Freedom of religion

===Secular law===
Religious practice may also conflict with secular law, creating debates on religious freedom. For instance, even though [[polygamy]] is permitted in Islam, it is prohibited in secular law in many countries. This raises the question of whether prohibiting the practice infringes on the beliefs of certain Muslims. The US and India, both constitutionally secular nations, have taken two views of this. In India, polygamy is permitted, but only for Muslims, under [[Muslim Personal Law]]. In the US, polygamy is prohibited for all. This was a major source of conflict between the US government and [[The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints]], in its early days, and the United States until the Church amended its position on practicing polygamy.

Similar issues have also arisen in the context of the religious use of [[psychedelic substance]]s by Native American tribes in the United States, such as by the [[Native American Church]].

In 1955, Chief Justice of California [[Roger J. Traynor]] neatly summarized the American position on how freedom of religion cannot imply freedom from law: "Although freedom of conscience and the freedom to believe are absolute, the freedom to act is not."<ref>{{Cite web|title=Pencovic v. Pencovic (1955) 45 C2d 97|url=http://online.ceb.com/calcases/C2/45C2d97.htm|access-date=2023-01-02|website=online.ceb.com}}</ref> But with respect to the religious use of animals within secular law and those acts, the [[US Supreme Court]] decision in the case of the ''[[Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye v. City of Hialeah]]'' in 1993 upheld the right of Santeria adherents to practice ritual [[animal sacrifice]], with Justice Anthony Kennedy stating in the decision: "religious beliefs need not be acceptable, logical, consistent or comprehensible to others in order to merit First Amendment protection" (quoted by Justice Kennedy from the opinion by Justice Burger in ''[[Thomas v. Review Board of the Indiana Employment Security Division]]'' {{ussc|450|707|1981}}).<ref>{{Cite book|last=Hall|first=Daniel E.|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=KnBnknQAHlkC&q=religious%2520beliefs%2520need%2520not%2520be%2520acceptable%2C%2520logical%2C%2520consistent%2520or%2520comprehensible%2520to%2520others%2520in%2520order%2520to%2520merit%2520First%2520Amendment%2520protection&pg=PA266|title=Criminal Law and Procedure|date=2008-07-22|publisher=Cengage Learning|isbn=978-1-4283-4059-6|language=en|page=266}}</ref>

In 1962, the case of ''[[Engel v. Vitale]]'' went to court over the violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment resulting from a mandatory nondenominational prayer in New York public schools. The Supreme Court ruled in opposition to the state.<ref>{{Cite news|url=http://www.uscourts.gov/educational-resources/educational-activities/facts-and-case-summary-engel-v-vitale|title=Facts and Case Summary – Engel v. Vitale|work=United States Courts|access-date=2018-05-03|language=en}}</ref>

In 1963, the Supreme Court ruled on the case of ''[[Abington School District v. Schempp]]''. Edward Schempp sued the school district in Abington over the Pennsylvania law which required students to hear and sometimes read portions of the bible for their daily education. The court ruled in favor of Schempp and the Pennsylvania law was overturned.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://cases.laws.com/abington-school-district-v-schempp|title=Abington School District V Schempp – Cases {{!}} Laws.com|website=cases.laws.com|date=3 April 2015 |language=en-US|access-date=2018-05-03}}</ref>

In 1968, the Supreme Court ruled on the case of ''[[Epperson v. Arkansas]]''. Susan Epperson, a high school teacher in Arkansas sued over a violation of religious freedom. The state had a law banning the teaching of evolution and the school Epperson worked for had provided curriculum which contained evolutionary theory. Epperson had to choose between violating the law or losing her job. The Supreme Court ruled to overturn the Arkansas law because it was unconstitutional.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://cases.laws.com/epperson-v-arkansas|title=Epperson V Arkansas – Cases {{!}} Laws.com|website=cases.laws.com|date=3 April 2015 |language=en-US|access-date=2018-05-03}}</ref>

====As a legal form of discrimination====
Leaders of the [[Christian right]] in the United States, United Kingdom, and other nations frame their opposition to [[LGBT rights]] and [[reproductive freedom]] as a defence of religious liberty.<ref name="Fredman2020">{{cite journal|last=Fredman|first=Sandra|date=23 August 2020|title=Tolerating the Intolerant: Religious Freedom, Complicity, and the Right to Equality|journal=Oxford Journal of Law and Religion|volume=9|issue=2|pages=305–328|doi=10.1093/ojlr/rwaa017|doi-access=free}}</ref>

In court cases, religious adherents have argued that they need [[Religious exemption|exemptions]] from laws requiring equal treatment of LGBT people to avoid being complicit in "the sinful behaviour" of LGBT people.<ref name="Fredman2020"/> Moreover, other Christians argue that LGBT rights must be entirely removed from law to preserve the religious liberty of conservative Christians.<ref>{{cite book|last1=Whitehead|first1=Andrew L.|last2=Perry|first2=Samuel L.|date=2020 |title=Taking America back for God: Christian Nationalism in the United States|location=New York|publisher=Oxford University Press|pages=134–149|isbn=978-0190057886|oclc=1150958230}}</ref> As pointed out at the [[United Nations Human Rights Council]] in the 2023 formal report of the [[LGBT rights at the United Nations|United Nations Independent Expert on protection against violence and discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity]] on the basis of the explanation in a 2020 article by human rights expert [[Dag Øistein Endsjø]], adherents of denominations and belief systems who embrace LGBT-equality "can claim that anti-LGBT manifestations of religion (such as criminalization and discrimination) not only impinge upon the right of LGBT people to be free from violence and discrimination based on SOGI [sexual orientation and gender identity], but also violate the denominations' own rights of freedom of religion".<ref>[[United Nations Human Rights Council]] ''[https://www.ohchr.org/en/documents/thematic-reports/ahrc5337-report-independent-expert-protection-against-violence-and|A/HRC/53/37 Freedom of religion or belief, and freedom from violence and discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity: Report of the Independent Expert on protection against violence and discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity]'', 7 June 2023, § 162; [[Dag Øistein Endsjø]] “[https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/13642987.2020.1763961 The other way around? How freedom of religion may protect LGBT rights]”, ''The International Journal of Human Rights'' 24:10 (2020), pp. 1686-88.</ref> 

In 2015, [[Kim Davis]], a Kentucky county clerk, refused to abide by the Supreme Court decision in ''[[Obergefell v. Hodges]]'' legalising [[same-sex marriage in the United States]]. When she refused to issue marriage licences, she became embroiled in the ''[[Miller v. Davis]]'' lawsuit. Her actions caused attorney and author [[Roberta Kaplan]] to claim that "Kim Davis is the clearest example of someone who wants to use a religious liberty argument to discriminate."<ref name="Bromberger">{{cite news|last=Bromberger|first=Brian|date=15 October 2015|title=New book details Windsor Supreme Court victory|newspaper=[[Bay Area Reporter]]|url=http://www.ebar.com/news/article.php?sec=news&article=70989|access-date=16 October 2015}}</ref> Davis was briefly jailed and Kentucky court ordered her to pay the same-sex couple $100,000 in damages.<ref>{{cite news | url=https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/sep/14/kim-davis-damages-same-sex-marriage-license-kentucky | title=Kim Davis must pay $100,000 to US same-sex couple she denied marriage license | newspaper=The Guardian | date=14 September 2023 | last1=Oladipo | first1=Gloria }}</ref>