2nd Circuit Allows Christian Adoption Agency To Continue Ongoing Cases Pending Appeal On Anti-Discrimination Law

In New Hope Family Services, Inc. v. Poole, (2d Cir., Nov. 4, 2019), the U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals issued a preliminary injunction allowing a Christian adoption agency, pending a decision on appeal of a lower court order, to continue to provide adoption services that are under way and ongoing without complying with New York's law barring discrimination on the basis of sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or marital status against applicants for adoption services. At the same time, the agency agreed to stop accepting all new clients while the appeal is pending. In May, the district court had rejected the agency's 1st and 14th amendment challenges to New York's anti-discrimination provisions. The Court of Appeals said in part:

On the motion record here, the court can conclude only that New Hope may succeed on the merits of its appeal; the likelihood of such success cannot confidently be predicted in advance of reviewing the circumstances and law as more fully presented by the parties in their merits briefs.

What can be determined even on the motion record, however, is that New Hope will suffer irreparable injury without the requested preliminary injunction pending appeal.

ADF issued a press release announcing the decision.

HHS To Allow Grantees To Refuse To Serve LGBT Clients

On Nov. 1, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services announced actions that effectively allow agencies receiving HHS grants, including foster care and adoption agencies, to refuse to serve gay, lesbian and transgender individuals and families on religious grounds. First, HHS issued a Notice of Non-Enforcement of  rules adopted in 2016 that prohibit such discrimination. The non-enforcement decision was based on "significant concerns about compliance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act" in the promulgation of the 2016 rules.  HHS then issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking that would repromulgate the rules with narrower anti-discrimination protections. The proposed new rules would replace this section:

(c) It is a public policy requirement of HHS that no person otherwise eligible will be excluded from participation in, denied the benefits of, or subjected to discrimination in the administration of HHS programs and services based on non-merit factors such as age, disability, sex, race, color, national origin, religion, gender identity, or sexual orientation. Recipients must comply with this public policy requirement in the administration of programs supported by HHS awards.

(d) In accordance with the Supreme Court decisions in United States v. Windsor and in Obergefell v. Hodges, all recipients must treat as valid the marriages of same-sex couples. This does not apply to registered domestic partnerships, civil unions or similar formal relationships recognized under state law as something other than a marriage.

The new rules will instead provide:

(c) It is a public policy requirement of HHS that no person otherwise eligible will be excluded from participation in, denied the benefits of, or subjected to discrimination in the administration of HHS programs and services, to the extent doing so is prohibited by federal statute.

(d) HHS will follow all applicable Supreme Court decisions in administering its award programs.

In its announcement, HHS said in part:

The proposed rule would better align its grants regulations with federal statutes, eliminating regulatory burden, including burden on the free exercise of religion.

New York Times reports on the HHS action.

Organization Lacks Standing To Claim Sexual Orientation Discrimination By Christian Business Owners

In Lexington-Fayette Urban County Human Rights Commission v. Hands On Originals, (KY Sup. Ct., Oct. 31, 2019), The Kentucky Supreme Court dismissed on standing grounds a suit against a small business whose Christian owners refused on religious grounds to print T-shirts for a Pride Festival. The court held that because the discrimination complaint was filed only by a gay-rights organization, plaintiff lacks statutory standing:

[B]ecause an “individual” did not file the claim, but rather an organization did, we would have to determine whether the organization is a member of the protected class, which we find impossible to ascertain. No end user may have been denied the service who is a member of the protected class, or perhaps one was. If so, then the determination would have to follow whether the reason for denial of service constitutes discrimination under the ordinance, and then whether the local government was attempting to compel expression, had infringed on religious liberty, or had failed to carry its burden under KRS 446.350. But without an individual, as required by Section 2-32(2)(a), this analysis cannot be conducted.

Justice Buckingham filed a concurring opinion, arguing that the Human Rights Commission had unconstitutionally attempted to compel the business to express ideas with which it disagreed. [Thanks to Tom Rutledge for the lead.]

Supreme Court Hears Oral Arguments In LGBTQ Employment Discrimination Cases

Today the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in three cases involving whether Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act covers employment discrimination against gays, lesbians and transgender individuals.  Two of the cases (consolidated for oral argument) involve whether the ban on discrimination on the "because of sex" covers sexual orientation discrimination.  The cases are Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia (case page on SCOTUSblog) and Altitude Express, Inc. v. Zarda (case page on SCOTUSblog). Here is the transcript of the full oral argument. The third case is R.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes Inc. v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (case page on SCOTUSblog). It raises the question of whether Title VII's ban on "sex" discrimination protects transgender individuals from employment discrimination.  Here is the transcript of the full oral argument. CNN reports on the oral arguments.

Michigan Catholic Adoption Agency Gets Preliminary Injunction Protecting Its Policy on LGBTQ Couples

In Buck v. Gordon, (WD MI, Sept. 26, 2019), a Michigan federal district court issued a preliminary injunction to prevent the state from requiring that a Catholic adoption and foster care agency place children with same-sex couples. The agency currently refers such couples to other agencies.  As summarized by the court:

The State pays St. Vincent to place children with foster or adoptive parents certified as suitable by the State. St. Vincent has done that faithfully, regardless of whether the certified parents were opposite sex, same-sex, or unmarried couples. St. Vincent would like to continue doing so under existing and renewed contracts with the State.  

What St. Vincent has not done and will not do is give up its traditional Catholic belief that marriage as instituted by God is for one man and one woman. Based on that belief, St. Vincent has exercised its discretion to ensure that it is not in the position of having to review and recommend to the State whether to certify a same-sex or unmarried couple, and to refer those cases to agencies that do not have a religious confession preventing an honest evaluation and recommendation. In 2015, the Michigan legislature enacted legislation designed to protect that choice, and until January of 2019, the State defended the right of the State and St. Vincent to make that choice.

That changed when Defendant Attorney General Nessel took office. Leading up to and during the 2018 general election campaign, she made it clear that she considered beliefs like St. Vincent’s to be the product of hate. She stated that the 2015 law seeking to protect St. Vincent’s practice was indefensible and had discriminatory animus as its sole purpose. After her election, she ... put St. Vincent in the position of either giving up its belief or giving up its contract with the State. That kind of targeted attack on a sincerely held religious belief is what calls for strict scrutiny in this case and supports entry of a preliminary injunction preserving the status quo while the case is fully litigated.

Detroit News reports on the decision.

SPLC's "Hate Group" Designation For Christian Ministry For LGBT Views Is Protected By 1st Amendment

In Coral Ridge Ministries Media, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., (MD AL, Sept. 19, 2019), an Alabama federal district court, in an interesting 141-page opinion, dismissed claims by a Christian television ministry against the Southern Poverty Law Center and Amazon's charitable program. As summarized by the court:

The lawsuit is based largely on Coral Ridge’s allegations that, because of its religious opposition to homosexual conduct, SPLC has designated it as a “hate group” and that, because of this designation, Amazon and AmazonSmile have excluded it from receiving donations through the AmazonSmile charitable-giving program.

Coral Ridge has three claims against SPLC: a state claim that its “hate group” designation is defamatory and federal claims for false association and false advertising under the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125. Coral Ridge has a single claim against the Amazon defendants: a federal claim that they excluded it from the AmazonSmile charitable-giving program based on religion, in violation of Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000a et seq.

The ministry conceded that it was a "public figure" for purposes of its defamation claim Engaging in a lengthy discussion of the meaning of "hate group", the court rejected the ministry's claim because "An alleged defamatory statement is generally not provable as false when it labels the plaintiff with a term that has an imprecise and debatable meaning." The court went on to say that even if there were a commonly understood definition of "hate group",  the defamation claim should still be dismissed:

To find actual malice just because SPLC publicized a meaning of “hate group” that conflicted with the common understanding of the term would severely undermine debate and free speech about a matter of public concern. This is because, even if the term had achieved a commonly understood meaning, that meaning would not be fixed forever, but rather could evolve through public debate. To sanction a speaker for promoting a genuinely held dissenting view of the meaning of “hate group” would be akin to punishing a speaker for advocating new conceptions of terms like “terrorist,” “extremist,” “sexist,” “racist,” “radical

The court rejected the ministry's Lanham Act claims, finding that they are subject to the same heightened First Amendment standards, not the lower commercial speech standards.

The court also rejected the ministry's claim that Amazon violated the public accommodation provision of the 1964 Civil Rights Act in excluding it from its charitable giving program, saying in part:

Even if it were assumed that the Amazon defendants are places of public accommodation subject to Title II, seeking to receive donations through the AmazonSmile program does not qualify as a service, privilege, or advantage, etc. protected by the statute’s anti-discrimination prohibition. This is because the Amazon defendants limit the ability to receive such donations exclusively to 26 U.S.C. § 501(c)(3) organizations and therefore do not make that ability open to the public. Moreover, an alternative ground for dismissing the claim is that Coral Ridge has not plausibly alleged that the Amazon defendants discriminated against it based on religion.

The court concluded its opinion:

The court should not be understood as even suggesting that Coral Ridge is or is not a “hate group.” It has merely held that SPLC’s labeling of the group as such is protected by the First Amendment....  

SPLC issued a press release announcing the decision.

Parent's Challenge To California's Boarding School Regulation Is Dismissed

In Teen Rescue v. Becerra, (ED CA, Sept. 19, 2019), a California federal district court dismissed a suit brought by the parent of a child attending River View Christian Academy, a Christian boarding school which is subject to the California Community Care Facilities Act.  The Act requires private alternative boarding schools to allow students full autonomy on maters of religion and sexual identity.  Seeking to represent all parents and guardians of students in the school, plaintiff alleges that subjecting the school to these requirement violates his religious free exercise and his parental rights. The court dismissed the complaint, saying in part:

Merely developing a plan to train RVCA staff in issues relating to the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender communities does not invade the First Amendment rights of RVCA parents....

Similarly, preventing a community care facility from attempting to change the sexual orientation of its students is not an invasion of the parents’ First Amendment rights. The First Amendment gives Williams the right to believe and profess whatever religion he desires. If sending his child to an exclusively faith-based educational institution is an important part of Williams’ faith, there is nothing in the CCFA that prevents him from doing so.... Williams is free to enroll his child at a CCFA-exempt religious boarding school....

[T]he only injuries alleged here were suffered by Teen Rescue, not the parents. Williams failed to identify a concrete and particularized injury in fact under the Free Exercise Clause. Thus, Williams and the other RVCA parents lack standing to bring a claim under the First Amendment.

California Legislature Tells Clergy How To Treat LGBTQ Community

On September 9, the California legislature gave final passage to Assembly Concurrent Resolution 99  which calls on Californians-- and particularly its religious leaders-- to treat members of the LGBT community with greater respect.  The Resolution reads in part:

WHEREAS, The stigma associated with being LGBTQ often created by groups in society, including therapists and religious groups, has caused disproportionately high rates of suicide, attempted suicide, depression, rejection, and isolation amongst LGBTQ and questioning individuals; and...

WHEREAS, In a pluralistic society, people differing along spectrums of political and religious perspectives share a common responsibility of protecting the health and well-being of all children and vulnerable communities; now, therefore, be it...

Resolved, That the Legislature calls upon religious leaders to counsel on LGBTQ matters from a place of love, compassion, and knowledge of the psychological and other harms of conversion therapy; and be it further

Resolved, That in addressing the stigma often associated with persons who identify as LGBTQ, we call on the people of California–especially its counselors, pastors, religious workers, educators, and legislators–and the institutions of California with great moral influence–especially its churches, universities, colleges, and other schools, counseling centers, activist groups, and religious centers–to model equitable treatment of all people of the state....

Christian Post reports on the Concurrent Resolution.

Texans Sue Under the "Save Chick-fil-A" Law

As previously reported, in June Texas Gov. Greg Abbott signed a bill which prohibits any governmental entity in Texas from taking adverse action against any person because of the person's affiliation, contribution or support for a religious organization. The law was aimed at San Antonio's exclusion of Chick-fil-A from operating at the San Antonio's airport.  The restaurant chain has been criticized for its contributions to organizations that oppose same-sex marriage. Last week, five Texas residents filed suit in a state trial court under the new law seeking an injunction to prevent the city from continuing to exclude Chick-fil-A from the airport. The complaint (full text) in Von Dohlen v. City of San Antonio, (TX Dist. Ct., filed 9/5/2019), alleges in part:

The law of Texas prohibits governmental entities from taking “adverse action” against corporations based on their contributions to a religious organization. See Texas Gov’t Code § 2400.002. The City of San Antonio is violating this statutory command by excluding Chick-fil-A from the San Antonio airport on account of its donations to Christian organizations such as the Salvation Army and the Fellowship of Christian Athletes. 

20. For years, liberal activists have been attacking Chick-fil-A because it gives money to Christian organizations that accept the Bible as the Word of God.

21. Because these Bible-believing Christian organizations derive their notions of morality from the Bible rather than modern-day cultural fads, they oppose homosexual behavior and same-sex marriage.

San Antonio Family Association issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit.

Michigan City Adopts Ban on Conversion Therapy For Minors

The City of East Lansing on Tuesday passed an ordinance banning provision to minors of conversion therapy relating to sexual orientation or gender identity.  The City Council vote of approval was 3-2, after amendments to the version as proposed were adopted.  The original proposal and a video of City Council meeting including discussion and amendments are available on the city's website. Fox47 News reports on the passage of the ordinance.

Amicus Briefs In SCOTUS Gay and Transgender Title VII Discrimination Cases Now Available

Dozens of amicus briefs have been filed with the U.S. Supreme Court and are now available from the SCOTUSblog case page in R.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes, Inc. v. EEOC. At issue is whether Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rightts Act prohibits discrimination against transgender people based on their transgender status or on a "sex stereotyping" theory.  The 6th Circuit held that discrimination on the basis of transgender status violates Title VII. (See prior posting.) the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in the case on Oct. 8.

Similarly, numerous amicus briefs are available in Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia, (consolidated with Altitude Express, Inc. v. Zarda) which will also be argued on Oct. 8. These cases raise the question of whether Title VII prohibits sexual orientation discrimination. The 2nd Circuit in Altitude Express  held that Title VII does cover such discrimination. (See prior posting.) In the Clayton County case, the 11th Circuit held that Title VII does not ban sexual orientation discrimination.

Kentucky Supreme Court Hears Oral Arguments On Refusal To Print Pride Festival T-Shirts

On Friday, the Kentucky Supreme Court heard oral arguments (video of full arguments) in Lexington-Fayette Urban County Human Rights Commission v. Hands On Originals.  In the case, the Kentucky Court of Appeals concluded that a business which prints customized T-shirts was not in violation of a county's public accommodation law when it refused because of religious beliefs to print T-shirts for a local LGBT Pride Festival. (See prior posting.) WFPL News reports on yesterday's oral arguments. [Thanks to Tom Rutledge for the lead.]

Religious Activist Fined For Burning Library's LGBTQ Children's Books

In Orange City, Iowa yesterday, religious activist Paul Robert Dorr was found guilty of criminal mischief and fined $125 for burning four children's books that he checked out of the public library. As reported by the Des Moines Register, the books had LGBTQ themes. Dorr posted a video to Facebook showing him throwing the books into a burning barrel after he denounced the Orange City library for having the books.

Israel's Election Laws Require Advertising Companies to Sell Space For Objectionable Ads

In Israel yesterday, the Central Elections Committee, the body within the Knesset that enforces election laws, ruled that two major advertising companies in Israel cannot refuse to sell advertising space to Noam-- a far-right religious conservative party known for its opposition to gay rights.  As reported by the Times of Israel, the advertising companies-- which control large amounts of the billboard and bus advertising space-- objected to ads targeting gays and Reform Jews.  The ads read:

[Gay] pride and the buying of children, or having my son marry a woman – Israel chooses to be normal.

Reform [Judaism] or my grandson remains Jewish – Israel chooses to be normal.

Israel's 1959 Election Law (Publicizing Methods) prohibit companies selling election advertising from discriminating between political parties in any way. The Elections Committee's decision was handed down by Supreme Court Justice Neal Hendel.

Suit Challenges Limits On Sharing Religious Message At Gay Pride Events

Suit was filed in a Tennessee federal district court last month challenging the manner in which the Special Events Policy of Johnson City (TN) is interpreted and applied. The complaint (full text) in Waldrop v. City of Johnson City, Tennessee, (ED TN, June 19, 2019) contends that the city's policy unconstitutionally prevents plaintiffs from sharing their Christian message during gay pride parades and events. It alleges:

123. As applied, the Policy unconstitutionally attempts to convert the City’s streets, sidewalks, and parks from traditional public fora into a nonpublic forum during Special Events conducted in the City. 

124. As applied, the Policy unconstitutionally limits Plaintiffs’ freedom of speech by forcing Plaintiffs to move out of a traditional public forum during Special Events....

133. Plaintiffs have a personal belief in the Biblical mandate to spread the Gospel of Jesus Christ, and Plaintiffs engage in activities, for the purpose of spreading the Gospel of Jesus Christ, that are prohibited by the Policy, as interpreted and enforced by Defendants.

WJHL News reports on the lawsuit.

SCOTUS Amicus Briefs Supporting Title VII Coverage of LGBTQ Discrimination Now Available

As previously reported, on Oct. 8 the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in three cases posing the question of whether Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act prohibits discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity. Wednesday was the deadline for amicus briefs supporting the parties asserting that Title VII bars such discrimination. More than 40 amicus briefs have been filed, and may be found through links to them on the SCOTUSblog case pages: here. here and here. Amicus briefs supporting the position of the employers in the cases are due Aug. 23.

Senate Confirms Controversial Nominee For Texas Federal Court Seat

As reported by Bloomberg Law, the U.S. Senate yesterday confirmed the nomination of Matthew Kacsmaryk for a seat on the U.S. District Court for Northern District of Texas by a vote of 52-46. The controversy surrounding Kacsmaryk's nominations is summarized by Courthouse News:

Kacsmaryk has since 2014 served as deputy general counsel at the First Liberty Institute, a legal group that offers free representation to people raising religious liberty claims in court....

His time at the group has put him at the center of several high-profile clashes between gay rights and religious liberty, which has become an increasing flashpoint in federal courts in recent years.

This includes work on the case of a couple that owns a bakery in Oregon and refused to make a custom cake for a same-sex wedding.

Botswana Court Strikes Down Ban on Homosexuality

New York Times reports that yesterday Botswana's High Court struck down the country's ban on homosexuality.  The Court held unconstitutional Section 164 of the Botswana Penal Code that prohibits having "carnal knowledge ... against the order of nature."  Homosexuality was first outlawed in the late 1800's when the Botswana was the British colony of Bechuanaland.

During LGBTQ Pride Month, Vatican Issues Document On Gender Theory In Education

The Vatican's Congregation for Catholic Education yesterday issued a 32-page document titled Male and Female He Created Them: Towards a Path of Dialogue on the Question of Gender Theory in Education. (Full text). The document says in part:

There is a need to reaffrm the metaphysical roots of sexual difference, as an anthropological refutation of attempts to negate the male-female duality of human nature, from which the family is generated. The denial of this duality not only erases the vision of human beings as the fruit of an act of creation but creates the idea of the human person as a sort of abstraction who “chooses for himself what his nature is to be. Man and woman in their created state as complementary versions of what it means to be human are disputed. But if there is no pre-ordained duality of man and woman in creation, then neither is the family any longer a reality established by creation. Likewise, the child has lost the place he had occupied hitherto and the dignity pertaining to him”.

According to Vatican News:

The new document is intended as an instrument to help guide Catholic contributions to the ongoing debate about human sexuality, and to address the challenges that emerge from gender ideology.

As reported by CBS News,  the document, issued during LGBTQ Pride Month, was criticized by LGBTQ advocacy groups.

House Passes Equality Act To Ban LGBTQ Discrimination

The U.S. House of Representatives last Friday passed H.R. 5, the Equality Act (full text) by a vote of  236-173 (largely along party lines). The bill, which now goes to the Senate, amends various federal anti-discrimination laws to provide that the ban on sex discrimination includes sexual orientation and gender identity. Roll Call reports on the House action.