5,933
edits
m
no edit summary
mNo edit summary |
mNo edit summary |
||
| Line 15: | Line 15: | ||
|recent= | |recent= | ||
* ''Perez v. City of San Antonio'', ___ S.W.3d ___ [https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=3463690842371194617#p--- ___] n.9 (Tex. 2025) ("We have also applied strict scrutiny to the Texas Constitution's Freedom of Worship Clause, which is original to the 1876 Texas Constitution and provides in part: 'All men have a natural and indefeasible right to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their own consciences,' and '. . . .' Tex. Const. art. I, § 6. For want of arguments to the contrary, we have assumed that the Freedom of Worship Clause provides protection that is 'coextensive' with the federal Free Exercise Clause and thus requires a strict-scrutiny analysis.") | * ''Perez v. City of San Antonio'', ___ S.W.3d ___, [https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=3463690842371194617#p--- ___] n.9 (Tex. 2025) ("We have also applied strict scrutiny to the Texas Constitution's Freedom of Worship Clause, which is original to the 1876 Texas Constitution and provides in part: 'All men have a natural and indefeasible right to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their own consciences,' and '. . . .' Tex. Const. art. I, § 6. For want of arguments to the contrary, we have assumed that the Freedom of Worship Clause provides protection that is 'coextensive' with the federal Free Exercise Clause and thus requires a strict-scrutiny analysis.") | ||
* ''Pleasant Glade Assembly of God v. Schubert'', 264 S.W.3d 1, [https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=5305447475925079813#p2 2] (Tex. 2008) ("This appeal concerns the tension between a church's right to protection under the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment and a church member's right to judicial redress under a claim for intentional tort. U.S. Const. amend. I; see also Tex. Const. art. I, § 6. . . . We further conclude the case, as tried, presents an ecclesiastical dispute over religious conduct that would unconstitutionally entangle the court in matters of church doctrine and, accordingly, reverse the court of appeals' judgment and dismiss the case.") | * ''Pleasant Glade Assembly of God v. Schubert'', 264 S.W.3d 1, [https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=5305447475925079813#p2 2] (Tex. 2008) ("This appeal concerns the tension between a church's right to protection under the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment and a church member's right to judicial redress under a claim for intentional tort. U.S. Const. amend. I; see also Tex. Const. art. I, § 6. . . . We further conclude the case, as tried, presents an ecclesiastical dispute over religious conduct that would unconstitutionally entangle the court in matters of church doctrine and, accordingly, reverse the court of appeals' judgment and dismiss the case.") | ||