What did the Supreme Court say in Reynolds v. United States?

0:05The very first case under the First Amendment involving the free exercise of religion was the Reynolds case. The question in that case was whether or not George Reynolds could have a second wife. It was illegal in every state and territory, including the Utah territory, to have more than one spouse, anti-polygamy, and anti-bigamy laws. He argued that that could apply to everybody else, but it shouldn't apply to him because his religious beliefs should have been superior to the law. The Supreme Court stated that, no, we are not laws unto ourselves, that this is a law that applies to everybody. It doesn't single out the Latter-Day Saints, which was his faith, and therefore, the First Amendment did not stand for

0:55an automatic trump over every other law in the country instead, if the law applies to everybody and it's neutral, then in those cases, it applies. Think of all the laws that we have that you would be concerned about. If someone could say, just because I'm religious, I don't get to obey those laws. Think about a red light. Someone has stopped at a red light on the way to church, and they're late. Do they have a right to just run the red light because they're late for church and they're headed to a worship service? I think we would all agree, of course not, because that's going to lead to harm. Someone's going to get killed in the intersection. We don't have exceptions for when you get to run the red light but then

1:42take it up a scale. What about a religious organization that's engaging in sacrifice? If we have sacrifice of children or women, those are not faiths completely contrary to United States history, of course, you can't sacrifice a human being just because the First Amendment says you have religious liberty. The First Amendment does not give religious believers autonomy from the law. I think it's just really important to understand there's always a balance between the public good, the public interest, and whatever right it is that the religious person is expressing. The argument that you don't have to obey the law because you're religious is an argument that says, I can harm everybody who was supposed to be protected by

2:30that law because I'm religious. When we're talking about common sense, religious liberty, you always ask the question. Here's the invocation of the conduct the believer wants to engage in, and here's the harm they would cause if they did it. Up until very recently, you balance those, and the court would conclude that one or the other should be the one that's the result.