Oh, I can quote many SCOTUS cases.
I can start with Reynolds v. US, which confirmed that the Government does have the right to forbid bigamy, even though it was not ever forbidden in the Constitution, and several religions claim it is their right to do so.
In Braunfeld v. Brown, they refused to strip away a "blue law" as it was based on secular reasons, and did nothing to interfere with the free exercise clause.
One of the most important is Estate of Thornton v. Calador Inc, where employees were given the absolute right to not work on Sabbath days. The court ruled that the law was unconstitutional because it gave religions automatic control over all secular interests at the workplace and to no consideration for the employer or other employees.
In Employment Division v. Smith, a man claimed that his termination for smoking peyote was illegal because it was done for religious reasons. The court did not agree, stating that a religion does not give the one to violate the laws or rules of a state and company.
Christian Legal Society v. Martinez was a case where at the Hastings College of Law (University of California) where students wanted to establish a chapter of the Christian Legal Society as a student group. This was refused because the group wanted to be entirely inclusive and only allow Christians and those they "accepted" as members. In a lower court ruling against the group their claim was rejected, but if they welcomed in all students it would be allowed. They pushed it to the Supreme Court and lost again.
In Locke v. Davey, the state of Washington's issuing of scholarships to students of public and private higher education but not to divinity schools was Constitutional. As it imposed no criminal or civil sanctions on religious institutes, and all students were still free to attend one at their own choice. And it was the right of the state to not fund such institutions.
And directly to the military, Goldman v. Weinberger, which was a challenge of a Jewish serviceman wearing his yarmulke in uniform on duty. Quite specifically the court stated “review of military regulations challenged on First Amendment grounds is far more deferential than constitutional review of similar laws or regulations designed for civilian society” and that “to accomplish its mission, the military must foster instinctive obedience, unity, commitment, and
esprit de corps.” And that the Air Force’s purpose in its dress regulations is uniformity, and it “reasonably and evenhandedly regulate
dress in the interest of” that need. Thus, the First Amendment does not prohibit the Air Force from applying the challenged regulation to the wearing of a yarmulke by a soldier on duty and in uniform, even though that effectively restricts the wearing of headgear required by one’s religious beliefs.
Do you want more? Because I can give you more if you want. That is only 7 after all, want more of them? But the last is the most telling, because it pretty much said that in a case of religious rights against the military, unless there is an overwhelming issue at stake the military wins.
Goldman v. Weinberger
supreme.justia.com
But there, I cited you several. One specifically about the military itself, where SCOTUS clearly stated that the needs of the military come first.
