32nd Annual Jefferson B. Fordham Debate - Religious Liberties

IMPORTANT NOTICE — Beginning Monday, February 8th, 2021, the S.J. Quinney College of Law will NOT be able to submit CLE credit for events prior to 2019.

October 7th, 2015

Be it resolved: Conflicts between civil rights and religious liberties can be addressed by adopting viable compromise solutions that protect both values.

In recent years, legislatures and courts across the United States have been asked to address conflicts between civil rights and religious liberties. In Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, the Supreme Court upheld a closely-held corporation’s right not to provide health insurance coverage for contraceptives that violate the sincerely-held religious beliefs of the company’s owners. In the past year, federal and state courts have rejected the objections of bakers, photographers, and county clerks who have refused to serve same-sex couples on religious grounds, while state legislatures have considered various proposals to protect civil rights and religious liberties.

To many observers, these cases present fundamental conflicts between equality and freedom. Is this framework valid? How can these cases be addressed? Is new legislation necessary, or does the Constitution already provide sufficient safeguards for the protection of civil rights and religious liberties? Can legislatures find live-and-let live solutions that protect both values?

Please join us on Wednesday, October 7, as two of the nation’s leading experts explore this timely topic. Luke Goodrich is Deputy General Counsel of the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, a nonprofit law firm that has successfully litigated several religious freedom cases before the Supreme Court. Mary Anne Case is the Arnold I. Shure Professor of Law at the University of Chicago Law School, and a prominent scholar of the legal regulation of sexuality, gender, and sex. In this year’s Fordham Debate, Mr. Goodrich and Professor Case will debate the following statement: “Conflicts between civil rights and religious liberties can be addressed by adopting viable compromise solutions that protect both sides.”