In 1989 two men who were members of the Church of Peyote were let go from their jobs at a rehabilitation center. The men were let go because of their use of the illegal drug peyote. Though the use of the drug was for religious purposes they were later denied unemployment. The men took this to the Supreme Court, known as Smith vs Oregon Supreme Court. The men ultimately lost the case, because the court refused to acknowledge the religious practices of the Church of Peyote. The court publicly denied the men their 1st amendment rights.
“Employment Division, Department of Human Resources of Oregon v. Smith.” Oyez, www.oyez.org/cases/1989/88-1213. Accessed 13 Dec. 2019.
contemporaryamericanreligion 
This was very interesting to read about. It presents a lot of questions about law exemptions because of religion. It makes me wonder how law officials determine when to allow law exemptions, or if they’ve ever dealt with false religious claims in order to escape arrest.
LikeLike
This is illegal in everyday. Not only are they not being allowed to practice their religion, they are also being denied their 1st amendment right to freedom of religion. This is having a great deal of effect on them because now they can’t find a job, or practice their religion without being denied access to certain things in America.
LikeLike
Technically, the Supreme Court says that it does not violate their first amendment rights, and so it does not. They are solely tasked with with being the final arbiter of the law in such circumstances.
Moreover, the reasoning behind the SCOTUS decision is not entirely flawed, and it was a bipartisan decision, with both liberal and conservative justices agreeing.
“Oregon’s ban on the possession of peyote is a law that applies to everyone who might possess peyote, for whatever reason—a “neutral law of general applicability”.[3] Scalia characterized the employees’ argument as an attempt to use their religious motivation to use peyote in order to place themselves beyond the reach of Oregon’s neutral, generally applicable ban on the possession of peyote. The Court held that the First Amendment’s protection of the “free exercise” of religion does not allow a person to use a religious motivation as a reason not to obey such generally applicable laws.”
This is logical – you wouldn’t want a person with sincerely held religious beliefs to have free reign to use heroin because its there religion. The SCOTUS cannot create laws, only interpret them. The only solution here would be to legislate a law that specifically exempted peyote users, and indeed that is what happened.
LikeLike
I agree that they are being denied of their first amendment rights. But what kind of effects does this drug have on one’s health? Because if it is a dangerous drug that could cause harm to society I believe that the Supreme court ruled fairly.
LikeLike
Does this same thing happen with Native Americans? I wonder this because it would seem that there is a loop hole, at least for Native Americans, that permits the use of Peyote as an event separate from drugs enough that it does not threaten workplace performance. Maybe it was because the church these two man claim to belong to does not hold the same status for Peyote as other Native American Church’s?
LikeLike