The Supreme Court dodged two church-state cases that the religious right believed would be the beginning of the nation’s rightward march. Evidently even a court stack so heavily in their favor isn’t quite ready to simply follow the religious right’s marching orders.

One was a case from New York on whether church-affiliated employers who object to birth control on religious grounds must still provide contraceptive coverage to their female employees as part of their medical insurance coverage, as required by laws in New York and some two dozen other states. The other case challenged the refusal of a public library in California to make a community meeting room available for worship services.

Both cases potentially test lines that the Supreme Court has drawn to separate accommodations of religion that governments are required to make from those that aren’t required or, perhaps, are even forbidden.

The legal issues involved in the New York case are religious freedom versus the states’ right to impose rules and regulations on employers. The precedent for this type of case has been set by a 1990 Supreme Court decision, Employment Division v. Smith, which barred most religion-based exemptions from laws that are neutral, generally applicable and that don’t single out religion for special burdens. This particular law includes an exemption for “religious employers,” precisely defined as a nonprofit organization that seeks to inculcate “religious values;” that “primarily employs” people of its religious faith; and that “serves primarily” those who share that faith. The challenge is based on expanding what organizations qualify for the exemption.

To decide the California case, the Supreme Court would rely on the series of decisions in which the court has placed religious expression on the same footing as other forms of speech, ruling that it must be permitted in public forums that are generally open to other speakers. The court hasn’t directly confronted a case seeking a public forum for pure religious worship. This question lies at the intersection where the two religion clauses of the First Amendment meet: the protection for the “free exercise” of religion and the prohibition against the official “establishment” of religion. It is a hard call for Humanists. Is worship free speech? Should it be supported in public buildings? I lean toward yes to the first and no to the second. How do other Humanists see this question?