Latter-Day Saints and Religious Discrimination: A Legal Perspective

Introduction In 1985, Christine J. Amos, Judy Bawden, Deniece Kanon, April Joy Reding, Arthur Frank Mason, Ruth Arriola, Shellen Adamson, and Ralph L. Whitaker sued The Corporation of the Presiding Bishopric of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, and the Corporation of the President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, for discrimination based on religion due to being fired for being unable to or unwilling to qualify for a “temple recommend”, in Utah District Court and “won”. By “won” it is meant the court decided, based on the three prong test[1] set forth in Lemon v. Kurtzman, that § 702 of Title VII of The Civil Rights act of 1964 was unconstitutional when applied to non-religious duties within a non profit business owned by a religious organization, or an organization which heavily relied on funding from a religious corporation.

Because Arthur Frank Mason worked for Deseret Gymnasium, an

When applied to this case, The Supreme Court considered the Lemon test as it pertains to this case as follows:
Is there a tie between the religious organization and the activity?
Is there substantial connection between the activity and the religious organization’s tenets or matters of church administration?
Is there a strong relationship between the nature of the job the employee is performing and the religious rituals or tenets of the religious organization or matters of church administration?

With respect to the first portion of the test, it was determined both Deseret Gymnasium and Beehive Clothing Mills had an intimate[2] connection between the Corporation of the Presiding Bishop and the Corporation of the President of the Church, because The Church appoints members of the governing board of both companies and neither has a financial existence outside of and without The Church. They exist to provide services for members of The