Law enforcement raided two Goddess temples in Arizona, one in Phoenix and one in Sedona. Arrests were made on prostitution charges. More arrests may be coming: http://blogs.phoenixnewtimes.com/jackalope/2011/09/police_reveal_some_details_of.php People from the Goddess temples argue that this violates their freedom of religion. Though I’m not a lawyer, I think they have a strong case. My understanding is that law enforcement can’t violate anybody’s rights to freedom of religion as long as the individual or group isn’t violating anybody else’s rights in the name of religion. I don’t see how the Goddess temple is violating anybody else’s rights.
I’ve thought that anti-prostitution laws were unconstitutional for a long time, and this just adds to that. In the 2003 Supreme Court ruling of Lawrence vs. Texas, the Court ruled that it’s unconstitutional to criminalize adults for engaging in private consensual adult sexual behavior. Though the case was brought by two gay men in an intimate relationship rather than by sex workers, it still needs to apply to sex workers.
Pingback: Two Goddess Temples Raided in Arizona « Bound, Not Gagged
Thanks for this blog, Vegan Vixen; I am a lawyer in Arizona but hadn’t heard about these raids. I don’t support prostitution prohibitions either, or government intrusion into the realm of “morality” in any form, but the Goddess temples have zero chance of winning this one on a religious freedom argument, and here’s why: The guarantee of freedom of religion is not absolute, and the state can prohibit even legitimate religious expression if “state interests” are deemed important enough to outweigh the religious freedom of the individual. This is why Rastafarians, for example, can still be prosecuted for marijuana use: the courts have determined that the state interest in protecting people from the evils of drug use (yes, I know, I’m rolling my eyes too) outweighs the religious use of marijuana, peyote, etc. The Goddess temples, though, wouldn’t even be able to get far enough to make the religious freedom argument, because they would first have to establish that they have sincere beliefs in the religion and its rites and that the action they are defending is part of that religion. If the action at issue was simply having sex with other consenting adults, this matter wouldn’t be going to court (Lawrence, which you mentioned above, and the Lemon case, both of which were decided by the US Supreme Court in the same session, invalidated state laws prohibiting “sodomy” or “crimes against nature,” effectively protecting consensual sexual acts between adults in private). Here, though, the police are alleging that the temples were taking money for sex. Unless they are going to dispute the prostitution charges altogether, the Goddess temples would have to make the argument that taking money for sex is part of the religion, and that they sincerely believe in its religious value. Even if they did pass that first threshhold–and they wouldn’t– not even the relatively liberal 9th Circuit Court of Appeals would decide that the free exercise of religious prostitution outweighs the interests of the state in regulating our sexual “morality.” This country is still very Puritanical in its treatment of sexuality, to all of our detriment.
I appreciate input from a lawyer, Vande. Sacred prostitution exists, so they could show that they have a sincere interest in religion. I read about how in ancient Greece, people paid temple prostitutes, who represented the Goddess Aphrodite. From what I’ve learned about the Arizona Goddess temples that were raided, there’s a very strong interest in sacred sexuality and respecting the Goddesses within us.
I also see no reason why Lawrence vs. Texas shouldn’t also apply to sex acts for payment. If they’re private consensual sex acts, it shouldn’t make a difference legally whether the acts are for pay. There’s nowhere in the Lawrence vs. Texas ruling where it exempts commercial sex acts nor should there be, so I consider anti-prostitution laws unconstitutional. Of course, that only includes consensual sex acts for payment, as non-consensual prostitution would still be illegal under anti-slavery laws.
Here’s an update: http://deepthroated.wordpress.com/2011/09/18/33-charged-in-the-massive-raids-of-the-sedona-temple-and-the-phoenix-goddess-temple/ .