Church&of&Lukumi&Babalu&Case,&here’s&some&more&background&on&the&Hialeah&City&actions:&
&
June&9&city&council&meeting&passed:&&
!""Resolution"87!66,"which"noted"the""concern""expressed"by"residents"of"the"city""that"
certain"religions"may"propose"to"engage"in"practices"which"are"inconsistent"with"public"
morals,"peace"or"safety,""and"declared"that""[t]he"City"reiterates"its"commitment"to"a"
prohibition"against"any"and"all"acts"of"any"and"all"religious"groups"which"are"
inconsistent"with"public"morals,"peace"or"safety."""
!"Ordinance"87!40,"incorporated"state"law"subjected"to"criminal"punishment""[w]hoever"
."."."unnecessarily"or"cruelly"."."."kills"any"animal."""
Then,&City&Council&consulted&Florida’s&attorney&general"who"stated"that"religious"animal"
sacrifice"was"against"state"law,"so"that"a"city"ordinance"prohibiting"it"would"not"be"in"
conflict."&
August&1987&City&Council&action:&Resolution"87!90,"that"noted"its"residents'""great"
concern"regarding"the"possibility"of"public"ritualistic"animal"sacrifices""and"the"state"law"
prohibition."The"resolution"declared"the"city"policy""to"oppose"the"ritual"sacrifices"of"
animals""within"Hialeah"and"announced"that"any"person"or"organization"practicing"
animal"sacrifice""will"be"prosecuted.""
In&September&1987,"the"city"council"adopted"three"substantive"ordinances"addressing"the"
issue"of"religious"animal"sacrifice:"
!"Ordinance"87!52"defined""sacrifice""as""to"unnecessarily"kill,"torment,"torture,"or"
mutilate"an"animal"in"a"public"or"private"ritual"or"ceremony"not"for"the"primary"purpose"
of"food"consumption,""and"prohibited"owning"or"possessing"an"animal""intending"to"use"
such"animal"for"food"purposes.""It"restricted"application"of"this"prohibition,"however,"to"
any"individual"or"group"that""kills,"slaughters"or"sacrifices"animals"for"any"type"of"ritual,"
regardless"of"whether"or"not"the"flesh"or"blood"of"the"animal"is"to"be"consumed.""The"
ordinance"contained"an"exemption"for"slaughtering"by""licensed"establishment[s]""of"
animals""specifically"raised"for"food"purposes.""Declaring,"moreover,"that"the"city"council"
"has"determined"that"the"sacrificing"of"animals"within"the"city"limits"is"contrary"to"the"
public"health,"safety,"welfare"and"morals"of"the"community,""the"city"council"adopted"
Ordinance"87!71."That"ordinance"defined"sacrifice"as"had"Ordinance"87!52,"and"then"
provided"that""[i]t"shall"be"unlawful"for"any"person,"persons,"corporations"or"
associations"to"sacrifice"any"animal"within"the"corporate"limits"of"the"City"of"Hialeah,"
Florida.""The"final"Ordinance,"87!72,"defined""slaughter""as""the"killing"of"animals"for"
food""and"prohibited"slaughter"outside"of"areas"zoned"for"slaughterhouse"use."The"
ordinance"provided"an"exemption,"however,"for"the"slaughter"or"processing"for"sale"of"
"small"numbers"of"hogs"and/or"cattle"per"week"in"accordance"with"an"exemption"
provided"by"state"law.""All"ordinances"and"resolutions"passed"the"city"council"by"
unanimous"vote."Violations"of"each"of"the"four"ordinances"were"punishable"by"fines"not"
exceeding"$500"or"imprisonment"not"exceeding"60"days,"or"both."
"
"
"
Free"Exercise"Clause"Hypotheticals:"
"
General'Rule:"
• So'long'as'the'purpose'of'the'law'is'not'to'burden'the'
exercise'of'a'religion,'a'generally'applicable'valid'law'is'OK'
regardless'of'its'incidental'effects'on'religion.'"
• However,'if'the'purpose'is'found'to'burden'the'exercise'of'
religion,'courts'will'require'a'compelling'state'interest'to'
uphold'the'law'or'government'action.'"
"
1.""The"city"council"of"Springfield"received"an"application"for"a"permit"to"build"a"Lutheran"
church"in"the"city.""Springfield"was"predominantly"a"Muslim"city.""As"a"Muslim"
community,"the"city"had"very"restrictive"ordinances"on"when"alcohol"can"be"served"in"
the"city."After"receiving"the"application,"the"city"council"passed"an"ordinance"stating"its"
concern"over"unnecessary"use"of"alcohol"and"its"effect"on"pubic"morals"and"safety"!""and"
prohibited"the"use"of"alcohol"as"part"of"religious"ceremonies."The"Lutheran"church"
objected"because"they"wanted"to"continue"serving"wine"at"communion."
"
2.""Assume"that"Hialeah"was"predominantly"Lutheran"and"a"Muslim"community"wanted"
to"move"in"and"build"a"mosque"in"Hialeah."""Hialeah"city"council"passes"ordinances"
prohibiting"the"wearing"of"masks"to"cover"your"face"as"a"pubic"safety"measure"and"
prohibiting"the"separation"of"genders"in"public"places"as"a"nondiscrimination"measure."
The"Muslim"community"objects."
"
3."Abercrombie"&"Fitch"Stores,"Inc."(Abercrombie)"is"a"national"chain"of"clothing"stores"
that"requires"its"employees"to"comply"with"a"“Look"Policy”"that"reflects"the"store’s"style"
and"forbids"black"clothing"and"caps,"though"the"meaning"of"the"term"cap"is"not"defined"in"
the"policy."If"a"question"arises"about"the"Look"Policy"during"the"interview"or"an"applicant"
requests"a"deviation,"the"interviewer"is"instructed"to"contact"the"corporate"Human"
Resources"department,"which"will"determine"whether"or"not"an"accommodation"will"be"
granted.""In"2008,"Samantha"Elauf,"a"practicing"Muslim,"applied"for"a"position"at"an"
Abercrombie"store."She"wore"a"headscarf,"or"hijab,"every"day,"and"did"so"in"her"
interview."Elauf"did"not"mention"her"headscarf"during"her"interview"and"did"not"indicate"
that"she"would"need"an"accommodation"from"the"Look"Policy."Her"interviewer"likewise"
did"not"mention"the"headscarf,"though"she"contacted"her"district"manager,"who"told"her"
to"lower"Elauf’s"rating"on"the"appearance"section"of"the"application,"which"lowered"her"
overall"score"and"prevented"her"from"being"hired."The"Equal"Employment"Opportunity"
Commission"(EEOC)"sued"Abercrombie"on"Elauf’s"behalf"and"claimed"that"the"company"
had"violated"Title"VII"of"the"Civil"Rights"Act"of"1964"by"refusing"to"hire"Elauf"because"of"
her"headscarf."Abercrombie"argued"that"Elauf"had"a"duty"to"inform"the"interviewer"that"
she"required"an"accommodation"from"the"Look"Policy"and"that"the"headscarf"was"not"the"
expression"of"a"sincerely"held"religious"belief.""
"
4.""A"drug"counselor"was"fired"for"using"peyote"in"a"religious"ceremony."State"law"said"
you"don’t"get"unemployment"benefits"if"you"are"fired"for"“cause”"such"as"drug"use."
"
5.""Public"elementary"school"children"were"prohibited"from"wearing"any"indicia"or"items"
of"clothing"with"religious"significance.""Prohibited"items"included"jewelry"(such"as"a"
cross"necklace),"Muslim"headdress"or"gown,"or"Jewish"head"cap"or"hair"locks)."
"
6.""US"military"regulations"prohibit"any"other"headdress"but"the"military"cap."A"Jewish"
recruit"objected"because"he"wanted"to"wear"the"traditional"Jewish"head"cap,"the"
yarmulke."
"