In the case of Mr. Bigot Lancer and his neighbors, in my view, the neighbors should prevail. While Mr. Lancer does have his constitutional right to freedom of religion, that right does not extend to any form of religious practices that might adversely affect the public or have the potential for public harm. Besides being a nuisance, Mr. Lancer's choice of religious expression and ornamentation could lead to more serious problems for the neighborhood.
The first amendment to the Constitution of the United States contains the provision which prohibits congress from making any laws that abridge or restrict freedom of religion. Further, the Supreme Court has held that the protection of all the first amendment fundamental liberties apply to the states, also, under the due process clause of the 14th amendment.
The freedom of religious expression has created unique problems for the Court over the years. A number of decisions by the Court have established some guidelines. However, O'Brien noted the apparent capriciousness of the Court. One decision may be overturned by the next decision in a similar case. This happened in Goldman v. Weinberger, 475 U.S. 503(1986). The justices upheld the air force's prohibition of wearing yarmulke contrary to military dress code by orthodox Jewish officers. The next year, however, Congress passed a law permitting members in the military to wear religious apparel indoors, while on duty, so long as it did not interfere with their military duties and was neat and conservative (1995, pp. 747-748).
The court has consistently held that actions which neither advance nor inhibit a religion, which are neither amicable nor hostile, and which do not involve excessive government entanglements are considered permissible. In cases where the distinction between permissible and unconstitutional government use of religious symbols was the issue, the Court made their decision based on context. T...