Religious beliefs vs. civil rights

3/9/2026

The Brownsburg, Indiana school corporation is the latest victim of the notion that “religious liberty” means you may be at liberty to ignore public laws and regulations, as long as you can persuade a court that you are doing it because of your sincerely held religious belief. 

Last week, the news broke that the school district agreed to pay $650,000 to one of its former teachers who had resigned after refusing to address a transgender student by the student’s self-chosen name. The teacher, John Kluge, sued under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, which prohibits, among other things, religious discrimination against employees. He was supported by Alliance Defending Freedom, which has made itself a big name by asserting religious exemptions to public policies. 

Note that the school district had not restricted Kluge because of his religious beliefs — it attempted to limit what he could do with his religious beliefs in regard to students. 

Another federal law, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, was cited 12 years ago to let Hobby Lobby deny insurance coverage for an abortifacient contraceptive because of the company owners’ religious beliefs. 

So, in both cases, religious freedom was interpreted to exempt one party from legally established expectations of behavior to another party  

The United States Constitution protects free exercise of religion, and the crunch word there is “exercise.” Earlier courts ruled that people cannot exercise their religious beliefs to legally use cannabis or peyote in religious rituals, even though such use is not violating the rights of anyone else. In other situations, men have been able to exercise their religious beliefs as conscientious objectors to not be drafted into the military but have been required to do public service instead. 

It seems to me that cases like Brownsburg and Hobby Lobby are moving America away from a concept of equality under the law. When one party can persuade the court that their religious beliefs are more important than the civil rights of the other parties, then that is not equality. Refusing to address a child by the child’s chosen name because of a religious belief sounds pretty close to refusing to serve a customer because he is boasting a devilish tattoo or because she is wearing a hijab — or, as we know all too well, because of “the curse of Ham.” 

Correct me if I’m wrong, but my belief is that this recent trans-bashing phenomenon is based much more in contemporary politics than in established religious tenets. Richly endowed groups such as Alliance Defending Freedom are using religious notions to exert political power, and like women seeking emergency abortions, trans children are easy targets. 

If using the convenient weapon of theology to mistreat another person is allowed to become the norm, then it defiles the traditional American concept of religious liberty.