In the US, people use religious beliefs to claim a broad array of exemptions from the laws that apply to everyone. The primary vehicles for doing so have been the Free Expression clause of the First Amendment and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), and courts have often been willing to accommodate them. But it seems like there are limits to that leeway, as this case shows.
The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday declined to take up a religious rights case involving an Idaho man who refused to provide the state his Social Security number in a job-related filing because he said it was “the number of the beast” – an ominous biblical reference.
The justices let stand a lower court ruling against a man named George Ricks who in a lawsuit against Idaho demanded an exemption due to his Christian beliefs from the state’s requirement that he provide his Social Security number to apply to work as a state contractor.
…Ricks said in court papers he believes, based on a section of the apocalyptic final book of the Bible’s New Testament, the Book of Revelation, that his Social Security number is “the number of the 2-horned beast,” an entity mentioned in the text.
“By forcing me to disclose an SSN (Social Security number) in order for one to buy my labor or for me to sell my labor, is in essence the number of the beast and the card is a form of the mark,” Ricks wrote.
…The state rejected his 2014 application to register as a contractor in which he noted his objection, with officials saying the number is required under state law.
Ricks sued in 2016 but lost both at the district court and before the Idaho Court of Appeals, which said that the requirement for the Social Security number was a “neutral law of general applicability.”
One thing that was not clear to me from the article was whether Ricks thought his particular number contained the mark of the beast (usually identified as the number 666) or whether he thought that any identification number issued by the government was the mark of the beast, which suggests that he thinks the government is the beast in question.
So now what will Ricks do? Will he risk eternal damnation by using his social security card, which is required for pretty much everything, even though it bears the mark of the beast? Or will he decide to go off the grid, so to speak, and refuse to provide it, thus depriving himself of most services that we take for granted?
Meanwhile, the US Supreme court also declined to hear an appeal from a florist who had been fined by the state of Washington after she refused to provide a floral arrangement for a same-sex wedding.
Washington state imposed a $1,000 fine on Stutzman for violating an anti-discrimination law and was directed to make floral arrangements for same-sex weddings if she does so for opposite-sex weddings. The Washington state supreme court upheld the fine.
…The case raised two separate legal questions under the US constitution’s first amendment.
Stutzman’s lawyers at the conservative Christian legal group Alliance Defending Freedom had argued that the state violated not only her right to religious expression but her free speech rights, too.
The latter argument was based on the legal theory that arranging flowers is a form of creative expression protected in the same way as free speech.
The florist case was similar to the one that prompted the 2018 ruling on narrow legal grounds siding with a Denver, Colorado-area baker, Jack Phillips.
The court said in that case that the state civil rights commission that imposed sanctions on Phillips was motivated by anti-religious bias.
But the supreme court in that case did not resolve a broader question: under what circumstances can religious beliefs be cited to win exemption from penalties under anti-discrimination laws.
The justices opted not to use the florist case as another opportunity to do so.
Since the court merely side-stepped this issue without ruling definitively, we can expect more cases to be filed.
Idaho is one of the “MAH FREEDUMBS!” states. I was stationed there in the 1990s and was appalled by the number of people on welfare and food stamps screaming about the evul gubmint. The MAH GUNZ IS MAH LYFE! folks getting shot with their own guns, the white supremacy and the drugs.
Seems clear enough to me:
““By forcing me to disclose an SSN (Social Security number) in order for one to buy my labor or for me to sell my labor, is in essence the number of the beast and the card is a form of the mark,” Ricks wrote.” — so to him the very fact that a number is required for administrative purposes is the basis.
Also, it seems to me that The Beast to him is a nebulous entity which is making use of the Government, not the Government itself.
Maybe I missed it, but I haven’t seen anyone on FTB discussing another big religion-related SC decision from a couple weeks ago, Fulton v. Philadelphia (PDF, 110 pages). They decided that an organization called “Catholic Social Services” (and similar private contractors for the government) can refuse gay couples who want to apply to become foster parents, reversing the decisions of the lower courts and the city. Story from Reuters here
It is no surprise that the USSC doesn’t want to create a precedent to allow a religious exemption to affect the government collection of taxes. Tax avoidance is only allowable for the already rich.
You’re not from around here, are you? It would be a surprise if they stopped doing that. Religious groups can easily get tax exempt status in the US. And these are indeed a bunch of rich frauds, who may also pretend to be doing some sort of “charitable” work.
This whole business of religious beliefs being so very special compared to any other belief that solely those beliefs merit exemptions from lawful compliance is the basic problem.
I know that’s the way the law works, but I can’t see any actual justification for it.
(Religious beliefs are also granted unique privileges here in Australia)
Totally off topic; several months ago I claimed the USA are not a democracy. Today I refound the supporting evidence while looking for something completely else.
https://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-echochambers-27074746
Zero chance that this is going to improve with the current president. What this in my view means for your presiential votes you all already know.
If I’m not confusing it with another case Fulton vs. Philadelphia was decided on narrow grounds, and does not have wide applicability.
@CR:
another stewart is correct, unless we’re both misremembering the case in exactly the same way. I actually skimmed the decision (if you have the right training, much of the decision can be ignored for most purposes), and IIRC the decision rested on contract law, not the applicability of antidiscrimination law. Without the specific facts of the contracts in question being the same, Fulton will not control or even constrain future decisions on the applicability of neutral antidiscrimination laws to religious objectors.