Cabela's Retail, Inc. and a New Path for Transgender Rights, (Yale Law Journal Forum, Vol. 127, p. 373, 2017).
• Albertina Antognini, Against Nonmarital Exceptionalism, (UC Davis Law Review, Vol. 51, 2018 (Forthcoming)).

From SSRN (Islamic law):

• Kerstin Steiner, Branding Islam: Islam, Law and Bureaucracies in Southeast Asia, (37(1) Current Journal of Southeast Asian Affairs (2018)).
• Dominik Müller & Kerstub Steiner, The Bureaucratisation of Islam in Southeast Asia: Transdisciplinary Perspectives,  (37 (1) Journal of Current Southeast Asian Affairs (2018)).
• Haider Ala Hamoudi & Mark Cammack, Islamic Law in Modern Courts (Introduction), (Aspen Casebook Series, 2018).

From SmartCILP and elsewhere:

• Valerie J. Munson, On Holy Ground: Church Sanctuary in the Trump Era, 47 Southwestern Law Review 49-60 (2017).
• Ian P. Farrell. Book Review. From Premodern Christianity to the Postmodern Jury. 53 Tulsa L. Rev. 247-259 (2018). 
• Jason E. Whitehead, Book Review. Faith, Reason, and Liberal Legal Neutrality, 53 Tulsa Law Review 375-393 (2018).
• Robert E. Rains, Icing on the Wedding Cake: Same-sex Marriage and Religious Objections--Is There an Accommodation That Will Make Everyone Equally Happy (Or Unhappy)?, 42 Vermont Law Review 191-225 (2017).
• Elise Goss-Alexander, Policy Focus: Women and Religious Freedom, (USCIRF, May 2018).

Recent Book:

• Mohammad Hashas, Jan Jaap de Ruiter & Niels Valdemar Vinding (eds), Imams in Western Europe: Developments, Transformations, and Institutional Challenges, (Amsterdam University Press, May 2018).

Recent Prisoner Free Exercise Cases

In Harris v. Escamilla, (9th Cir., May 24, 2018), the 9th Circuit allowed a Muslim inmate to move ahead with claims that a correctional officer intentionally desecrated his Koran.

In Broyles v. Marks, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 85486 (D KA, May 22, 2018), a Kansas federal district court dismissed an inmate's complaint that there was no variety in the kosher meals served to him.

In Adams-Bey v. Rogers, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 85754 (WD NC, May 17, 2018), a North Carolina federal district court dismissed an inmate's claim of religious discrimination. Plaintiff alleged discrimination against him for being a "Moorish-American" by seizing legal petitions.

In Murphy v. Scott, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 85907 (ED TX, May 22, 2018), a Texas federal magistrate judge dismissed a Jewish inmate's complaint that he did not receive meat-free bag meals when his unit was on lock down.

In White v. Lee, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 87067 (D SC, May 24, 2018), a South Carolina federal district court adopted a magistrate's recommendations (2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 87398, April 16, 2018), and dismissed without prejudice an inmate's claim of confiscation of his religious material.

In Martinez v. Arizona Department of Corrections, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 87418 (D AZ, May 23, 2018), an Arizona federal district court dismissed a Native American inmate's complaint that his medicine bag with feathers attached was missing after a search of his cell.

In Scott v. Uhler, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 88233 (ND NY, May 24, 2018), a New York federal magistrate judge recommended that a Muslim inmate be allowed to move ahead with an equal protection challenge to the cancellation of Jumm'ah services on Christmas day.

In Kelly v. Montgomery, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 88522 (SD CA, May 24, 2018), a California federal magistrate judge recommended that an inmate be allowed to move ahead with his challenge to the denial of his request to change his name to that of his step-father to honor the religious requirement to honor his father.

In Bullock v. Cohen, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 88708 (D NJ, May 29, 2018), a New Jersey federal district court dismissed without prejudice an inmate's complaint that there is no designated place to assemble for religious services.

In Muhammad v. Wheeler, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 89295 (ED AR, May 29, 2018), an Arkansas federal district court denied a stay pending appeal in a case in which it had held that authorities must provide a Muslim inmate with halal meals, including a once per day serving of meat. It issued an injunction requiring fish 3 or 4 times per week, and chicken, turkey or beef the remainder of the times.

Austria Closes 7 Mosques, Targets Up To 60 Foreign-Funded Imams

CNN  and the New York Times report that yesterday Austria's Chancellor Sebastian Kurz for the first time invoked the country's 2015 Islam Law (full text) (summary) to close seven mosques and expel up to 60 imams. The law aims at barring radical Islam and prohibits foreign funding of Islamic communities.  The Arab Cultural and Religious Community, and six mosques it operates, were ordered closed on suspicion of promoting radical Islam.  A seventh mosque operated by a far right-wing group known as the Gray Wolves was also ordered closed.  The influx of refugees from Syria since 2015 has increased the Muslim population, and Turkish-trained imams, who continue to receive funding from Turkey, now work in Austria. They are the imams being targeted.

Court Allows Archbishop Sheen's Remains To Be Moved To Illinois

A New York trial court yesterday ruled in a rather bitter dispute that the remains of the late Archbishop Fulton J. Sheen should be moved from a crypt in  New York's St. Patrick's Cathedral to a Cathedral in Peoria, Illinois, where he was ordained as a priest. (See prior related posting.) In Cunningham v. Trustees of St. Patrick's Cathedral, (NY Cty., June 8, 2018), the court (on remand from the Appellate Division) relied on the belief of Sheen's niece that the move is the only way to advance the Cause for Sheen being declared a saint.  Peoria's Bishop Daniel Jenky was the Promoter for the Cause of Sainthood for Sheen, but refused to continue his advocacy until Sheen's remains are moved.  The New York Archdiocese is not interested in promoting the sainthood Cause.  The court concluded:

The evidentiary hearing revealed that the location of Archbishop Sheen's final resting place would not have been his primary concern; his focus was on souls rather than the location of earthly remains. ...[B]ecoming a saint would allow Archbishop Sheen to accomplish his highest calling-- to reach as many believers as possible and to intercede on their behalf.

The Diocese of Peoria issued a press release reacting to the decision.  WJBC and Church Militant both reported on the decision.

New Jersey Legislature Again Votes To Ban All Marriages For Those Under 18

Yesterday the New Jersey legislature gave final passage to S-427 (full text). The bill prohibits persons under age 18 from entering into a marriage or civil union.  The bill eliminates the provisions in current law that allow persons to marry with parental consent at age 16 or with judicial approval at a younger age.  New Jersey Law Journal says that it is unclear whether Gov. Phil Murray will sign the bill.  Last year then-Governor Christie vetoed a similar bill, saying that without some exceptions it would violate religiously-based customs of some communities. (See prior posting.)

President Hosts Iftar Dinner At White House

The White House on Wednesday hosted an Iftar dinner at which President Trump delivered remarks (full text).  The President said in part:

At tonight’s dinner, we especially are pleased to welcome members of the diplomatic corps, representing our friends and partners across the globe.  And a very warm welcome to all of the ambassadors here tonight representing Muslim-majority nations....  To each of you and to the Muslims around the world: Ramadan Mubarak.

... Iftars mark the coming together of families and friends to celebrate a timeless message of peace, clarity, and love.  There is great love.  It’s a moment to call upon our highest ideals, and to give thanks for the many blessings we enjoy.  Thank you very much.

AP reports on the event, contrasting the President's welcoming remarks with anti-Muslim rhetoric used during his campaign.  Some Muslim groups, in protest, organized a "NOT Trump’s Iftar" across from the White House.

Muslim Woman Sues Under Title VII Over Failure To Accommodate Hijab

A lawsuit was filed in a Virginia federal district court last week against a Hanover, Virginia health care facility by a Muslim woman whose employment as a nursing assistant was terminated because she insisted on wearing a hijab. The complaint (full text) in Brooks v. Medical Facilities of America, Inc., (ED VA, filed 5/31/2018) contends that the employer's refusal to provide a reasonable accommodation violated Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act.  The Richmond Times-Dispatch reports on the lawsuit.

En Banc Rehearing Denied In Touro Synagogue Dispute

Yesterday the U.S. 1st Circuit Court of Appeals denied an en banc rehearing in  Congregation Jeshuat Israel v. Congregation Shearith Israel (1st Cir., June 7, 2018).  In the case, a 3-judge panel ruled that Rhode Island's historic Touro Synagogue is owned by New York's Shearith Israel congregation. (See prior posting.) Along with the denial order yesterday, the original panel filed a Statement explaining why it opposed a rehearing, and Judge Thompson filed a dissent from the denial of a rehearing.  Reporting on yesterday's decision, the Providence Journal says that Jeshuat Israel plans to seek review by the U.S. Supreme Court. [Thanks to Steven H. Sholk for the lead.]

Suit Seeks Recognition of Non-Religious Wedding Officiants

A suit was filed last week by Center for Inquiry, a secular humanist organization, challenging the limits in Michigan law that prevent secular celebrants from officiating at weddings in the state.  CFI among other things trains individuals how to solemnize marriage ceremonies consistent with secular principles.  The complaint (full text) in Center for Inquiry, Inc. v. Lyons, (WD MI, filed 5/31/2018) contends:

Michigan law, Mich. Comp. Laws § 551.7, which allows people to be married by the religious leaders of their choice, while denying these opportunities to plaintiffs, creates a preference for religion over non-religion in violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment of the United States Constitution....

The complaint also alleges equal protection violations.  CFI issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit.

Recent Prisoner Free Exercise Cases

In Quiero v. Muniz, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 80557 (MD PA, May 14, 2018), a Pennsylvania federal district court adopted a magistrate's recommendations and dismissed an inmate's complaint that his request for a visit from a prison chaplain was rejected.

In Little v. Gens, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 80691 (ED WI, May 14, 2018), a Wisconsin federal district court allowed a Muslim inmate to proceed on First Amendment free exercise claim against one defendant who allegedly punished him for exercising his right to perform Wudū. Claims against other defendants were dismissed.

In Hogan v. Idaho State Board of Corrections, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 82582 (DD, May 15, 2018), an Idaho federal magistrate judge concluded that sufficient facts had been alleged for a Muslim inmate to move ahead with his claim that he should be permitted to grow four-inch beard and wear a kufi at all times.

In Pouncil v. Sherman, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 82761 (ED CA, May 15, 2018), a California federal magistrate judge recommended dismissing a Muslim inmate's complaint that he was wrongfully denied a meal to break his fast on one night of Ramadan.

In Rushdan v. Gear, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 82769 (ED CA, May 15, 2018), a California federal magistrate judge recommended dismissing a Muslim inmate's complaint that the prison insisted on listing his religious name as an additional name after his commitment name, rather than allowing him to use his religious name solely.

In Sariaslan v. Rackley, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 82804 (ED CA, May 15, 2018), a California federal magistrate judge ruled that a Muslim inmate could move ahead with his complaint that he was not permitted to receive a Ramadan religious food package which he ordered.

In Gakuba v. Doe, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 84070 (SD IL May 17, 2018), an Illinois federal district court allowed a Jewish inmate to move ahead with his complaint that he was initially denied kosher meals and later was only served them intermittently.

In Thomas v. Wetzel, 2018 Pa. Commw. Unpub. LEXIS 271 (PA App., May 18, 2018), a Pennsylvania appellate court held that a Muslim inmate could move ahead with his claim that denying him the right to purchase an electric razor violated his religious exercise rights under RLUIPA. The court however dismissed the inmate's claim that denial of access to a computer and printer violated his RUIPA rights.

In Johnson v. Paul, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 84974 (SD NY, May 21, 2018), a New York federal district court dismissed with leave to amend an inmate's complaint that he was denied "Jewish meals" and that there were no Jewish religious services especially during "past over month".

In Spearman v. Michigan, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 85163 (WD MI, May 22, 2018), a Michigan federal district court allowed an inmate to move ahead against certain defendants on his complaint that authorities refused to recognize his Nuwaubian religion, and refused to provide him with a religious diet or allow him to participate in the Ramadan fast.

Public Accommodation Law Upheld Against Religious Claims In First Post-Masterpiece Cakeshop Decision

In the first case to present issues similar to those in the Supreme Court's Masterpiece Cakeshop decision, an Arizona appellate court has largely vindicated the rights of a same sex couple.  In Brush & Nib Studio, LC v. City of Phoenix, (AZ App, June 7, 2018), owners of an art studio that designs wedding products, citing their Christian religious beliefs, refused to create customer-specific merchandise for same-sex weddings. They sued to obtain an injunction against application of Phoenix's public accommodation anti-discrimination law to them.  Rejecting their free speech argument, the court said in part:

the conduct at issue is not the creation of words or images but the conduct of selling or refusing to sell merchandise—either pre-fabricated or designed to order—equally to same-sex and opposite-sex couples. This conduct, even though it may incidentally impact speech, is not speech. Further, allowing a vendor who provides goods and services for marriages and weddings to refuse similar services for gay persons would result in “a community-wide stigma inconsistent with the history and dynamics of civil rights laws that ensure equal access to goods, services, and public accommodations.” Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd., slip op. at 10.

The court goes on to note:

Although Appellants are prohibited from posting discriminatory statements about their intent to refuse services for same-sex weddings, they may post a statement endorsing their belief that marriage is between a man and a woman and may post a disclaimer explaining that, notwithstanding that belief, Section 18-4(B) requires them to provide goods and services to everyone regardless of sexual orientation. Or they may post a disclaimer that the act of selling their goods and services to same-sex couples does not constitute an endorsement of their customers’ exercise of their constitutional right to marry or any other activities.

The court did, however, strike as unconstitutionally vague a portion of the public accommodation law that prohibited advertisements or notices that states or implies that a person, because of sexual orientation would be "unwelcome, objectionable, unacceptable, undesirable or not solicited."

The court went on to reject the studio owners' free exercise claims:

Appellants have failed to prove that Section 18-4(B) substantially burdens their religious beliefs.... Appellants are not penalized for expressing their belief that their religion only recognizes the marriage of opposite-sex couples. Nor are Appellants penalized for refusing to create wedding-related merchandise as long as they equally refuse similar services to opposite-sex couples. Section 18-4(B) merely requires that, by operating a place of public accommodation, Appellants provide equal goods and services to customers regardless of sexual orientation. Appellants are free to discontinue selling custom wedding-related merchandise and maintain the operation of Brush & Nib for its other business operations. What Appellants cannot do is use their religion as a shield to discriminate against potential customers.

Slate reports on the decision.

UPDATE: AP reports that that attorneys for Brush & Nib plan an appeal.

Another Court Enjoins Obama Era Contraceptive Mandate On Religious Non-Profits

As it has done in other cases, last week in Grace Schools v. Azar, (ND IN, une 1, 2018), the Trump Administration has conceded that applying the Obama Administration's contraceptive coverage rules to religious non-profits would violate the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.  The court thus issued a permanent injunction against applying the Obama Administration's compromise to Grace College & Theological Seminary.  Ft. Wayne News-Sentinel reports on the decision.

Bermuda Court Invalidates Bar On Same-Sex Marriage

In Ferguson v. Attorney General, (Bermuda Sup. Ct., June 6, 2018), a Bermuda trial court held unconstitutional Bermuda's Domestic Partnership Act 2018 that rejects recognition of same-sex marriage.  The Act was passed to reverse an earlier court decision that held existing anti-discrimination laws validated same-sex marriage. (See prior posting.)  In yesterday's decision, the court held that the effect of the Domestic Partnership Act is to limit those desiring recognition of their same-sex relationship to choosing domestic partnerships. It held that while it is not invalid as a law enacted substantially for religious purposes, it is an invalid infringement of  belief:

Prior to the DPA coming into force, same-sex couples who believed in the institution of marriage could manifest their beliefs by participating in legally recognised marriage ceremonies. Just as PMB and its members genuinely believe that same-sex marriages should not be legally recognised, the Applicants and many others equally sincerely hold opposing beliefs. It is not for secular institutions of Government, without constitutionally valid justification, to direct the way in which a citizen manifests their beliefs.

... The Applicants do not seek the right to compel persons of opposing beliefs to celebrate or enter into same-sex-marriages. They merely seek to enforce the rights of those who share their beliefs to freely manifest them in practice. Persons who passionately believe that same-sex marriages should not take place for religious or cultural reasons are entitled to have those beliefs respected and protected by law. But, in return for the law protecting their own beliefs, they cannot require the law to deprive person who believe in same-sex marriage of respect and legal protection for  their opposing beliefs.

 The court also issued a summary of its decision, and Skift reports on the decision.

Suit Charges Neighborhood With Discrimination Against Hasidic Jews

A religious discrimination lawsuit was filed two weeks ago in a New York federal district court by a number of Hasidic Jews who currently live, have lived, or wish to live in the Woodbury, New York neighborhood of Highland Lake Estates. The complaint (full text) in Stern v. Highland Lake Homeowners Association, (SD NY, filed 5/24.2018) alleges that the Homeowners Association and many of its members have taken actions to discourage more Hasidic Jews from moving into the area and making those who already live there feel unwelcome. The suit seeks $7.5 million in damages.  The Times Herald-Record reports on the lawsuit.

State Department Issues 2017 Report On International Religious Freedom

On May 29, the State Department released its 2017 Report on International Religious Freedom (full text).  In releasing the report, Secretary of State Pompeo said in part:

This report demonstrates the hard work of American diplomats to protect American and universal values. I’m proud of my team in completing this report. The release of the 2017 International Religious Freedom Report is critical to our mission to defend religious liberty. It brings to light the state of religious freedom all over the world. It documents, across 200 countries and territories, reports of violations and abuses committed by governments, terrorist groups, and individuals so that we may work together to solve them....

The world has made important strides, but we still have a lot of work to do. In that regard, I am pleased to announce that the United States will host the first ever Ministerial to Advance Religious Freedom at the Department of State on July 25th and 26th of this year.

Canada's Supreme Court: No Right To Fairness Review of Church Tribunal Decision

In Judicial Committee of the Highwood Congregation of Jehovah’s Witnesses v. Wall, (Can. Sup. Ct., May 31, 2018), Canada's Supreme Court rejected a challenge by a Jehovah's Witness that the church's Judicial Committee breached principles of natural justice and its duty of fairness in disfellowshipping him for sinful behavior.  He argued that the disfellowshipping caused other Jehovah's Witnesses to refuse to become clients of his real estate business. The court held:

[T]here is no free standing right to procedural fairness with respect to decisions taken by voluntary associations. Jurisdiction cannot be established on the sole basis that there is an alleged breach of natural justice or that the complainant has exhausted the organization’s internal processes. Jurisdiction depends on the presence of a legal right which a party seeks to have vindicated. Only where this is so can the courts consider an association’s adherence to its own procedures and (in certain circumstances) the fairness of those procedures.

The court also held that the issue is not justiciable, saying that "courts will not consider the merits of a religious tenet".  A press release by the court summarizes the decision. [Thanks to Nima Nematollahi for the lead.]

Suit Challenges Idaho Invalidation of Pregnant Women's Living Wills

Suit was filed in an Idaho federal district court last week challenging the constitutionality of an Idaho statute that invalidates a woman's health care advance directive if the woman is pregnant.  The complaint (full text) in Almerico v. Denney, (D ID, filed 5/31/2018) alleges in part:

That law improperly infringes on the right to privacy in making medical decisions and subjects women of child bearing age to unequal and demeaning treatment in multiple ways. First, the law on its face eliminates the right of a woman who has been diagnosed as pregnant to have her express decisions about medical treatment, including whether to request or decline life-sustaining measures, honored by her health care providers. Second, the law renders ineffective the right of a woman who has been diagnosed as pregnant to designate her health care agent. Third, because of the law, the effectiveness of the health care directives of all women of childbearing age in Idaho is thrown into question until each woman’s pregnancy status is determined. Additionally, Defendants have exceeded the statute’s mandate by publicly stating that not only will the health care directives of women who have been diagnosed as pregnant be rendered null and void, but they will be forced to receive life-sustaining treatment for the duration of their pregnancies.

Objections To Child's Vaccination Were Not Genuine Religious Beliefs

In Miller v. Dicherry, (LA App, May 29, 2018), a Louisiana state appellate court rejected objections of a mother, who was the domiciliary parent under a joint custody decree, to having her child vaccinated.  The mother argued that she had a First Amendment right to refuse routine vaccinations for her child on religious grounds.  The court held that the mother's objections did not stem from a genuinely held religious beliefs.  It upheld the trial court's grant of authority to the child's father to make the medical decision that the child be vaccinated.  The court said in part:

[T]he trial court found that Ms. Dicharry's "reluctance to have her child vaccinated arises from a personal, moral, or cultural feeling against vaccination for her minor child." The trial court found that "[ t]hese views and feelings are more in the nature of a secular philosophy than a religious belief." Considering the record, we find no manifest error in the trial court's factual determinations.