A Free Speech Case — or One of Religious Liberty?

When the Supreme Court returns to work in September, most observers concerned with religious liberty issues are going to have their eyes fixed on Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission.

That is a landmark case to be sure — but there is another religious liberty case currently pending petition that also may have a tremendous impact on one of the most important constitutional rights of all Americans.

National Institute of Family and Life Advocates (NIFLA) v. Becerra seems to be a free-speech case — on the surface. According to the California Reproductive Freedom, Accountability, Comprehensive Care, and Transparency Act, every licensed pregnancy center in California must inform its clients of the existence of publicly funded family planning services, including abortion and contraception.

Here’s the issue: “NIFLA is a national network of more than 1,400 pro-life pregnancy centers and medical clinics,” as LifeSiteNews recently explained. “Its membership includes 135 such centers in California, and of these, 85 operate as licensed medical clinics. These clinics and centers are faith-based ministries that do not provide or refer for abortion as a matter of principle. What SCOTUS eventually decides will have far-reaching implications for people of all faiths, no faith, and of all moral or political persuasions.”

Three religiously affiliated nonprofit organizations sought an injunction to prevent the enforcement of the law, claiming it violated their freedom of speech. The primary question is whether or not these clinics ought to be forced to say something they do not want to say. Freedom of speech has traditionally been understood to also protect the freedom to say what one wants — and to refrain from saying what one does not want. Yet the reason these groups oppose the edict is because of their religious convictions.

Related: After Church Shooting in Tennessee, Faith Conquers All

The free speech issue would still be a problem even if the company agreed with state-mandated speech; forced speech is still problematic and contrary to free speech, but this is a double issue. These faith-based organizations oppose abortion because of their Christian beliefs, and by forcing them to comply with this law, the state is forcing them to promote a service that violates their own ethical standards.

Granted, they do not have to provide the abortions, but they believe it is not right to even suggest that procedure as a viable option.

The question on the table is this: Does the state have the right to legislatively force a company to go against its explicit mission statement based on religious belief?

There is a serious question as to whether or not the state can force the company to say anything. It is also just as serious an issue for a state to force a company to violate the consciences of its employees, who subscribe to the company’s mission statement by virtue of being employed by that company. Individuals who believe abortion is wrong are being forced to violate their conscience.

Some would say, of course, that no one is “forced” to work at the pregnancy center. If people don’t want to violate their consciences, they can simply walk away. Yet in this particular situation, there’s no problem with the employer or its mission statement. The employee is perfectly happy to work for someone who shares his or her values.

Related: When a Drunk Driver Killed Their Girls, This Couple Did the Remarkable

The employee has a problem with the state. To be involved in this line of work, the state is dictating one must violate his or her own conscience. The state is making the unilateral decision that in order for someone to be a qualified worker at a pregnancy center, he or she must believe that abortion as procedure is acceptable — and that the option of abortion ought to be presented to anyone facing an unplanned pregnancy.

This is a case to watch; the state is stepping into a relationship where it has no role.

That clearly violates the religious liberty rights of certain individuals who work at the pregnancy center. People are being told they must surrender their religious conviction that all lives have value and deserve protection — in order to work at a company that agrees with those convictions.

This state is stepping into a relationship where it has no role. If the employer and employee are providing a certain service, that is their business — the state cannot come in and force a company to modify its service on religious grounds. Yes, it is a free speech issue; it is also a religious liberty issue. This is a case to watch, as it is still flying under the radar at the moment.

Zak Schmoll is founder of the blog Entering the Public Square, which stresses the importance of Christianity in the marketplace of ideas. He is a PhD student in humanities at Faulkner University in Montgomery, Alabama.