Religious Discrimination Suit Filed After Engineer Fired For Anti-Gay Comment on Company's Intranet

In a federal lawsuit filed last week, a fired Ford Motor Co. engineer, claiming religious discrimination and retaliation, sued for violations of Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act and Michigan's Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act. The complaint (full text) in Banks v. Rapid Global Business Solutions Inc., (ED MI, filed 7/10/2015) alleges that Banks, a Christian, who was working on assignment from Ford to RGBSI, Inc., was fired because of a critical comment he posted to an article on Ford's Intranet. The Intranet article celebrated an organization of Ford's LGBT employees. The offending comment said:

For this Ford Motor Company should be thoroughly ashamed.  Endorsing and promoting sodomy is of benefit of no one.  This topic is disruptive to the workplace and is an assault on Christians and morality, as well as antithetical to our design and survival. Immoral sexual conduct should not be a topic for an automotive manufacturer to endorse or promote.  And yes-- this is historic-- but not in a good way.  Never in the history of mankind has a culture survived that promotes sodomy.  Heterosexual behavior creates life-- homosexual behavior leads to death.

Huffington Post reports on the lawsuit.

Ontario Court Upholds Law Society's Refusal To Accredit Christian Law School

In Trinity Western University v. Law Society of Upper Canada, (ON Super. Ct., July 2, 2015), a 3-judge panel of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice upheld the decision of the Law Society of Upper Canada to deny accreditation to the law school which Trinity Western University (TWU)-- an evangelical Christian school-- plans to open.  The Law Society's denial was based on TWU's Community Covenant that all students are required to sign, and in particular the Covenant's ban on "sexual intimacy that violates the sacredness of marriage between a man and a woman."

According to the court, the Law Society "was essentially asked to approve and accept students from an institution that engaged in discrimination against persons
who did not share the religious beliefs that were held by TWU, and the student body that it prefers to have at its institution." The court went on:

In exercising its mandate to advance the cause of justice, to maintain the rule of law, and to act in the public interest, the [Law Society] was entitled to balance the applicants’ rights to freedom of religion with the equality rights of its future members, who include members from two historically disadvantaged minorities (LGBTQ persons and women). It was entitled to consider the impact on those equality rights of accrediting TWU’s law school, and thereby appear to give recognition and approval to institutional discrimination against those same minorities. Condoning discrimination can be ever much as harmful as the act of discrimination itself.

Mondaq summarizes the decision.

California AG Need Not Process Unconstitutional Anti-Gay Ballot Proposal

In Harris v. McLaughlin, (CA Super. Ct., June 22, 2015), a California trial court judge entered a default judgment allowing California's attorney general to ignore the statutory requirement to prepare a circulating title and summary for a proposed anti-gay ballot measure that had been filed.  These steps are required before the proponent can attempt to obtain the required number of signatures. The measure, the so-called Sodomite Suppression Act, would have barred "sodomistic propaganda" and called for the killing of anyone who "willingly touches another person of the same gender for purposes of sexual gratification" (see prior posting). The court held that the proposal "is patently unconstitutional on its face" and that any action by the attorney general moving ahead with the proposal "would be inappropriate, waste public resources, generate unnecessary divisions among the public, and tend to mislead the electorate." Huntington Beach Independent reports on the decision.

Jordanian Media and Muslims Criticize U.S. Ambassador's Support of LGBT Event

AlMonitor reported yesterday on the strong criticism leveled by Jordan's Islamic Action Front and conservative Jordanian media of U.S. Ambassador Alice Wells' attendance at an event last month in central Amman to mark the International Day Against Homophobia, Transphobia and Biphobia. In a statement, the Islamic Action Front said in part:

such meetings are a form of corruption and deviation. These meetings threaten the security and stability of the country, spreading the taboo and immorality in this conservative society and are also contrary to the constitution.

New Manual Suggests Strategies For Churches To Fend Off LGBT Lawsuits

Baptist Press reported yesterday:

The Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission (ERLC) and Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) have published "Protecting Your Ministry," a legal manual for Southern Baptist churches, schools and ministries. The 44-page booklet is designed to equip SBC and other evangelical churches and institutions with legal protection against sexual orientation and gender identity lawsuits.

The manual includes checklists to guide Christian institutions on maximizing their religious liberty protections under the law and maintaining their freedom to proclaim the Gospel of Jesus. It also provides sample documents -- such as a membership agreement, facility use policy and article for a statement of faith -- to assist churches and other ministries.

The manual is available as an e-book free of charge from the ERLC website.

Kenyan Court Says LGBT Rights Group May Be Formed; Christian Churches Object

In Kenya, a 3-judge panel in the High Court at Nairobi in a lengthy opinion has held that the Non-Governmental Organisations Coordination Board must accept the registration of an organization that will seek to address the violence and human rights abuses suffered in the country by gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender persons.  In Gitari v. Coordination Board, (Kenya High Ct., April 24, 2015) the court held that the equal protection provisions of Article 27 of Kenya's Constitution, along with the freedom of association provisions of Article 36, guarantee petitioner the right to form his proposed organization, even though various homosexual acts are illegal in the country.

Among the parties the court had permitted to intervene in the case was the Kenya Christian Professionals Forum (KCPF) which argued that "the registration of the proposed NGO will advance a cause against public policy and it will also seek to legalise criminality, that is homosexuality..." According to a Religion News Service report yesterday, KCPF will appeal the court's decision. Archbishop  Eliud Wabukala, head of Kenya's 4.5 million Anglican Christians, said: "The judgment was made with very narrow considerations and it is not only against Christianity, but also against Muslims’ teachings and traditions."

Kentucky Court Says Businesss May Refuse To Print Gay Pride T-Shirts

In Hands On Originals, Inc. v. Lexington-Fayette Urban County Human Rights Commission, (KY Cir. Ct., April 27, 2015), a Kentucky state trial court, reversing an order of a county human rights commission, held that a small business that prints promotional items for customers did not violate the county's public accommodation ordinance when it refused to print Lexington Pride Festival t-shirts for the Gay and Lesbian Service Organization.  The business, Hands On Originals ("HOO"), had a policy, displayed on its website, that it would refuse any order that endorsed a position in conflict with the convictions of the business' Christian owners. The court concluded that the refusal was not because of the sexual orientation of the representatives that communicated with HOO, but rather because of the message the t-shirt would convey-- that one should be proud of sexual relationships other than between a married man and woman. The court held that it is the right of HOO and its owners "not to be compelled to be part of the advocacy of messages opposed to their sincerely held Christian beliefs."

The court also held that the Commission's order substantially burdens the free exercise rights of HOO and its owners, in violation of Kentucky's Religious Freedom Restoration Act. Christian News reports on the decision. According to the Lexington Herald-Leader, an appeal of the court's decision is likely.

White House Supports National Ban on LGBTQ Conversion Therapy

The White House has announced that the Administration supports a national ban on sexual orientation conversion therapy for minors.  In an Official White House Response to a petition on We the People website, senior advisor Valerie Jarrett wrote in part:

When assessing the validity of conversion therapy, or other practices that seek to change an individual’s gender identity or sexual orientation, it is as imperative to seek guidance from certified medical experts. The overwhelming scientific evidence demonstrates that conversion therapy, especially when it is practiced on young people, is neither medically nor ethically appropriate and can cause substantial harm.

As part of our dedication to protecting America’s youth, this Administration supports efforts to ban the use of conversion therapy for minors.

New York Times reporting on Jarrett's response also reported that an “all-gender restroom” has been created in the Eisenhower Executive Office Building to provide an additional option for transgender individuals working on the White House staff who are not comfortable using either the men’s or women’s restrooms.

Why Is Indiana's RFRA So Controversial? This Blogger's Analysis.

Since Indiana's passage of its Religious Freedom Restoration Act earlier this week (see prior posting), there has been a flood of commentary on what the Act really means and its true impact.  The commentary, some from those with a political agenda and some from those without one, ranges from the assertion that IRFRA does little to change current law to the assertion that it creates a license to discriminate against the LGBT community.  So here is my attempt to suggest some perspective on the statute.

(1)  The heart of the statute-- the substantial burden/ compelling interest/ least restrictive means requirement-- is similar to that in the federal RFRA and those of numerous other states.  What makes these tests stand out is the U.S. Supreme Court's recent decisions that give the tests new salience.  With Hobby Lobby and Holt v. Hobbs, the Supreme Court has transformed the substantial burden and least restrictive means tests into geometrically more powerful tools to use to challenge refusals to provide religious exemptions.

(2)  Traditionally it was assumed that the federal RFRA would be used by minority religions to fend off broad regulations that might be enacted without a careful weighing of idiosyncratic religious practices that are important to often discrete and insular groups with comparatively small numbers of adherents.  Since Hobby Lobby and the explosion of same-sex marriage cases, it is largely the Christian majority (or a segment of it) that asserts it is the victim of the majoritarian process, seeking exemptions that have a negative impact on minority groups that have broadly been the victims of past governmental discrimination.

(3)  Since Hobby Lobby. the power of RFRA exemptions has been magnified because they can be asserted by fairly large economic enterprises whose owners have religious reservations about a regulatory requirement.  Indiana's RFRA may have expanded the reach of RFRA exemptions beyond those contemplated by Hobby Lobby.  In defining the persons protected by the law, it enumerates all sorts of business entities, including "a corporation."  It does not limit this to a "closely-held corporation" as the Supreme Court did in Hobby Lobby.  It may be that a separate clause in the Indiana law has that effect, but that is unclear.  Under Sec. 7, a business entity is covered if it

exercises practices that are compelled or limited by a system of religious belief held by ... the individuals who have control and substantial ownership of the entity, regardless of whether the entity is organized and operated for profit or nonprofit purposes.

It can be argued that only a closely held corporation would be controlled and substantially owned by the same individuals.  But this depends on whether "substantial ownership" means a substantial percentage of the business or merely that the person has a substantial amount of money invested in the company.  CEO's of publicly held corporations often own millions of dollars of the company's stock, but still own only a small percentage of the company.

(4)  Enacted as the Supreme Court is about to hear oral arguments in same-sex marriage cases, and in the wake of numerous high-profile cases on religious refusals by businesses to furnish goods and services to same-sex couples, the law has become a symbol of the clash between conservative Christian views on sexuality and the movement of expanded LGBT rights.  Some have pointed out, accurately, that Indiana's statewide public accommodation law does not include a ban on sexual orientation discrimination.  So business that wish to discriminate on that basis do not need an exemption. [corrected]

However, Indiana's statute also applies to local governmental entities in the state.  According to the Indiana ACLU, four localities have ordinances that provide enforceable protections against discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity-- Indianapolis, Lafayette, New Albany and Tippecanoe County.  The new IRFRA will be able to be invoked as a defense in proceedings charging discrimination under these local laws.  This aspect of the law creates particular political and economic problems for the city of Indianapolis that hosts numerous national conventions and sporting events.

(5)  Indiana's new law makes it clear that IRFRA defenses can be asserted in lawsuits between private parties; not just in suits in which the government is a party.  Thus a same-sex couple suing for breach of contract when goods are initially promised and then refused might be met by a religious freedom defense. The sale of goods provisions of the Uniform Commercial Code arguably imposes a substantial burden on religious exercise of the business that discovers it has agreed to violate its own religious principles by facilitating a same-sex wedding.  (This argument is more difficult when services rather than goods are the subject of the contract, and the plaintiff relies on the common law of contracts for enforceability.  Although the statute covers not just statutes, but also "customs" and "usages" of any governmental entity.)

Affirmative relief (damages or an injunction) is only available however against a governmental entity.  And the statute specifically provides that it does not create a cause of action against a private employer by any applicant, employee or former employee.

For other commentaries on IRFRA, see Josh Blackman's Blog and the postings to which he links. And the Washington Post reports today that Indiana lawmakers now say they will act to amend IRFRA to make it clear that it does not permit discrimination against gays.

Utah Enacts LGBT Anti-Discrimination Law With Extensive Religious Exemptions

As reported by JDSupra, on March 12, Utah Governor Gary Herbert signed S.B. 296,  Antidiscrimination and Religious Freedom Amendments to Utah's laws banning disrimination in employment and housing.  The bill reflected a compromise backed by the Mormon Church, as well as by supporters of LGBT rights, to ban discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity while giving broad religious exemptions from the anti-discrimination requirements. (See prior posting.)  Here is the full text of the religious exemptions:

  34A-5-102. Definitions -- Unincorporated entities
(i)(ii) "Employer" does not include:
(A) a religious organization, a religious corporation sole, a religious association, a religious society, a religious educational institution, or a religious leader, when that individual is acting in the capacity of a religious leader;
(B) any corporation or association constituting an affiliate, a wholly owned
subsidiary, or an agency of any religious organization, religious corporation sole, religious association, or religious society; or
(C) the Boy Scouts of America or its councils, chapters, or subsidiaries...

   34A-5-111. Application to the freedom of expressive association and the free exercise of religion.
       This chapter may not be interpreted to infringe upon the freedom of expressive association or the free exercise of religion protected by the First Amendment of the United States Constitution and Article I, Sections 1, 4, and 15 of the Utah Constitution....

    34A-5-112. Religious liberty protections -- Expressing beliefs and commitments in workplace -- Prohibition on employment actions against certain employee speech.

(1) An employee may express the employee's religious or moral beliefs and commitments in the workplace in a reasonable, non-disruptive, and non-harassing way on equal terms with similar types of expression of beliefs or commitments allowed by the  employer in the workplace, unless the expression is in direct conflict with the essential business-related interests of the employer.

(2) An employer may not discharge, demote, terminate, or refuse to hire any person, or  retaliate against, harass, or discriminate in matters of compensation or in terms, privileges, and conditions of employment against any person otherwise qualified, for lawful expression or  expressive activity outside of the workplace regarding the person's religious, political, or personal convictions, including convictions about marriage, family, or sexuality, unless the expression or expressive activity is in direct conflict with the essential business-related interests of the employer....

  57-21-3. Exemptions -- Sale by private individuals -- Nonprofit organizations --Noncommercial transactions....

(2) This chapter does not apply to a dwelling or a temporary or permanent residence  facility if:
(a) the discrimination is by sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, or familial status for reasons of personal modesty or privacy, or in the furtherance of a religious institution's free exercise of religious rights under the First Amendment of the United States Constitution or the Utah Constitution; and
(b) the dwelling or the temporary or permanent residence facility is:
(i) operated by a nonprofit or charitable organization;
(ii) owned by, operated by, or under contract with a religious organization, a religious association, a religious educational institution, or a religious society;
(iii) owned by, operated by, or under contract with an affiliate of an entity described in Subsection (2)(b)(ii); or
(iv) owned by or operated by a person under contract with an entity described in
Subsection (2)(b)(ii).

... (4) (a) (i) Unless membership in a religion is restricted by race, color, sex, or national origin, this chapter does not prohibit an entity described in Subsection (4)(a)(ii) from:
(A) limiting the sale, rental, or occupancy of a dwelling or temporary or permanent residence facility the entity owns or operates for primarily noncommercial purposes to persons of the same religion; or
(B) giving preference to persons of the same religion when selling, renting, or selecting occupants for a dwelling, or a temporary or permanent residence facility, the entity owns or operates for primarily noncommercial purposes.

       (ii) The following entities are entitled to the exemptions described in Subsection (4)(a)(i):
(A) a religious organization, association, or society; or
(B) a nonprofit institution or organization operated, supervised, or controlled by or in conjunction with a religious organization, association, or society.

... (7) This chapter does not prohibit a nonprofit educational institution from:
(a) requiring its single students to live in a dwelling, or a temporary or permanent residence facility, that is owned by, operated by, or under contract with the nonprofit educational institution;
(b) segregating a dwelling, or a temporary or permanent residence facility, that is owned by, operated by, or under contract with the nonprofit educational institution on the basis of sex or familial status or both:
 (i) for reasons of personal modesty or privacy; or
 (ii) in the furtherance of a religious institution's free exercise of religious rights under the First Amendment of the United States Constitution or the Utah Constitution....

Arkansas Law Barring Cities From Expanding LGBT Protections Becomes Law Without Governor's Signature

AP reports that yesterday, Arkansas Governor Asa Hutchinson allowed SB 202 to become law without his signature. The legislation bars local governments from adopting or enforcing anti-discrimination laws that protect classes not covered by the state civil rights law.  The bill is aimed at preventing cities from expanding their anti-discrimination laws to cover discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.  The bill's sponsor, Sen. Bart Hester, said: "To think we could have different civil rights laws in every city is not realistic and not conducive to a good business environment."  The bill does not bar local governments from expanding non-discrimination policies applicable only to their own employees.

Kansas Governor Eliminates Anti-Discrimination Protection For LGBT State Employees

Yesterday Kansas Gov. Sam Brownback issued executive orders narrowing employment discrimination protections for state employees.  As reported by the Wichita Eagle and a press release from the governor's office, Brownback replaced former Gov. Kathleen Sebelius' employment practices order with a new one.  The new executive order eliminates the former ban on state employment discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity, while continuing to ban various other types of discrimination.  According to the Governor:

This Executive Order ensures that state employees enjoy the same civil rights as all Kansans without creating additional ‘protected classes’ as the previous order did, Any such expansion of ‘protected classes’ should be done by the legislature and not through unilateral action.

Nova Scotia Supreme Court Rules In Favor of Trinity Western Law School

In Trinity Western University v. Nova Scotia Barristers’ Society, (NS SC, Jan. 28, 2015), the Nova Scotia Supreme Court, in a 138-page opinion, held that the Nova Scotia Barristers' Society exceeded its authority when it refused to recognize law degrees of Trinity Western University Law School so long as the Christian school's policy continues to prohibit students from engaging in sexual relations outside of traditional heterosexual marriage. According to the Court, the Society has the authority to deal with the education and qualifications of those who practice law in the province. Its action here however dealt with a University policy that does not affect the quality of its graduates.

The Court went on to hold that even if the Society had authority to refuse to recognize TWU's law degrees, it did not exercise the authority in a way that reasonably respects religious liberty and freedom of conscience:

People have the right to attend a private religious university that imposes a religiously based code of conduct. That is the case even if the effect of that code is to exclude others or offend others who will not or cannot comply with the code of conduct. Learning in an environment with people who promise to comply with the code is a religious practice and an expression of religious faith. There is nothing illegal or even rogue about that. That is a messy and uncomfortable fact of life in a pluralistic society. Requiring a person to give up that right in order to get his or her professional education recognized is an infringement of religious freedom.

The Halifax Herald News reports on the decision.

Mormon Church Leaders Call For Legislation Protecting LGBT Rights and Religious Liberty

In a News Conference in Salt Lake City, Utah yesterday, leaders of the Mormon Church called for legislation protecting LGBT rights but also protecting religious freedom. (Full text of news conference.) (Summary of key points.) (Press release.)  Speaking at the news conference were Elders Dallin H. Oaks and Jeffrey R. Holland of the Church’s Quorum of the Twelve Apostles and Sister Neill F. Marriott of the Church’s Young Women general presidency. Introducing the news conference, Elder D. Todd Christofferson said:

To those who follow the Church closely and who are familiar with its teachings and positions on various social issues, it will be apparent that we are announcing no change in doctrine or Church teachings today. But we are suggesting a way forward in which those with different views on these complex issues can together seek for solutions that will be fair to everyone.

Oakes said in part:

Accusations of bigotry toward people simply because they are motivated by their religious faith and conscience have a chilling effect on freedom of speech and public debate. When religious people are publicly intimidated, retaliated against, forced from employment or made to suffer personal loss because they have raised their voice in the public square, donated to a cause or participated in an election, our democracy is the loser....

Today, state legislatures across the nation are being asked to strengthen laws related to LGBT issues in the interest of ensuring fair access to housing and employment. The leadership of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is on record as favoring such measures. At the same time, we urgently need laws that protect faith communities and individuals against discrimination and retaliation for claiming the core rights of free expression and religious practice that are at the heart of our identity as a nation and our legacy as citizens.

The Salt Lake Tribune has more on the press conference.

Fayetteville Anti-Discrimination Law Repeal Applauded By Group As Victory For Religious Values

According to KNWA News, voters in a special election in Fayetteville, Arkansas on Tuesday voted 52% to 48% to repeal an extensive anti-discrimination law (full text) enacted by city council last August. At least one major conservative Christian group applauded the repeal as a victory for religious liberty.  Liberty Counsel in a press release yesterday said:

... Fayetteville voters repealed a law ... that required churches, Christian schools, and other para-church ministries to hire homosexuals for "secular" jobs (such as school teachers), allowed men to use women’s restrooms and locker rooms, and required Christian business owners to service "same-sex weddings."....  Mat Staver, Founder and Chairman of Liberty Counsel, said "... This ordinance sought to criminalize Judeo-Christian values."

Challenge To Tennessee Limittions On LGBT Protections Dismissed On Standing and Mootness Grounds

In Howe v. Haslam, (TN App, Nov. 4, 2014) (Farmer, J opinion for court)  (Stafford, J concurring) (McBrayer, J concurring in part), the Tennessee Court of Appeals dismissed on a combination of mootness and standing grounds a challenge to Tennessee statutes that effectively prevent local governments from enacting civil rights protections to ban discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity.  At issue are provisions of state law that amend Tennessee's state anti-discrimination law to define "sex" to mean the designation of male or female on one’s birth certificate, and then generally prohibit local governments from imposing anti-discrimination standards that deviate from those in state law.

Opponents of Houston's Equal Rights Ordinance Sue After Referendum Petitions Rejected

In May, Houston, Texas City Council passed an Equal Rights Ordinance that attracted significant opposition because of its ban on discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity. (See prior posting.) Opponents have been circulating petitions to get a repeal referendum on the ballot. On Monday, the city ruled that there were insufficient valid signatures on the petitions.  As reported by the Houston Chronicle, strict city rules disqualify entire pages of signatures when those collecting them are not registered voters or did not themselves sign the petition.  On Tuesday, opponents of the ordinance filed suit in state court challenging the procedure used to disqualify signatures-- city attorneys eliminated numerous names after the City Secretary had initially determined that there were sufficient signatures. The lawsuit sought an immediate injunction against enforcement of the Equal Rights Ordinance. In response, the city has removed the lawsuit to federal court on the ground that one paragraph of the complaint raises a federal claim of interference with the right to petition the government for a redress of grievances. Houston Chronicle says that opponents of the Ordinance see this as a delaying tactic to prevent a state court injunction from being issued.

Editor Fired For Anti-Gay Blog Post Files EEOC Religious Discrimination Claim

Yesterday, a complaint (full text) was filed with the EEOC by Bob Eschliman, former editor of the Newton (IA) Daily News.  As reported by the Des Moines Register, Eschliman was suspended and then fired by his newspaper's publisher after complaints that a posting on Eschliman's personal blog cast doubt on his ability to fairly cover issues involving gays.  The posting criticized a website-- the Queen James Bible-- that advertises a version of the Bible that edits verses relating to homosexuality to eliminate homophobic interpretations.  Eschliman, a member of the Christian Reformed Church, in his post mockingly said that "the LGBTQXYZ crowd and the Gaystapo" are attempting "to make their sinful nature right with God." Eschliman's EEOC complaint says that his post reflected his sincerely held religious beliefs, and contends:

There is no question that I was fired for holding and talking about my sincerely held religious beliefs on my personal blog during my off-duty time.... I would like to have obtained a religious accommodation for my sincerely held religious belief to share my Biblical view with the few family members and friends who read my blog. Shaw Media directly discriminated against me because of my religious beliefs and my identity as an evangelical Christian who believes in Holy Scripture and the Biblical view of marriage. Moreover, Shaw Media announced that... they would not hire or allow anyone to work at Shaw Media who holds religious beliefs similar to mine....

Conservative Christian Groups Criticize New Executive Order

Some conservative Christian groups are speaking out against the Executive Order issued yesterday by President Obama (see prior posting) which bans employment discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity by federal contractors, as well as by executive agencies. The Family Research Council in a press release yesterday said in part:

President Obama has ordered employers to put aside their principles, and practices in the name of political correctness. This level of coercion is nothing less than viewpoint blackmail that bullies into silence every contractor and subcontractor who has moral objections to homosexual behavior. This order gives activists a license to challenge their employers and, expose those employers to threats of costly legal proceedings and the potential of jeopardizing future contracts.

Religious faith is not simply a matter of intellectual affirmation but of active practice. A religious organization which is denied the power to require its employees to conduct their lives in a way consistent with the teachings of their faith is an organization which is being denied the right to exercise its religion, period. People with deeply held convictions regarding the morality of certain types of sexual behavior should not be bound by the dictates of President Obama's agenda.

Daily Caller has more on the reactions of religious groups.

Obama Issues Executive Order Barring LGBT Discrimination By Contractors and Agencies; No Religious Exemption Included

President Obama today issued an Executive Order (full text) adding "sexual orientation" and "gender identity" to the anti-discrimination provisions applicable to employment decisions by federal contractors.  The Order also added "gender identity" to the anti-discrimination provisions applicable executive departments and executive agencies, which are already barred from discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation. Despite urgings by some faith groups (see prior posting) today's Executive Order contains no religious or conscience exemption.