<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<oembed>
  <version>1</version>
  <type>rich</type>
  <provider_name>Libsyn</provider_name>
  <provider_url>https://www.libsyn.com</provider_url>
  <height>90</height>
  <width>600</width>
  <title>Season 2, Ep. 02: Religion vs. Religion at the Supreme Court</title>
  <description>What’s at stake in the high-profile religious liberty case at the Supreme Court this term? Amanda Tyler and Holly Hollman break down the oral arguments in Fulton v. Philadelphia, which centers on whether a religious organization can apply its religious criteria to discriminate when operating as a government contractor delivering foster care services. They share four takeaways and speculate about what sort of decision we might see in the case. Plus, they take a look at how religion has been discussed in terms of voting this week, including problematic implications of a religious test for office.&amp;amp;nbsp;&amp;amp;nbsp; &amp;amp;nbsp; Segment one: What are the religious liberty issues at play in Fulton v. Philadelphia? (starting at 1:05) For more on Employment Division v. Smith (1990) and the legislative response, visit BJConline.org/RFRA Holly mentioned this story in the Washington Post by Michelle Boorstein: Religious conservatives hopeful new Supreme Court majority will redefine religious liberty precedents BJC has a page dedicated to the Fulton v. Philadelphia case: BJConline.org/Fulton Read BJC’s brief in the Fulton case at this link. &amp;amp;nbsp; Segment two:&amp;amp;nbsp; Four takeaways from the oral arguments (starting at 19:32) You can listen to the oral arguments in Fulton v. Philadelphia via CSPAN&amp;amp;nbsp;at this link.&amp;amp;nbsp;&amp;amp;nbsp; We played three clips from the arguments:  Justice Sonia Sotomayor speaking with Lori Windham, the advocate for Fulton (around 16:25 into the argument) Neal Katyal, the advocate for Philadelphia, talking about how Fulton’s position can lead to religions being against each other (around 1:18:04 into the argument) Justice Samuel Alito expressing outrage at government actors trying to impose their beliefs on religious actors (around 1:04:17 into the argument)  Learn more about the Masterpiece Cakeshop case on our website: BJConline.org/Masterpiece &amp;amp;nbsp; Segment three: Religion and the election (starting at 44:56) For more on the “no religious test” principle, read this article from Amanda Tyler, written in advance of the Amy Coney Barrett hearings.&amp;amp;nbsp; </description>
  <author_name>BJC Podcast</author_name>
  <author_url>https://bjconline.org</author_url>
  <html>&lt;iframe title="Libsyn Player" style="border: none" src="//html5-player.libsyn.com/embed/episode/id/16708247/height/90/theme/custom/thumbnail/yes/direction/forward/render-playlist/no/custom-color/ff6800/" height="90" width="600" scrolling="no"  allowfullscreen webkitallowfullscreen mozallowfullscreen oallowfullscreen msallowfullscreen&gt;&lt;/iframe&gt;</html>
  <thumbnail_url>https://assets.libsyn.com/secure/content/87850064</thumbnail_url>
</oembed>
