Religious exemption at the Supreme Court: public money cannot buy a licence to exclude | Column

A religious exemption sits at the centre of the Supreme Court term that opens this week. The justices will hear St. Mary Catholic Parish v. Roy in early November. This column argues that public money should come with equal rules for everyone.

The facts matter. Colorado’s universal preschool programme gives families up to $6,000 to use at a preschool of their choice, including faith-based ones. Two Catholic parishes, St. Bernadette in Lakewood and St. Mary in Littleton, were excluded. The state says they would not follow its rule against turning away children over a child’s or parent’s sexual orientation or gender identity.

What the religious exemption case asks

SCOTUSblog says a federal appeals court found the state’s rules neutral and generally applicable to every preschool. The Court will examine what “general applicability” means after Employment Division v. Smith. It will also ask whether Carson v. Makin changes the test.

The parishes, represented by Becket, say they ask families to be supportive of the Catholic faith. That is a sincere position, and it deserves a fair hearing. Churches should be free to teach, worship and run their own schools with their own money.

The atheist view of equal rules

Taking public money changes the bargain. A taxpayer includes believers, atheists, gay parents and Catholics. A programme funded by all should not let some providers turn away some children. Equal treatment is not hostility to religion. It is the same rule for every hand that takes the cheque.

Secular citizens have a stake. Once a faith school wins a carve-out from a general rule, other providers will ask for theirs. Some will be small sects and some will be large ones. Every exemption narrows the public square and shifts the cost onto those excluded.

Our earlier column on a taxpayer-funded religious school raised the same worry. A second case, Grand v. City of University Heights, also touches religious exercise later this term.

Freethinkers should watch closely, argue calmly and read the opinions. The principle is simple. Freedom to believe is protected. A claim on the public purse is a different matter.

This is an opinion column. Fact basis: SCOTUSblog, Constitution Center and Catholic Sun reports on the case. Argument date reported as 2 or 3 November, so check the Court calendar.