Come up with ethical argument about secular interests giving way to religious rights. How will the ethical theories that have been studied so far interpret this issue differently? Where can they agree?

WASHINGTON~With all nine justices voting to exempt a Catholic socialservice agency from Philadelphia's nondiscrimination policies. the Supreme Court sent a message Thursday that secular interests will increasingly have to give way to some religious rights. The question now is how manyand how fast. For three conservative justices. not fast enough. \"We owe it to the parties. to religious believers. and to our colleagues on the lower courts to cure the problem this Court created." Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote in a concurring opinion Thursday. joined by Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito. They argued that it was time to overrule a 1990 precedent holding that religious believers can't invoke the First Amendment to exempt themselves from neutral laws that apply to the public at large. It was that precedent. Employment Division v. Smith. which led lower courts to rule against Catholic Social Services. which lost a city contract to screen foster parents after Philadelphia officials learned that the agency wouldn't work with samesex couples. Catholic Social Services. one of some 20 private agencies Philadelphia contracted to do such work. argued that because the Roman Catholic Church doesn't recognize samesex marriage, its religiousexercise rights entitled it to disregard city policies forbidding discrimination based on sexual orientation. In Thursday's case. Fulton v. Philadelphia. Chief Justice John Floberts's majority opinion found a way to rule for the Catholic organization without overturning Smith. The court reasoned that because the city contract contained a clause allowing the humarFservices department to make exceptions to the nondiscrimination policy. the Smith rule didn't apply and therefore an exemption should be granted. The narrow. lSpage opinion may have been a late compromise to gather a spectrum of votes. including liberal Justices Stephen Breyer. Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan. along with conservatives Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett. A threepage concurring opinion by Justice Barrett.joined by Justice Kavanaugh and. partly. by Justice Breyer. gave advocates of religious rights a blueprint to advance their cause. There were. she wrote. "serious arguments that Smith ought to be overruled," but it would be unwise to do so before working out a legal framework to replace it. While religious exercise claims required greater deference. "this Court's resolution of conflicts between generally applicable laws and other First Amendment rightslike speech and assembly~has been much more nuanced." she wrote. "There would be a number of issues to work through if Smith were overruled." she said. For instance. she said. "Should entities like Catholic Social Serviceswhich is an arm of the Catholic Churchbe treated differently than individuals? Should there be a distinction between indirect and direct burdens on religious exercise? What forms of scrutiny should apply?" Fidget The Barrett concurrence offers "a good sign for where the Supreme Court may be going on religious liberty." said Lori Windham. an attorney with the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty who argued the case for Catholic Social Services. Current precedent "isn't doing a good enough job to protect religious liberty. and they want to see something better.\" she said. even if "they haven't told us yet exactly what that might be.\" Several pending appeals could provide an opportunity to do that. with attention focused on Arlene's Flowers Inc. v. Washington state. involving a florist's refusal in 2013 to make floral arrangements for a same-sex wedding. Washington courts found that the florist violated state antidiscrimination law. The Supreme Court has been slow to hear the case. which first was appealed in 2017 and. in its current form. has been awaiting action since September 2019. Ine barren COHCUTI'EHCE OTTEIS a 9000 sign T0! WHEIE U18 oupreme LOU\": may De gorng 0n [EllglOUS \"Deny. 5an Lori Windham. an attorney with the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty who argued the case for Catholic Social Services. Current precedent \"isn't doing a good enough job to protect religious liberty. and they want to see something better." she said. even if \"they haven't told us yet exactly what that might be.\" Several pending appeals could provide an opportunity to do that. with attention focused on Arlene's Flowers Inc. v. Washington state. involving a florist's refusal in 2013 to make floral arrangements for a same-sex wedding. Washington courts found that the florist violated state antidiscrimination law. The Supreme Court has been slow to hear the case. which first was appealed in 2017 and. in its current form. has been awaiting action since September 2019. The case poses a direct conflict between religious liberty and another area of developing law. LGBT equality. In a similar 2018 case. Masterpiece Cakeshop Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission. the court sided with a baker who turned away a same-sex couple. but the ruling on procedural grounds provided little clarity for the broader constitutional conflict. When the court can avoid the issue no longer. the balance will likely go to religious believers. said Katherine Franke. faculty director of the Law. Flights and Religion Project at Columbia Law School. \"Fulton showed us that the court is disposed to a kind of tiering of constitutional rights where some rights are higher-ranked over others.\" Ms. Franke said. \"Religious liberty sits at the top tier. And equality. whether it's race- based. sex-based or LGBT equality. enjoys now a kind of second-class status." she said. The court's actions in recent cases stemming from the Covid-IQ pandemic reinforce that view. she said. In April. over the objection of Chief Justice Roberts and three liberal justices. the court issued an unsigned opinion exempting religious practices from public-health orders unless officials can justify them by the strictest standards. The debate over religious exceptions from general laws goes back decades. if not centuries. In 1879. the court rejected a Mormon defendant's argument that religious-exercise rights exempted him from bigamy laws. \"To permit this would be to make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land. and in effect to permit every citizen to become a law unto himself.\" the court said then. In a 1963 decision. however. the court ruled that South Carolina went too far in denying unemployment benefits to a Seventh-day Adventist because she wouldn't accept work on Saturdays. her sabbath. In Sherbert v. Verner. the liberal Justice William Brennan wrote that the state policy's rationaleprotecting taxpayers from goldbrickersdidn't justify the imposition on religious belief. Nearly 30 years later. Justice Brennan dissented from the Smith opinion. written by the conservative Justice Antonin Scalia. Smith sharply limited the Sherbert doctrine. ruling that members of the Native American Church who used peyote for sacramental purposes couldn't escape Oregon law denying unemployment compensation to workers discharged for misconduct. Today growing legal recognition of LGBT rights has clashed with the moral views of some traditional religions. making that intersection the place where the court's new doctrine is likely to be developed. Perry Dane. a professor at Rutgers Law School. said the question is more complicated than simply "a conflict between religious exercise and LGBT equality.\" "The key here is to appreciate that 'compelling interests' in the religious exemptions context are not measured in general but rather in the individual case or at the margin.\" Mr. Dane said. The court "recognized the importance of a general interest in LGBTQ equality. but it also recognized an exemption for Catholic Social Services.\" he said. \"If it overrules Smith at some point. that will simply mean that. however important a social policy is in general. religious dissenters will still have the opportunity to argue that carving out an exemption will not do grievous harm to that policy." Write to Jess Bravin at jess.bravin+l @wsj.com Supreme Court Signals Expansion of Religious Exemptions From Laws Credit: By Jess Bravin