Written by Don Byrd
A Georgia law prohibiting guns from being carried into houses of worship will stay on the books, after the Supreme Court declined to take up the issue. The 11th Circuit Court of Appeals previously dismissed a religious freedom challenge for failure to state a claim. This decision by the Supreme Court leaves that ruling in place. In rejecting the religious freedom argument, that court emphasized that “preferences” and “secular beliefs” are not protected by the Constitution’s Free Exercise guarantee:
The Supreme Court has reiterated time and time again that personal preferences and secular beliefs do not warrant the protection of the Free Exercise Clause. Put another way, a complaint fails to state a Free Exercise claim if it does not allege that (1) the plaintiff holds a belief, not a preference, that is sincerely held and religious in nature, not merely secular; and (2) the law at issue in some way impacts the plaintiff’s ability to either hold that belief or act pursuant to that belief.
…
We searched the Amended Complaint to no avail in an attempt to find factual allegations that could possibly be construed as alleging that the Carry Law imposes a constitutionally impermissible burden on one of Plaintiffs’ sincerely held religious beliefs. At various points, Plaintiffs allege that they would like to carry a handgun in a place of worship for the protection either of themselves, their family, their flock, or other members of the Tabernacle. Plaintiffs conclude by alleging that the Carry Law interferes with their free exercise of religion by prohibiting them from engaging in activities in a place of worship when those activities are generally permitted throughout the State. That Plaintiffs “would like” to carry a firearm in order to be able to act in “self-defense” is a personal preference, motivated by a secular purpose. As we note supra, there is no First Amendment protection for personal preferences; nor is there protection for secular beliefs. The allegations in the Amended Complaint, as Plaintiffs chose to frame their case, do not state a Free Exercise claim.
