In the last 10 years, the Supreme Court has decided several cases grounded in the claim of a litigant asserting a right not to undertake an action because of a sincere religious belief. This claim has been the basis for that litigant denying various opportunities to others. In none of these cases, has there been a serious examination of the depth or even (in some cases) the basis for this "sincere religious belief." Judges have regularly examined these claims in criminal cases, but not in civil cases.

In Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., 1134 S. Ct. 2751 (2014), the Supreme Court extended the protections of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) to three closely held corporations and held that the contraception mandate of the Affordable Care Act substantially burdened their religious exercise. Id. at 2774 ("No one has questioned the sincerity of their religious beliefs"). So, without any serious analysis (or perhaps any analysis at all), the court had no difficulty in meeting RFRA's requirement that their asserted beliefs were sincere and religious in nature.

In her powerful dissent, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg proclaimed an "overriding interest" in "keeping the courts 'out of the business of evaluating'…the sincerity with which an asserted religious belief is held" Hobby Lobby, 134 S. Ct. at 2805 (Ginsburg, J., dissenting) (quoting United States v. Lee, 455 U.S. 252, 263 n.2 (1981) (Stevens, J., concurring in the judgment)).