Discussion On The Free Exercise Clause

Loosely outlaw lawyer Joe and I take a look at the US Supreme Court's recent decision in Fulton versus the city of Philadelphia and how that affects the delicate balancing act between the free exercise clause, and other constitutional right up next spring court has said as long as you taken. Think about him and you don't jump to a euro. How and now outlaw your Josh Whitaker welcome to this week's episode of the outlaw law. Your my name is Josh Whitaker I am a partner over it.

Whitaker and Hamer, a law firm serving way. Johnston hornet Wayne and other counties here in the area and my cohost, as always, is my law partner Joe Hamer Joe are you doing today I'm doing fantastic Josh, how are you doing today good good always asked that question and you're always doing fantastic. That's getting don't know.

I don't know what I expect you to say, but it's good that you're always doing things anytime I'm with you on the outlaw law are doing fantastic highlight of my life did she hide the thing about some things this week and I went to the went to the beach actually went to a South Carolina beach. I felt like I was, cheating on North Carolina. I don't usually go to beaches outside of North Carolina so I went to ace South Carolina B cells not Myrtle Beach.

I thought you have to throw in that disclaimer, but I do have to like it was unfaithful to North Carolina. What was the beach not myrtle it was beach called Fripp Island down like a made up the next. Did you really go to the beach. I said I did anyways. The unit was, it was good. We had family there. We had boys there and we all had a chance to really talk because we didn't want to basically we have cable TV. All we had to have had Netflix on their seminar he logged in.

I want to login any other service, and so we just watch Netflix as we watch like all the we bear bears. We bear bad ass a big fan. What we explained we bear bears.

To me it's cartoon on the Cartoon Network VC not know I have not was three bears and I haven't visited Fripp island exclusive share so we watch that and in we watched a movie. I never watch those from 1990 and I've never seen it before. I remember it, but I never watch it but if you so hook you never have you never seen hook. Why just never seen armor like McDonald's had like a book review, 1996 grade 7. Best prime hook time. I don't understand. I will read was a four-year-old boy to see several several times, room 30 strike a chord with you know I never saw what I watched it with the kids. That was the worst movie of everything that's saying a lot and I guess I should fix it the worst movie ever. She will love that movie. I love the movie, particularly, but it's not the worst movie and I guess I should say spoiler alert, even of the movie is 30 years old, but what it was that was a kid's name.

He just said we Rubio got terrible. I felt so bad for his character that I like that guy. Like the actor like that guy hooks a terrible movie and says he made it 30 years without seeing hook.

It's got All-Star star-studded gas commander.

It was terrible. Dustin Hoffman is he not yet think he's hook.

Robin Williams is peter pan got arrested.

So yes, Julia Roberts as Tinkerbell and it was weird to Mandy Bob Hoskins can't say any movie with Bob Hoskins is the worst movie I've had my sure that it will suffer from EEA everything we got them. Who are you, can you name one just one he's been so many things is impossible just to name one.

What was Terry easier to name when he hasn't been out on it.

It's I think it's not for your demographic of you called it when you are in sixth or seventh grade. You have a different appreciation of it. When it doesn't hold up well he is suspicious. Terrible.

So that's that's a whole week long vacation. What you take from this hook is the worst movie of everything. Hope it's a double thumbs down. It doesn't hold up well and it's just terrible.

All all around the kids watched. They loved it. They like that they tolerated. They watched it, but it was a break from we bear bears because there's like seven seasons of action.

Seventh, did you watch all seven we bear began. We got through 2014 2015. While you are vacationing at the beach. I was just working so the work at the law firm continued in my hand was great watching of TV shows are Netflix just did actual work for those of you listening me and Joe are actual practicing North Carolina attorneys or law firm is is aptly named Whitaker and Hamer after the two of us and we do have offices in Raleigh.

Garner, Clayton Goldsborough and Feick wave arena and we we do, we do help anybody who needs our help. Who calls and sets up a consultation or just give it to your phone number here at the show is 1-800-659-1186. Again, it's 1-800-659-1186 that is a message line said call leave us a voicemail.

We can if you need an attorney. We can put you in touch with an attorney who can talk to you and set up a consultation if you just have something you want to talk about on the show were question about something we talked about on the show. That's the quickest way to get a hold of us wanting hundred 659-1186. The new this week. We actually went ahead and set up an email address if it's easier for you to email our email addresses just the word questions. I debated with that should be question singular questions plural to make a bold prediction and it's that working to get inundated with hook fans blowing up our lines coming for your headman. The questions plural. That's what I went with question. Mostly we get more than one question so yes I think you went with the right spelling questions@theoutlawalongyour.com sets questions at the Outlaw law.

Your.com will Joe this week really talk about the free exercise clause. There is a US Supreme Court case that came down the pike this week, with an interesting legal opinion and when I was looking at it and I read I like this would be a good topic is what we can do is we can bring our listeners, we can explain what the free exercise clause is again it's one of those legal principles that comes from just a few words in the in the Bill of Rights and we can take a look at that and we can take a look at all the cases that can have come before.

And where were ending up now.

We've also got some listener questions we want talk about so you're pretty full share today. Yeah yeah I'm excited to take our listeners on the roller coaster ride of the First Amendment give a little bit of a history lesson and like you said, dive into some more recent some more recent history and development there and Mila Tan has one say that I got a lot of sign your SKU skin looks good.

Lotta pool lot a lot of beach of Fritz Fripp island was kind to you. I appreciate it. Do you recommend Fripp island to our listeners. Yeah, I don't get paid anything. To do that is her first time there. If you believe North Carolina will say tomato place. It I understand that it sounds like you know it's funny there. The, the deer I guess they feed the deer like a whole island is like one resort in the deer just come up to you. They want to be fed so you'll be sitting there looking out the window and ideals come up and wait for you to come to the window as they want to give them character with magical men. The kids liked the kids had a good time beach dear blots out. But anyway, that's enough about Fripp island that's enough about hook up next on Outlaw lawyer we read the U.S. Constitution. Well, not really.

The U.S. Constitution just the First Amendment and really not the First Amendment is the first two clauses, which is about 16 works out. Next we read the first 16 words of the First Amendment stating is not a lengthy.

We got our basic Constitution. Yet, the Bill of Rights, which is all of our rights are based on the Bill of Rights and it's very, very short.

The First Amendment covers couple things I think most people. Usually the First Amendment when you're talking about you talking about freedom of the press about things like that of the First Amendment has a couple clauses in it and because we want to focus on today is is the free exercise clause and then that's basely jolly to read the text about one yeah so like you said you think First Amendment you think. I think you just think of free speech in general and elects that we want to talk about the free exercise clause, but to do that, you know we got understand the text and you also gotta talk a little bit about the establishment clause which will will do as well because they kinda tie them together but but just giving you the text all 16 long words of it.

Basically, just as Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, that's it that's it that's all that together is the free exercise clause and the establishment clause. All of our case law.

All of our statutes and freedom of religion. That's where it comes from a comes from 16 words.

I'm always amazed at how this is interpreted as all courts are doing. That's what courts do this with the Supreme Court as they interpret statutes. They import interpret the Constitution. They take these 16 words any make them apply to every bazaar crazy cuckoo situation that comes up that needs to be addressed is the sign of good drafting when you can write 16 words I get years of legislation based on them. I can only imagine a client comes in our office pays us to write a contract. I give them a page has 16 words we should do that licensing is 16 word limit for every legal document we do for you from that of being called the founders special that'll be $5000, but if that's what we got. That's all were working on an answer you get two clauses here were actually not concerned with the whole thing.

So the establishment clause basely just says that the government is not been established religions like in a supportive religion whole etiquette. I think there's cases there. There's not a whole lot of cases on that is a it's a companion and it's it's up. It's a piece of the puzzle and it comes up. And so it's good to come to know what it is but are our discussion today is in a circle around the free exercise clause, which is basically that the last part of that 16 words so you got Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion as the establishment clause. And yeah, so get a new clause coming up and says, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof so that's 123456 words or six words that 16 is the free exercise clause and and we got a litany of cases here and some women talk about is what we want to do is comment sure you are listener, how the free exercise clause is coming to play in the past were eventually going to get the case that just the Supreme Court has recently decided which was Fulton V.

The city of Philadelphia born I can get there quite yet because I don't Case makes sense and in less you look at where we've been and where the how the court has kind of fleshed out the free exercise clause yeah and in like a severance that you house on history roller coaster ride through history starting way back in the great year of 1879 first again just a little bit about the debt free exercise clause itself. The free access exercise clause withdraws from legislative power, state, and federal. The exertion of really any restraint on that on the free exercise of religion. You know it's purpose is really to secure that religious liberty in the individual by prohibiting any invasions by civil authority.

So it's gonna bar governmental regulation of religious beliefs. It's going to prohibit the misuse of secular governmental programs to impede the observance of religion, or just any kind of discrimination by the government between religions. You know, even though that burden on the religion may be characterized as being indirect that still protected by the ANSWER. These cases they they they take two shapes right so when these get to the Supreme Court yet. I think some things happen and some ice taken is always said that all way to the US Supreme Court and so his case is happening in kind to situations in one situation is where the government bid I town a city County estate, a federal law somebody with the ability to make laws has made a law that someone thinks impedes their freedom to exercise their religion and they say they say hey not criminally charged.

Marty told me I couldn't do this and I need to do it for the practice of religion and sets, one set of cases will talk about some of those and so there's a test in the in the Supreme Court, looks at the facts and in ways the statute is it in in violation of the free exercise clause or residence. That's more money cases.

Most of the cases.

Oddly enough I guarding the first category makes a lot of sense. The second set of cases that we see the most often in the free exercise clause is where someone has taken a job and have been fired because part of the job that they're required to do violates their free. They would argue their free exercise of religion.

And so there either fired or they quit and then they go to look for unemployment and then they get denied. And in that denial of unemployment is the part of the case.

That makes it all the way up to the Supreme Court, exactly. We will in our brief trip through history see each of those types of cases yeah and then it will be confusing and were not here to teach a constitutional law class working gloss over a lot of stuff that would be important if you guys were all first-year law students and we were talking about constitutional law really got to hit the highlights. There's different rules for different cases and so we will get too hung up on Mac as I can get confusing and hour-long show on a Saturday afternoon. People are here for that. That's what they came for. Yeah so I get started office to get back way back 1879 Reynolds versus United States, one of the first important free exercise cases where the court examined whether the federal anti-bigamy statute violated the First Amendment's free exercise clause because the argument is that plural marriage is part of religious practice, and the court actually unanimously upheld the federal law that bans polygamy.

They stated that the free exercise clause forbids governmental regulation of belief, but it does allow the government to punish activity that's judged to be criminal, regardless of whether or not that activity has a basis in religious belief. So this was back in 1979 and it was it was. There was a religion where they said this is part of our religion, polygamy, which is been illegal in the US for ever. I guess as long as people can make laws. This is something that was, not not a polygamy scholar. Hey, I know I can have no expert not done much research the but it's frowned upon is that you got every state. I think probably has a statute to North Carolina does. I see my real estate does so this is something that that that the government that states the towns were ever they had authority to regulate it. It's general, it applies to everybody evenly and so this is this Reynolds were there for saying hey. Certainly, we, I think the court would probably admit that this was, you know, we understand that this part of your religion and this is probably not letting you freely exercise your religion, but we've our deciders was illegal, and it just going to be illegal, and asked the way it is.

There is no test here back in his early cases, law times, you don't get full course load to come up with a test and they loved applied these to be three way off three parts families different testing is no test here gorgeous essay.

The government has the right to to decide what's illegal and legal. And this is illegal and probably does hinder you but we don't care yeah yeah and not a bigamy podcast.

What we're here for, but you bigamy does have, I think there's been recent changes there, and as a result, we have a lot of TLC shows that are out there for your entertainment but yeah that's one of the first examples of that free exercise clause being discussed and looked at by the court. The next one I want to talk about will go a bit out of order, but we got one Braun Phil versus Brown in 1961 he came for the Supreme Court, but there we had basically can swing at some blue laws which allowed certain types of stores to remain open for business on Sundays and certain businesses had to be closed. We had some business owners who had to be closed on Sunday.

We thought this was unfair is a different time use one of those cases where the facts don't really were so used to stuff being open on Sunday. Now you know this is only 70 years ago 6170 years ago.

70 years ago right around the time you were born Josh to seven years as an Southlake time, but but 70 years ago.

Everything was really different thing is one of things just in general, people don't think about how quickly things change now only changes faster. But anyway, back then. This was a big deal like a long time ago that a witness this is a big deal back then that this was the Orthodox Jewish community that saw this to be an undue economic burden and there was a lawsuit. They sued in the court held that this blue law did not violate the free exercise clause because it had a secular basis and did not make any religious practices unlawful. So here they were insane. You had to be open on a Sunday didn't have to violate here. They saw no violation of the free exercise clause, so they didn't really get very far in their analysis but is considered to be an important case, it is because you see that you see that discussion of permission where there is a secular basis and and things being permitted as long as that religious practice is not unlawful are orienting a quick break and we come back with him to talk more about cases and will will get past 1961 will speed up lobe and will get more to the present day so we can look at our new case hello Josh, we are continuing on our trek to get you up-to-date on the free exercise clause and where and how to's of how this is affected everybody's religious liberty were read today getting ready for talking about the city of Philadelphia. The next case we wanted to highlight was forecast of the Watkins and so were still in 1961.

It is a math lot of action and 61 with that night in 1961 was a hot year for free exercise clause but was going on this case to so in into SOV Watkins, the court considered whether the establishment clause of the First Amendment was violated by Marilyn requirement that a candidate for public office, declare a belief in God. To be eligible for the position and in a unanimous decision, the court held that that requirement violated the establishment clause by giving preference to candidates who believe in God and were willing to stick their beliefs over other candidates in this Maryland effectively aided religions involving the belief in God at the expense of religions or belief that do not a position that is expressly prohibited in the state so you know, the state can't take that position essentially is right and we slept. We slept that one in their empathetic free exercise clause case but we did talk about establishment case how it comes up and doesn't come up a lot. I thought I was a good Marine Tennessee.

The establishment clause at work because again I was 1961, that wouldn't fly today in 2021. There would even be a question and that's why because we've already discussed been adjudicated. We know what the law holds almost 1 and see him.

I can really spend much more time on establishment clause cases that's gonna take us to a very important case sherbet the Werner and so that was a case where the facts were there. We had 1/7 date Adventist church.

So we had a member of that church, who was fired by her South Carolina employer because she would not work on Saturday. It was against her religion as her Sabbath day. I always wonder when I read these cases, you know, do they know ahead of time they were and how to work on Saturday when they took the jogging of the court doesn't talk about that that's what you are what I was wondering is this lady live on Fripp Island, South Carolina resident, so she was unable to obtain other employment because she cannot work on Saturday so she lost her job. She would work on Saturday a job that she that she was able to get she's fired she can obtain other employment because she can't work on Saturday. Apparently whatever industry field she's and that's a big deal working on Saturday so she filed a claim for unemployment compensation benefits and units how a lot of these start someone's been fired. Something to do with having to do something that's against their religion and that's kinda how we get here and so she went before the unemployment commission and scissors ineligibility ineligible for benefits because she is not know she's been sheep. She's had a job interview. She's just not taking jobs you know and so that's where the dispute kindness starts but here shortly. Werner they they held that the South Carolina statute abridged her right to the free exercise of religion in violation of the First Amendment. They held that this was you know her not being able to get on employment benefits was a violation of free exercise clause may, came up with a test that you use a skill you know the sherbet Testaments, were you look at you look at the statutes for the state when they allow people to get unemployment benefits when they don't does the state have a compelling interest compelling interest year a lot in the law will test where they would look at it and current balance the equities will what's the government's interest in enforcing this law does it overcome at the appellant the person is coming for relief from the court as it overcome their right to exercise their religion freely and so that's what the court did here, they analyze it they did. They decided that the state's compelling interest.

I wasn't narrowly tailored and often added note she should get her unemployment benefits because she can't she can't work on Saturday so this was. I don't remember and I didn't write it down several year.

This was but this was that this was an important case is, held up and it's gonna be the interval when we get to our current case that we can talk yeah exactly you said to eat when you talk about that compelling state interest piece that's can become very important and like you said court found here. No compelling state interest to basically substantially infringe on the appellant in this case is right to that religious freedom which we've talked about extensively now and shall continue to do so jump in the 1972, now Wisconsin V Yoder and in Wisconsin VO to the court examine whether the state of Wisconsin's requirement that all parents send their children to school, at least until age 16 violated the First Amendment by criminalizing the conduct of parents who refuse to send their kids to school for religious reasons and their unanimous decision, the court actually ruled that Amish adolescents could be exempt from the state law requiring school attendance for all 14 to 16-year-olds because their religion required living apart from the world and worldly influence the state interest in having students attend two additional years of school did not outweigh the individual's right to free exercise of religious belief. So again you get into that that same little bit of a test being applied there and and and there you see again. The court ruling that the states interest did not outweigh that individuals individual right to the free exercise of their religious belief arrived at around the same time as Wisconsin V Yoder, there's another case, Lemmon versus Kurtzman and Anna for attorney listings out there who've had to sit through first year constitutional law, the women test is is one that you talk about a lot of constitutional law.

This is where the women test came from and it basically set up a three-pronged test for the constitutionality of a statute so the government creates a statute and says hey this is legal. The way the Supreme Court was supposed to look at it accordingly. This test is does the statute primed the first prong is is it primarily in force for a secular purpose basically was this the statute wasn't just made up to antagonize a certain religion is just a general secular purpose. Like outlawing bigamy right that's open. We talked about where there's criminal statutes outlawing and that's just that's just a private primarily a secular purpose. The second prong of the test as its principal affect the statutes principle affect neither aids nor inhibits religion again doesn't favor one religion over the other and through the government and religion are not excessively entangled and so that's the women test and seven in limine Kurtzman we got a Pennsylvania law that was reimbursing some families to send their kids to religious schools with state funds and it was kind of it is kind of, had a little bit of free exercise in a little bit of establishment clause that would've the mix there ass.

They both came in play there. But then again for our listeners a home. Basically, the court always in a look at the competing interest and so here we been looking at unit government interest versus individual liberty versus individual liberty not coming up, organize, be talking about a case that has different individual liberties, at Naz, were building towards here but before we get there. I want to look at another old case and just to give you an example.

Marsh V Chambers back in 1983 to court.

Kenneth didn't even use its own test so it has us tested. The women test that it's laid out in here.

It was another establishment clause with some you, both, come in in the play, but I don't get too much in the facts because these can get confusing and the more cases we talk about the build up on you, but basically get some government money going to reimburse people. For some religious are usually some religious benefits and and so again, they become elected women test to see if the establishment clause was violated and and found that it that it wasn't an again I will get to harden the facts besides just to say this is a case where you both.

Both of these things came in the play, but it can get confusing after you look at a lot of these cases, I say we jump. I say we jump in time all the way to 2010 we got Christian legal Society V.

Martinez and this is gonna bring us more current and start tying everything into where we are today, 2010 Christian legal Society V. Martinez, you have the court considering whether Hastings College of Law which is a school within the University of California's public school system violates the First Amendment by refusing to officially recognize a student organization unless it allows all students to join the group. Even if that requires a religious organization to admit gay students who don't adhere to the group's core beliefs. Hastings officially recognizes student groups through a registered student organization program and having that status confers valuable benefits to the group such as the use of school funds, use of facilities, certain channels of communication and the use of the school's official name and logo, and in exchange those registered student organizations have to abide by certain conditions, which include their school's nondiscrimination policy which follow state law barring discrimination on a number of bases, including religion and sexual orientation, which again it was at issue in this case and under this those are really registered student organizations must follow an all comers policy, basically allowing any student to participate, to become a member or to seek leadership positions regardless of their status or beliefs in a five for decision. The court held that that Hastings all comers policy is a reasonable, viewpoint neutral condition on access to that RSO forum and does not transgress the First Amendment's limit limitations of science that was only 2010 that was if a math is correct, Joseph. That was 11 years ago you've you've gotten better at math and over the course of this show act, so the last case on a tight way to get us up to current his employment as another in its employment division of I can remember what status is offhand. V's math and so this was this was in 1990 case or backtracking just a little bit but I want to get this going to get this one in our discussion. This is when the facts are kind like the come out there and so we got to counselors for a private drug rehabilitation organization who used peyote, peyote, powerful hallucinogenic tests and density using one of the most powerful hallucinogenic's is what Google tells me these guys are members of a Native American church. This was part of their practice of their religion, there is no accusation that they did this during work time. The facts that are reported here tenderly today fail the test, you know, they failed a drug test and they were fired, they applied for unemployment. They were denied unemployment and this case is always the Supreme Court on the free exercise clause issue here. The state appellate court had reversed the.while this unimportant our discussion, but the US Supreme Court basically said it held that the free exercise clause does not provide a right to religious exemptions from neutral and generally applicable laws. As I thought this text is always back to the very first case we talked about but basically that the state has a legitimate interest in making certain things illegal and certain things illegal and here. Peyote is a is a very powerful drug that there's a schedule, certain drugs are illegal and it's for. In theory, the betterment of society as a whole and you can't just say you have a relisted religious exemption from everything right are certain things that need to be illegal.

Exactly. Peyote is one of those things basically like you said there there if there if you got a neutral law that is generally applicable to society and is beneficial for all of society then you can't just throw that free exercise clause at it and and suddenly that thing becomes legal because again it's it's a it passes the test that we discussed. So that's a lot of case laws by more caselaw than men, maybe even wanted to hear.

But that brings us currency, you gotta know how the US Supreme Court has looked at these 16 words and so at next really get to our actual case I want to talk about Fulton, the city of Philadelphia that's coming ways from the from the early 60s the hot free exercise clause cases of the early 60s all the way through the 2010 and now we arrive at the reason we're here, Joe.

I feel like we have to like we've all been on a journey to that airline attorney has been a labor of love. We really want. You are listener to know what the free exercise clause protects and doesn't protect so we really done this for you. We done for you. We talk peyote. We did every every corner sora work 2018 is this all happen in 2018. The decision is fresh off the press here in June or 2021. Basically the city of Philadelphia is in charge of fostering children rights under the governments one has the authority to remove a child from an unsafe environment and put that child with a foster family answer wasn't always that way that's important in this case a long time ago. Religious entities Baptist Catholics they date. Hannibal, one of that on behalf of the state. But now it's that power is vested in the in the government and the state and the city is a rehab city of Philadelphia, who contracts that out to different agencies placing foster children checking up on them and so the city thought of his doing that one of their agencies is the Catholic social services agency is called the CSS to CSS there in Philadelphia and that's what they do, they they take no, not bleeds in the right word, but they take. They take action at the behest of the city of Philadelphia place foster children, foster families doing it forever. I guess in that area and so the Catholic social services. They have a problem placing her. They refuse to place foster children with same-sex couples and so here we have a couple interesting things going on so we got, you know we got obviously the US Supreme Court has made same-sex marriage that implied constitutional right so there's no question there back in a 2010 case. We talked about before the break that was in the case now that is that is the case and soak Catholics in general. I'm sure every I'm sure every Catholics different as I'm not speaking for all Catholics. I'm not Catholic, but the Catholic Church has over the you know its existence been opposed to same-sex marriage. I think it's fair to say, yeah, I think that even as you not being the official non-Catholic spokesperson for the Catholic religion that is a safe that is a safe thing to say that in history so that is the issue here and so the the CSS declined to place a foster child with a same-sex couple. That being the sole and only reason that we're were made aware of and the facts and and obviously that that's gonna rub a lot of people the wrong way on both sides of this thing so we got competing constitutional rights, the constitutional right to be in a same-sex marriage. You know, and in the free exercise clause and so that's that.

Space what happened. City of Philadelphia heard about this complaint. He said you know what CSS or intermittent contractors provision in the contract were at their sole discretion. The city of Philadelphia terminated and that's what they did. That's what happened. And so the CSS is been doing this for almost all I think one of the amicus briefs in almost 100 years long long time and this is what percent do they want to continue to do it is been very successful otherwise.

And so they sued saying hey, this provision violates our right to practice our our our religion the way wanted violates the free exercise goals and it's an interesting one, because like you said you've got to competing constitutional rights to things that have been established in direct in direct conflict with one another and any and it's always interesting to see how the courts going to side and with the courts can rule when you have those two competing principles that both have been established as being having bitnet basis in the Constitution.

So here, the court actually held that Philadelphia's refusal to contract with the CSS for the provision of foster care services unless the CSS agreed to certify same-sex couples as foster parents actually was a violation of the free exercise clause of the First Amendment and it seems like that's a huge holding that seems like when you read that it seems like the court is favoring the free exercise clause over anything any of the other equity unit equities. It's trying to balance here, but they they narrowed it so you have think you had six justices writing the majority opinion on this one. If I remember correctly.

Anyways, they said, this only applies to these facts and so basically in the contract between CSS and the city of Philadelphia. There was that one sentence that allowed the government to to terminate the contract of their sole discretion, and the court basically said look, if you just rewrite a contract and you take that out of there than this case doesn't apply and so this this is a case of people of been you know they announced these things years ahead of time in session to go through the Supreme Court. One is gonna get heard a lot of people a lot of pendants. They were all waiting for the sun to come down you read the holding like a that she usually in the court just says hey it really only applies that this yeah I think you think you hit on the head. It it when you narrow you read the holding seems large and then you read how narrow it is. And like you said, it kinda hits with a whimper.

So really have a big ruling. You have a whole Lotta headlines but but at the end of the day, you don't really have a whole lot that has practically and functionally changed as a result of the ruling if you read if you read the folks to get get paid to commentate on, the US Supreme Court to pay to watch the US Supreme Court. I think I think the general the general feeling is that over the past 2030 years, protection in the free exercise clause is slowly slowly falling out of favor it it it's coming up second to other constitutional rights that that may be out there and is as a Americans stop going to church as much by think is dead.

Societal shift in general and I think it's fair mean I think that's fair to say yeah I think I admire what church you attend.

You may go to church every Sunday and that's an end but a lot of people if you look at the general statistics are not going in the free exercise clause just doesn't seem as seen as urgent or as needed, as sometimes it it may be, but it keeps coming up and this is a perfect example and people really hope the court would would establish a new test really lay down because this is going to keep coming up and and I think a lot of people were disappointed by this.

This ruling, I think it's fair to say, but it but again it's the society changes and and things shift and you were talking about 16 words again.

I have said is like a time thing is a rich I'm just amazing.

It is amazing to me the breath of those 16 words in it were still however many hundreds of years on and try to do the math later were still trying to figure it out. Please do not do not do any more math on air lease, but the Supreme Court always interesting every time they issue an opinion, not try to read it a try to figure out what's going on. Doesn't this early affect our day-to-day practice at the law firm of Whitaker and Hamer but it's it's as an attorney is very interesting to see these rights because what they decided, you know today can really affect society and when were we go 10 to 15 years from now, but I appreciate you guys hanging in there with us getting get you from day one on free exercise establishment clause to the most recent case we got you guys all juiced up on that free exercise knowledge. If you have any questions or comments. We would love to hear from and again if you need us. We got an email it's questions, that's plural plural form of the word questions@theoutlawlawyer.com is a questions at the outlaw law. Your.com and then you can always call us at 1-800-659-1186 is 1-800-659-1186 you call that number. Send an email or if you have any questions for me and Joe that you must talk about on the show, so anything that we've talked about. If you need if you need a lawyer if you need a law firm if you need to talk to someone you trust about a legal matter. Same thing. You can call 1-800-659-1186, Joe and I over the firm, Whitaker and Hamer. We have a lot of attorneys would be happy to talk to you, happy to consult with you and and try to figure out the best way to handle whatever legal situation you have going on at the time, but again 1-800-659-1186 or you can email us@questionsthattheoutlawyour.com coming up next on the outlaw your we will take another listener question and we will talk about using certain online websites for the formation of business versus consulting with an actual licensed attorney Rebecca now all lawyers Joseph Hamer, Josh Whitaker of law firm of Whitaker and Hamer were here with you, and we have another listener question I would have to censor this listener question though because there is there some proprietary names in here that we probably shouldn't use and I don't want to get sued.

That sounds great that's that's that's lawyer for you and avoid a lawsuit here, but we gotta listener Brian again. We got new last name if you guesstimate a list or question, give us your last name you want your Social Security. I feel like I'll I'll know you better. But anyways, O'Brien an undetermined Brian asked as he basely said I am a small business. I want to incorporate I went to a I'm a sale website that provides online legal services, but the website doesn't answer my questions and basely wants to know what's the difference between using one of these websites and using attorney so he uses branded names talk about the website just a you know, if it's not clear the websites were talking by the websites that provide legal services at your direction, so there's a lot of websites out there that advertise that hey what you need attorney to do this this or the other. You can come to school asked you a series of questions and at your direction will prepare your legal documents for you and so they usually try to help you with certain transactions incorporating Corporation and organizing LLC drafting a will drafting a POA may be a basic contract, but there usually vision of a series of questions that they ask you in there and spit out a document that may be general may try to be state specific and so that's yet a lot of people who start their own businesses as, where they they start a figure that will save them so maybe some time and some money, they will have to get a console with a local attorney you know who knows the laws like hear me and Joe are licensed in North Carolina. North Carolina Atty. Gen. on these websites and who knows whether based and I'm sure they try real hard to make everything state-sponsored.

Sure sure that they do. But again, big distinctions between the plug and in all of your information in a pre-populated questionnaire versus getting actual individualized legal advice from a competent attorney in good standing in the area that you're working in Simon and assume some things about Brian. I'm in a assume for the purposes of our discussion. Great radio taste first important as he is a is a small business. He will start a small business that he's either doing this with some money and doing it on the side or maybe he's borrowed money or he's saved up a nest egg and he's investing a lot of money into his new business. Most the people to start a small business won't organize a corporation or LLC. There you got that you're not selling stuff out of your garage. You got to that point because you want to run a spacer you want to get a loan or you're doing something to further this small business I would make the assumption that Brian's got some skin in the game. Brian put some money into this anytime you do that, you know, we start a business unless you're just heavily funded, or even preparing for a long time. A lot of people trying to save money at every turn, Whitaker and Hamer used to be a small business and 2004 signed or people are coming from but you never want to skimp on attorney and you never want to skimp on a CPA what you set something up.

It's very difficult to go back and make it right, especially after you may have investors leave at a partner he got an SBA loan like you need things to be right from the beginning.

It's only get more complicated and and not doing it out of the gate initially in the correct way is going to add to that complication infinitely and the cost and that's that's the thing like you know attorneys do charge attorneys, real work mean Joseph don't work for free, but that price that you pay local attorney that you're going to go to that your family may use for other things that you can consult with that fee that most of those attorneys charge is not going to be that different from them, what you pay one of these websites please at your direct you're basically your own attorney at these websites and so I think there's a thing there's a misconception that that's gonna be remarkably cheaper if you just go sit down, the local attorney and and then my experience is having clients come to me after the fact and we were having to correct things were having to fix things. Finding out what they paid is not that big of a difference.

That's energy and we can only speak to our experience to our firm to what we do, so that's not necessarily a universal truth but but I agree with you we we we talk with a lot of folks and a lot of times were having to correct a lot of the things that have gone wrong because it's very difficult. You know everybody's different everyone situation is different and when you're working off of the website where these either.

The bar regulates they had the honor of unauthorized practice of law. That's what the State Bar does so, you're not necessarily getting legal advice from these places so much as you are playing in information in the pre-populated forms and so you're going to be getting limited gates can be limited by what you plug in the questions that they ask if you have any kind of special situations any kind. Special circumstances, you are you're dealing with a computer program essentially an algorithm in an things that you plug in in and it's it's not necessarily going to meet your individual situation year. It's gonna be the same for every individual that doesn't want these websites which which again I can enable Wendy's websites. There was some litigation with the bar. The bar does like Joe said police unauthorized practice of law and so will send out a letter and there was some there was some litigation and that website has added attorneys that are on demand that pay � la cart for that you can bring your dealing with someone who may not. You just need to be careful. I think that's the biggest way we can say is about getting ourselves in any truly care about you all, and we want you to be very careful jacket. I can say the man times where you laugh at someone is going LLC and they come to me and then they they got there articles.

The articles of organization filed at Secretary of State and things are all done and need other things, you know, banks would be looking for other things, buying and selling real property closing attorneys are to be looking for different things to take on a partner.

Certain things need to be done to business attorneys exist for a reason and anytime your you're in business, your livelihoods at stake among your money is at stake. Maybe that's not something people should do with their own direction.

You know if you if you have an expertise and you feel like you can do that more power to you, but I think people equate them to being just as good as the having an attorney involved in an idea I just don't think that's the case, and I would agree and based on the fact that you know we frequently see a lot of people who have done this have gone this route and like you said, they come to us to correct certain errors that they've discovered down the line again. Even if you are saving a negative negligible amount of money on the front in their you're still you still gonna be paying to have that issue corrected to have whatever questions you need answered that you could had answered initially and had it done correctly out of the gate.

So again can't recommend enough to consult with an actual attorney actual real human being people, not computer programs that that's the advice that I can hear the rightness or answer your question, I think it is worth your time and your money to meet with the national attorney. That attorney will be there if you need anything else of substance you find that your bank need something else or lender need something else. You can reach back out to that attorney and you can reach other attorney further things to let more likely than not, this attorney is experienced in the formation of businesses in and you're going to be getting all the things that you need upfront because again you're going to an attorney that that does this and that is extremely familiar with that the laws required around that business formation if you have any business law questions again. Me and Joe are here Whitaker and Hamer's here to help you. You can get in touch with us several ways. The easiest way is probably just: 1-800-659-1186 that's 1-800-659-1186 and that line is set it free to leave a message so that we can call you back again. If you have any questions for the show. Any comments on anything we talked about today or you need help.

You need an attorney.

We can set you up with an attorney to can contact you about consulting with you. I'm so wanting hundred 659-1186 and it emails better for your email is questions that's plural questions@theoutlawlawyer.com coming up next on the outlaw. Your Josh and I will discuss how code 19 vaccine policies have triggered lawsuits and workplace showdowns next back the outlaw your I am Joe Hamer, your host, along with your additional host Joshua Whitaker writes a few weeks ago we spent some time talking about code 19 how it was affecting policy houses affecting statutes and lawsuits that were popping up because of the vaccine or is not taking the vaccine really and that has continued accelerated even as we get into kind of our back back to normal. As everybody says, but several lawsuits have popped up over the past week or two we thought it was worth the time, revisit and let you know a couple things that were going on yes and we talked about how code 19 has impacted everybody's lives, literally.

It is impacted everybody's lives in less you lived off the grid under a rock but it's it's had a huge impact and ethically, speculated last time we talked about it, there's gonna be a developing area of the law relating to covert, 19, specifically, and a lot of the fallout from that and were seeing exactly that. So at this point tens of millions of people have been vaccinated against covert, 19, and with that, a lot of things are reopened and were seeing workplaces reopened were seeing sporting events reopened were seeing like Josh said, life kinda getting back to normal. But the rules that have been put in place by some employers and other people have basically asked that vaccines be mandated.

In some cases and some individuals have taken issue with that due to the fact that the argument being that those vaccines are not fully authorized by the FDA. They just had that that emergency use approval and some of the folks taken issue with this art are just saying again this is not something we should be required to do were mandated to do because you know it doesn't have full privileges got that that emergency use approval.

We talked about a show.

We talked about whether your employer had the right to make you get a vaccine. I think where we landed is kind of the status quo. Now it's got approval from the FDA. It's emergency status, emergency approval, but we were like, yeah, your employer can probably mandate that that you get this and were not legal experts on this by any means. I was kind of our thought process doing a research answer. Contrary to that there's a case in North Carolina that just recently been filed. There's been several cases that we seen lawsuits lawsuits recently have been filed against the Texas hospital there's been a lawsuit against the Los Angeles school district. There's been a lawsuit against the New Mexico detention center and then like you said, the one that's most relevant to us in a lawsuit filed against the North Carolina Sheriff's Department and Durham County actually you know there's a large portion of the population that I think it's fair to say is fairly hesitant to get that vaccine and then you got some people who just literally outright refuse, dry, and with that I think you know we seeing these cases and I think were likely to see additional cases coming down the pipeline from from people who were kind of in a battle with their employer if there employer mandates that they get the vaccine, and they, for whatever reason, feel like they will not be getting that vaccine or outright refuse to get the vaccine to the central argument in all of these suits is that these vaccines are basically experimental and air quotes because they only have that emergency authorization and as a result, they can't be mandated and like you said we discussed this a little bit in a past episode and we basically came down the line that that's not a very strong legal argument because even though there's only been emergency use authorization, the FDA is still saying that that shot is safe enough for the public. This Durham County case this is a Sheriff's deputy suing Durham County Sheriff's Department register and counting in federal court and assume to be interesting as this is basically what he's saying is you can't mandate that I do this because it doesn't have full approval and I think the sheriff is looking to be rehired. The mandate canceled back pay. Things like that but I'm really interested to watch that lawsuit, weave its way.

So at some point, you know, I think all these vaccines are on track to get full regular approval later this year. Yet, MA I guess that that's can be very interesting to see where it falls at that point and so he would still this case would still be, it wouldn't be we always they moved it would be moot because this is happening and when it was experimental status and is trying to get his job this one either in theory we continue even if some of these look like they may drop by the wayside.

Once anyway the Dirk anyone can be very, very interesting. I am very looking forward to seeing what a court does with something like this. Yes, so it will be very, very interesting.

You know, I believe reading about the case.

It sounds like virtually everyone in the Durham County Sheriff's office with the exception of I think it was 20 or so people who had exemptions from that vaccine. All been vaccinated with the exception of this person who again was terminated in the lawsuit is basically like you said seeking to invalidate that termination also asking that this individual be reinstated with back pay and benefits and like you said, even if even if approval is issued. This is a still to be relevant. This case will be because again it's trying to correct that issue from when it was just in that emergency use status or just having repacked all the legal knowledge we can pack in the one hour for better or worse. We talked about the law. We talked about Robin Williams and Bob Hoskins.

We covered many many topics and I would agree with you. We have packed it full. We have done a lot of the discussion we talked about your vacation a lot and if you have any questions or comments for us here at the outlaw lawyer. You can call is 100-659-1186 or you can send us an email. questions@theoutlawlawair.com Joe and I will be happy to answer any questions. We can if you need an attorney.

If you need legal advice. If you're interested in Whitaker Hamer being your attorney, your law firm for life are happy to do that and you get a hold of us.

At the same contact information 1-800-659-1186 Joseph.

I enjoyed it.

I also enjoyed it and I just want say we we really appreciate everyone listen and we love to hear from you guys. I want to talk about things that are interesting to you, so please like Josh said reach out get in touch with us and were happy to talk about any legal or otherwise topic that you guys would like for us to discuss. I will see you as an attorney licensed to practice law in North Carolina. Some of the guests appearing on the show maybe licensed North Carolina attorneys discussion of the show was meant to be general in nature and in no way should the discussion be interpreted as legal advice, legal advice can only be rendered once an attorney licensed in the state in which you live at the opportunity to discuss the backs of your case with you. The attorneys appearing on the show are speaking in generalities about the law, North Carolina, and how these laws affect aboriginal Carolinian. If you have any questions about the content of the show, contact us directly