James Dunn, Religious Liberty Advocate, Dies At 83

The Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty announced that religious liberty advocate James M. Dunn, who led the organization for nearly 20 years, died on July 4 at age 83.  Religion News Service describes Dunn as "a religious liberty advocate who worked the corridors of Washington power for two decades to defend the separation of church and state."

Suit Challenges Library's Rules For Use of Conference Rooms

Yesterday, Liberty Counsel announced that it has filed a federal lawsuit challenging the Conference Room Policy of the Wake County, North Carolina Public Library.  The Policy permits non-profit groups to use the library's conference rooms for cultural, civic and informal educational purposes, but not for religious instruction, religious services or religious ceremonies.  The complaint (full text) in Liberty Counsel, Inc. v. County of Wake, North Carolina, (ED NC, filed 4/24/2015) contends that the policy discriminates on the basis of content and viewpoint of speech.  It alleges that the policy violates free speech, free exercise and Establishment Clause protections of the federal and state constitutions.

Oklahoma Legislature Passes 2 Bills Protecting Clergy, Judges and Churches That Object To Same-Sex Marriage

The Oklahoma legislature this week gave final passage to HB 1007 (full text) protecting clergy and religious organizations that object to same-sex marriage.  The bill provides that clergy shall not be required to solemnize marriages that violate their conscience or religious beliefs.  Religious organizations shall not be required to provide religious-based services designed for engaged or married couples or couples where the services are directly related to solemnizing, celebrating, strengthening or promoting a marriage, such as religious counseling programs, courses, retreats and workshops, if doing so would violate the conscience or religious beliefs of an official of the organization.  Clergy and officials of religious organizations are immunized from civil liability for refusing to solemnize or furnish services for such marriages.

The legislature also gave final passage to SB 788 (full text) that (unless otherwise prohibited by law) protects judges who are authorized to perform marriages, as well as clergy, from being required to "perform or solemnize any marriage in violation of his or her right to the free exercise of religion guaranteed by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution." It also provides that no church or church-controlled organization shall be required to participate in a ceremony performing or solemnizing a marriage in violation of the church's or organization's religious beliefs.

Jindal Tells NRA That After Religious Liberty Challenges Comes Challenge To 2nd Amendment Rights

Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal, a potential Republican candidate for President, is staking out a strong conservative religious liberty position. The Tennessean reports that Jindal, speaking to the National Rifle Association convention in Nashville on Friday, stressed religious liberty concerns for his audience in this way:

Now, I know you did not come here today expecting to hear a speech on religious liberty.  But my friends, if these large forces can conspire to crush the First Amendment, it won't be long before they come after the Second Amendment. Michael Bloomberg is already trying. He's pressuring grocery stores and restaurants to ban guns. Next, he will bully sporting goods stores to quit selling guns and ammo. Bloomberg can not beat Chris Cox and Wayne LaPierre in the elections — so he's trying to beat us in the boardrooms of corporate America.

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....

Law Student Religious Liberty Writing Contest Announced

The D.C. Mid-Atlantic Chapter of the J. Reuben Clark Law Society has announced its 6th Annual "Founding Fathers Religious Liberty Writing Contest."  The contest is open to law students and recent law graduates who are in clerkship and similar positions. Deadline for submissions is Aug. 1

Study Released On Religious Restrictions and Hostilities

The Pew Research Center on Thursday issued its annual report for 2013 on the extent to which governments around the world restrict religious minorities and the extent to which non-governmental actors engage in social hostillity toward religion.  The report titled Latest Trends in Religious Restrictions and Hostilities finds that:

the share of countries with high or very high levels of social hostilities involving religion dropped from 33% in 2012 to 27% in 2013, the most recent year for which data are available. These types of hostilities run the gamut from vandalism of religious property and desecration of sacred texts to violent assaults resulting in deaths and injuries.

By contrast, the share of countries with high or very high government restrictions on religion stayed roughly the same from 2012 to 2013. The share of countries in this category was 27% in 2013, compared with 29% in 2012. Government restrictions on religion ... [range] from registration requirements to discriminatory policies and outright bans on certain faiths....

As in previous years, Christians and Muslims – who together make up more than half of the global population – faced harassment in the largest number of countries. Christians were harassed, either by government or social groups, in 102 of the 198 countries included in the study (52%), while Muslims were harassed in 99 countries (50%).

In recent years, there has been a marked increase in the number of countries where Jews were harassed. In 2013, harassment of Jews, either by government or social groups, was found in 77 countries (39%)– a seven-year high. Jews are much more likely to be harassed by individuals or groups in society than by governments.

(See prior related posting.)

Teacher Forced Out For Facebook Posting On Religious Objections To School Billboard Can Sue

Knox v. Union Township Board of Education, (D NJ, Feb. 23, 2015), is a suit by a former tenured special education teacher at a public high school in New Jersey who was suspended after a posting comments on her personal Facebook page expressing her religious disapproval of a school billboard that promoted alternative homosexual lifestyles.  When the school board brought charges seeking to strip her of tenure, the teacher entered a settlement agreement under which she resigned and paid back the salary that she had received during her suspension.  However she reserved her right to sue for statutory and constitutional violations. In this opinion, the court permitted her to proceed with her state and federal constitutional claims of religious discrimination, infringement of free exercise and free speech rights, establishment clause violations and denial of due process. Her claims of racial discrimination and intentional infliction of emotional distress were dismissed.

Court Dismisses Religious and Speech Objections To Requirement That Witness Stand To Be Sworn In

In Pellegrino v. Meredith, (ED CA, Feb. 23, 2015), a California federal magistrate judge dismissed, with leave to amend, a suit for damages against a traffic court judge and the county by Anthony Pellegrino who, as defendant in a traffic case, was told that he must stand while being sworn in as a witness.  Pelligrino refused, telling the court: "I only rise before my Lord and Savior Jesus Christ."  At that point the bailiff escorted Pellegrino outside the courtroom for an hour. When Pellegrino returned he was escorted to the bench area and sworn in before he had a chance to sit down.

The court rejected Pellegrino's free exercise claim, saying that at most he suffered an "insubstantial inconvenience" for refusing to stand.  The court also rejected Pellegrino's claim that his refusal to stand was protected expressive conduct.

The opinion recounts numerous incidents in which Pellegrino harassed government officials, raising frivolous arguments, asking government officials to show him their oath of office, refusing to pay filing fees, and the like.  In dismissing Pellegrino's claims, the court said:

Given the context of the situation, it is clear from this Court’s reading of the complaint that Defendant Meredith viewed Plaintiff’s refusal to stand while taking the oath as another incident in a long line of immature, disrespectful and frivolous protests by Plaintiff throughout his court proceedings.

Report Finds Increased Hostility To Religion In America

Earlier this month, Liberty Institute released the 2014 Edition of its publication Undeniable: The Survey of Hostility to Religion in America. It concludes that there has been a 133% increase in religious hostility attacks in the U.S.in the past three years.  The 393-page report surveys legal challenges in four areas: attacks on religious liberty in the public arena; attacks on religious liberty in the schoolhouse; attacks on religious liberty of churches and ministries; and attacks on religious liberty in the military.

Obama Promotes Religious Tolerance In Address To Indian People

On Tuesday, President Obama on his trip to India delivered a 34-minute address to the people of India (full text). His remarks included a lengthy plea for religious tolerance:

Our nations are strongest when we see that we are all God’s children -- all equal in His eyes and worthy of His love.  Across our two great countries we have Hindus and Muslims, Christians and Sikhs, and Jews and Buddhists and Jains and so many faiths.  And we remember the wisdom of Gandhiji, who said, “for me, the different religions are beautiful flowers from the same garden, or they are branches of the same majestic tree.”  (Applause.)    Branches of the same majestic tree.

 Our freedom of religion is written into our founding documents.  It’s part of America’s very first amendment.  Your Article 25 says that all people are “equally entitled to freedom of conscience and the right freely to profess, practice and propagate religion.”  In both our countries -- in all countries -- upholding this fundamental freedom is the responsibility of government, but it's also the responsibility of every person.

 In our lives, Michelle and I have been strengthened by our Christian faith.  But there have been times where my faith has been questioned -- by people who don’t know me -- or they’ve said that I adhere to a different religion, as if that were somehow a bad thing.  Around the world, we’ve seen intolerance and violence and terror perpetrated by those who profess to be standing up for their faith, but, in fact, are betraying it.  No society is immune from the darkest impulses of man.  And too often religion has been used to tap into those darker impulses as opposed to the light of God.  Three years ago in our state of Wisconsin, back in the United States, a man went to a Sikh temple and, in a terrible act of violence, killed six innocent people -- Americans and Indians.  And in that moment of shared grief, our two countries reaffirmed a basic truth, as we must again today -- that every person has the right to practice their faith how they choose, or to practice no faith at all, and to do so free of persecution and fear and discrimination.  (Applause.) 

 The peace we seek in the world begins in human hearts.  And it finds its glorious expression when we look beyond any differences in religion or tribe, and rejoice in the beauty of every soul.  And nowhere is that more important than India.  Nowhere is it going to be more necessary for that foundational value to be upheld.  India will succeed so long as it is not splintered along the lines of religious faith -- so long as it's not splintered along any lines -- and is unified as one nation.

And it’s when all Indians, whatever your faith, go to the movies and applaud actors like Shah Rukh Khan.  And when you celebrate athletes like Milkha Singh or Mary Kom.  And every Indian can take pride in the courage of a humanitarian who liberates boys and girls from forced labor and exploitation -- who is here today -- Kailash Satyarthi.  (Applause.)  Our most recent winner of the Nobel Prize for Peace.  (Applause.)

 So that's what unifies us:  Do we act with compassion and empathy.  Are we measured by our efforts -- by what Dr. King called “the content of our character” rather than the color of our skin or the manner in which we worship our God.  In both our countries, in India and in America, our diversity is our strength.  And we have to guard against any efforts to divide ourselves along sectarian lines or any other lines.  And if we do that well, if America shows itself as an example of its diversity and yet the capacity to live together and work together in common effort, in common purpose; if India, as massive as it is, with so much diversity, so many differences is able to continually affirm its democracy, that is an example for every other country on Earth.  That's what makes us world leaders -- not just the size of our economy or the number of weapons we have, but our ability to show the way in how we work together, and how much respect we show each other.

DNA India reported on the President's address.

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.

Today Is Religious Freedom Day

Today is Religious Freedom Day, the anniversary of the passage of the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom in 1786.  Each year the President issues a Proclamation marking the day, and presumably this year's Proclamation will appear sometime today on the White House website. Americans United has urged that greater attention be given to the day. UPDATE: Here is the full text of this year's Presidential Proclamation-- Religious Freedom Day 2015.

Meanwhile, according to CNS News, the Orange County, Florida public schools announced that they are suspending, at least temporarily, the traditional passive distribution of Bibles from World Changers of Florida on Religious Freedom Day.  The decision came after last year the Freedom For Religion Foundation won the right to distribute its own atheist litereature, including a pamphlet titled "Sex and Obscenity in the Bible," and this year the Satanic Temple indicated it would distribute material as well. The school district says that it is reworking its policy on outside distribution of materials to students.

British Tax Tribunal: Company Can Assert Religious Rights As Alter Ego of Owner

In Exmoor Coast Boat Cruises Ltd. v. Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs, (UK FTT, Dec. 17, 2014), the United Kingdom First-Tier Tribunal Tax Chamber held that a business entity can assert religious liberty rights where it is the alter ego of a natural person (or possibly a group of persons) whose rights are being infringed.  At issue was whether Exmoor Coast, a company, solely owned by Matthew Oxenham, could claim an exemption from mandatory electronic filing of Value Added Tax returns. VAT regulations permit paper filing by any "practising member of a religious society or order whose beliefs are incompatible with the use of electronic communications...."

The court concluded that while the alter ego test was met, it was not shown that the electronic filing requirement interferes with Oxenham's manifestation of his religion or belief. His objections relate to the amount of CO2 created by the Internet and its impact on climate change.  However Oxenham was willing to use the Internet for some purposes.  The court concluded:

... it was [Oxenham's] belief that the internet should not be used save where he judged it economically necessary to do so.... [T]hat belief does not attain a level of cogency, seriousness, cohesion and importance such that it should be protected. This is because his belief ... is not so strongly held that he will make economic sacrifices for it; further, [Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights] cannot have been intended to protect a belief system which allows the practitioner to pick and chose when it suits him to adhere to his principles as that would amount to allowing people to pick and choose when they can be compelled to obey the law.

Law & Religion UK has more on the case.

Suit By Pastor To Sex Offenders Challenges Law Restricting His Ministry

In Montgomery, Alabama yesterday, Ricky Martin, pastor of the Triumph Church in Clanton, Alabam filed a lawsuit challenging a recently enacted state law aimed at shutting down his ministry to sex offenders. The complaint (full text) in Martin v. Houston, (MD AL, filed 8/27/2014) contends that Al. Code Sec. 45-11-82 violates RLUIPA, the Alabama Religious Freedom Amendments, and the free exercise, bill of attainder and due process clauses of the federal Constitution. The law, which is applicable only in Chilton County, prohibits registered adult sex offenders who are not related from living in the same residence or within 300 feet of another registered sex offender. Martin, as part of his ministry, allows sex offenders to live in trailers behind his church while they are locating more permanent housing. AL.com reports on the case.

Canada's Citizenship Oath To The Queen Does Not Violate Charter Rights

In McAteer v. Canada (Attorney General), (Ont. Ct. App., August 13, 2014), the Court of Appeal for Ontario rejected constitutional challenges to the requirement that immigrants who wish to become Canadian citizens must swear or affirm that "I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second, Queen of Canada, Her Heirs and Successors." Two of the challengers were committed republicans whose consciences were offended by taking an oath to a hereditary monarch. They alleged that the oath violates their freedom of expression and their equality rights protected by Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Two other plaintiffs asserted that the oath violates their freedom of conscience and religion protected by the Charter:

The appellant Ms. Simone Topey is a Rastafarian who regards the Queen as the head of Babylon. She deposes that it would violate her religious beliefs to take any kind of oath to the Queen. She further deposes that on account of the oath, she would feel bound to refrain from participating in anti-monarchist movements. The evidence of Mr. Howard Gomberg, a former plaintiff in these proceedings, is that taking an oath to any human being is contrary to his conception of Judaism.

In rejecting the Charter challenges, the appeals court said:

Although the Queen is a person, in swearing allegiance to the Queen of Canada, the would-be citizen is swearing allegiance to a symbol of our form of government in Canada. This fact is reinforced by the oath’s reference to “the Queen of Canada,” instead of “the Queen.” It is not an oath to a foreign sovereign. Similarly, in today’s context, the reference in the oath to the Queen of Canada’s “heirs and successors” is a reference to the continuity of our form of government extending into the future.

The Globe and Mail reports on the decision.

LA Times Profiles Becket Fund

The Los Angeles Times yesterday profiled The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, saying in part:

The Supreme Court's controversial Hobby Lobby decision has thrust a once-little-known boutique law firm into the center of a growing conservative movement to make faith-based exemptions as potent a legal tool as free speech has been for liberals....

With just a dozen full-time attorneys, the fund's string of high-court successes is earning it a reputation in legal circles as a powerhouse, though its leaders downplay talk about the firm's growing influence....

The fund insists it represents all denominations, from "A to Z, from Anglicans to Zoroastrians." It once defended a Texas Santeria priest who wanted to sacrifice goats at home. This fall the firm heads back to the Supreme Court to represent a Muslim inmate prevented by prison rules from growing a beard in keeping with his faith....

But critics say in recent years Becket has turned its focus primarily toward representing Christians and the religious right.

Court In India Says Enforcing Wildlife Protection Against Cobra Worship Is Constitutional

According to Pune Mirror, in India yesterday a 2-judge panel of the Bombay High Court rejected claims by residents of a village in Sangli that their constitutional right to freely practice their religion is being violated by enforcing the Wildlife Protection Act, 1972 against them.  The villagers are known for observing Nag Panchami by capturing wild King Cobras in the forest, worshiping them and then releasing them back into the wild.  A public interest lawsuit filed last year has been attempting to stop the practice. A 2-judge bench of the Bombay High Court rejected villagers free exercise assertions, saying:

The capture and worship of live snakes for worship is not an essential part of the Hindu religion. Capturing live snakes and later releasing them back into the wild could cause them harm, which is against the law. Under the Constitution, citizens are duty-bound to protect these creatures.

Jury Service Does Not Violate Free Exercise Rights

In Bey v. City of Philadelphia, (ED PA, June 17, 2014), plaintiff sued unsuccessfully for $2 million in damages after the city's Jury Selection Commission denied him an exemption from jury duty which he sought because of his religious beliefs and political views. The court concluded that his free exercise claim is legally frivolous because the state's jury service laws are neutral and generally applicable, and are clearly related to the legitimate objective of maintaining a jury system.

House Subcommittee Holds Hearing On Religious Liberty In U.S.

Yesterday the U.S. House Judiciary Committee, Subcommittee on the Constitution and Civil Justice held a hearing on The State of Religious Liberty In the United States.  Witnesses from Liberty Counsel, Christian Legal Society, Americans United for Separation of Church and State, and Alliance Defending Freedom testified.  The full text of each witness' prepared remarks is available online, as is a video of the full hearing.

UPDATE: Christian News (June 11) carries an account of an exchange during the hearing between Texas Rep. Louie Gohmert and Americans United leader Rev. Barry Lynn questioning Lynn's Christian beliefs.