Dilemmas of legal interpretation : religious freedom, anti-discrimination, free speech, and state interests

Abstract

The sociocultural conflict between religious individuals/organizations and members of the LGBTQ community has raised significant concerns in American jurisprudence. Accordingly, the legal dilemma between religious freedom and anti-discrimination rights has become more apparent in this age of diversity and political polarization. Moreover, in the American culture of Jurismania where people look to law and doctrinal technicalities to resolve all kinds of sociocultural conflict, the broader tension between religion and secularism has emerged as a pressing concern for the judiciary. In response, this research explores the conceptual gaps and inconsistencies involved in the legal controversy between religious freedom and anti-discrimination rights, offering close readings of the selected Supreme Court cases from the following areas of jurisprudence: free exercise, the Fourteenth Amendment, and free speech. Taking close reading as the primary method of research, it aims to identify the major legal principles involved, to demonstrate how the U.S. Supreme Court has conceptualized these principles overtime, to determine the chosen mode of legal interpretation, and to evaluate the validity of the Court’s understanding. Based on the analysis of the key areas of jurisprudence, this thesis highlights the complexity of constitutional interpretation, which confronts dilemmas and controversies of a fundamentally sociopolitical and ideological nature, in contrast to statutory interpretation. Moreover, it highlights the paradoxical nature of religious liberty as a constitutional principle, which appears to further complicate the underlying tension between religion and secularism as philosophical entities entangled within law. Through a chronological overview of the key areas of jurisprudence, this thesis also demonstrates how the Supreme Court’s conceptualization of constitutional principles has shifted over time, depending on its overall political leaning, and offers a reconsideration of the judiciary as a branch of government.