3rd Case – Alito
In the case of Jimenez vs. City of Beaufongier, L.A., we have to determine if Mr. Jimenez’s first amendment right to freedom of religion has been violated by the City of Beaufongier’s attempt to promote health, safety, and general welfare of the city and to enhance the quality of life of people, pets, and other animals. The City of Beaufongier did not in fact violate Mr. Jimenez’s right to freedom of religion.
The City of Beaufongier’s ordinance passes the test of neutrality that we use to determine a law’s possible violation of the constitutional protection of freedom of religion. By our standards, the face of the law does not discriminate against any religion, including Mr. Jimenez’s Santeria religion. The ordinance does not refer to any specific religion in its language and context. Unlike the Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye case, where the Santeria religion was targeted, the city code in this case did not specifically target Mr. Jimenez or his religion.
Since the city’s ordinance is neutral, it is not unconstitutional if it has “the incidental effect of burdening a particular religious practice”. Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye v. City of Hialeah, 508 U.S. 520 (June 11 1993). Therefore, the City of Beaufongier, LA did not violate Mr. Jimenez’s first amendment right to freedom of religion.
