Lori Smith has no right to exercise her religious convictions when she develops websites for clients. So said the Denver-based 10th Circuit Court of Appeals in July, as explained in an Aug. 1 Gazette editorial.

Though Smith's religious beliefs hold same-sex marriage as sinful, a panel of the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals told her in July she must design websites for same-sex couples. It comes after protracted legal battles about Lakewood cake designer Jack Phillips refusing to design a custom wedding cake for a same-sex couple, citing religious objections.

Given those rulings, it was shocking to see the 10th Circuit rule in favor of religious liberty last week. The court ruled a state parole officer has no authority to force an inmate to act against his beliefs.

It was a good ruling that restores confidence that some judges attended class that day they taught the Constitution in law school.

In the court's Aug. 6 ruling, Judge Carolyn B. McHugh wrote what seems obvious after a quick read of the First Amendment: "a state actor violates the Free Exercise Clause by coercing or compelling participation in religious activity against one's expressly stated beliefs."

The court ruled that way because, beyond question, the law restrains governments from promoting, condemning, or taking any position on the content of religious beliefs.

We can have the Catholic Church opposing abortion and establishing AIDS hospices. Legally, that church has no more religious rights than a fringe Baptist Church that pickets funerals and promotes the hatred of gays. The state cannot favor one over the other.

Likewise, the state cannot favor, disfavor, punish or reward a person for believing God is a fable and there is no heaven or hell. Freedom of religion cannot exist without the freedom to believe there is no higher power.

From the perspective of the state, a person has the right to stand on a sidewalk and praise, insult, or question the existence of God.

Somehow, this does not resonate with a lot of lower-court judges who think the state can force a person to create messages, for pay, that violate their Christian beliefs. If one must create a same-sex wedding website, conveying whatever the customer wants to say, the designer has limited religious liberties while doing her job.

Things went much differently when Colorado prison parolee Mark Janny stood up for his religious liberty. Janny believes there is no God. To a religion-neutral government, his belief should be no less valid and protected than the belief of someone who tells him to read the Bible.

Janny petitioned the court after his parole officer ordered him to complete part of his sentence at the Fort Collins Rescue Mission. The officer claimed Janny, a felon, violated parole by refusing to attend the mission's morning prayer and Bible study session.

Of course, the state cannot force an individual to pray, read the Bible and attend a Christian study session. To do so would eviscerate a person's First Amendment right to take or leave any belief system.

Janny agreed to stay at the Mission. From what is reported, he obeyed other requirements of his parole. The one thing he would not do is worship and read about a God he considers fake. As such, he was punished with revocation of his parole.

If the state cannot force a felon to attend a religious gathering, it seems the state should not punish law-abiding website and cake designers standing by their beliefs and declining creative work for hire.

The 10th Circuit was wise to protect the First Amendment rights of an atheist convict.

This should set precedent when states force individuals to violate their heartfelt beliefs at the demand of any customer with any potential message. The state cannot punish us for exercising faith, no matter what we believe. If this had been Germany's law during World War II, there would have been no Holocaust.

REPRINTED FROM THE COLORADO SPRINGS GAZETTE

Photo credit: Ichigo121212 at Pixabay