BYU Law Review
Abstract
This Article examines the U.S. Supreme Court's approach to cases involving religious liberty and LGBTQ+ rights through the lens of social psychology. As Americans increasingly sort into opposing “mega- identities” defined by political, racial, and religious traits, religious liberty has become a deeply polarized issue, with traditional Christians and LGBTQ+ advocates often positioned as adversaries in a zero-sum conflict. Against this backdrop, the Article argues that the Roberts Court has employed social psychological techniques—specifically “aporia” (acknowledging complexity) and “affirmation” (validating diverse viewpoints)—to de-escalate this cultural tension. By analyzing key decisions in Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, Fulton v. City of Philadelphia, and 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis, the Article demonstrates how the Court's opinions have created “safe harbors” for religious dissenters while simultaneously affirming LGBTQ+ rights. Drawing on empirical studies of the Court's impact on cultural intermediaries, business behaviors, and litigation patterns, the Article reveals how judicial rhetorical strategies can foster a “live-and- let-live” approach to contentious cultural issues. While acknowledging the limitations of the Court's depolarizing influence amid broader social division, the Article concludes that the Court's nuanced engagement with religious liberty represents a meaningful contribution to American pluralism.
Rights
© 2025 Brigham Young University Law Review
Recommended Citation
Asma T. Uddin,
The Social Psychology of Religious Liberty Depolarization,
50 BYU L. Rev.
1421
(2025).
Available at: https://digitalcommons.law.byu.edu/lawreview/vol50/iss5/10
