Suit Challenges Oregon Requirement That Adoptive Parents Support Child's Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity

Suit was filed this week in an Oregon federal district court challenging a rule of the state's Department of Human Services that persons seeking to adopt children must agree to accept and support the sexual orientation and gender identity of any child placed with them. The complaint (full text) in Bates v. Pakseresht, (D OR, filed 4/3/2023), contends that the rule violates the free expression, free exercise and equal protection rights of plaintiff whose Christian religious beliefs do not permit her to comply with this requirement.  The complaint reads in part:

Under this rule, caregivers must agree to use a child’s preferred pronouns, take a child to affirming events like Pride parades, or sign the child up for dangerous pharmaceutical interventions like puberty blockers and hormone shots—no matter a child’s age, no matter whether a child actually desires these things, and no matter how deeply these requirements violate the caregiver’s religious convictions.

This puts Jessica in a bind. Like countless people of faith, Jessica believes that our biological sex carries spiritual significance for who we are and how we should act. Jessica cannot affirm that a male is or should try to be female or vice  versa....

... Because she will not agree to use a hypothetical child’s preferred pronouns or facilitate a hypothetical gender transition, she cannot even adopt a newborn who has no concept of, much less a desire for, these things.

ADF issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit.

White House Recognizes Transgender Day of Visibility

Today the White House posted a Statement from President Joe Biden on Transgender Day of Visibility (full text) which says in part:

I want every member of the trans community to know that we see you. You’re each made in the image of God, and deserve love, dignity, and respect. You make America stronger, and we’re with you.

The White House also issued a Fact Sheet:  White House Honors Transgender Day of Visibility (full text), setting out a long list of initiatives of the Biden-Harris Administration supporting transgender individuals.

Church Preschool Challenges California's Anti-Discrimination Rules for Food Program Participants

Suit was filed earlier this month in a California federal district court by a Christian church and its preschool challenging the state's agreement form that was required for participants in the state's Child and Adult Food Care Program. The complaint (full text) in Church of Compassion v. Bonta, (SD CA, filed 3/10/2023), alleges in part:

The new 2022 CDSS PSA required the Church and Dayspring to certify that their management of the CACFP Food Program will be “operated in compliance with all applicable civil rights laws and will implement all applicable non-discrimination regulations....

Because of the Church’s orthodox religious beliefs regarding human sexuality, it was unable to comply with the PSA when it submitted its application for the 2022-2023 year. Specifically, Dayspring signed the PSA statement, but deleted the words “sexual orientation” and “gender identity.”

The complaint alleges that the requirement violates plaintiffs' Free Exercise, Free Speech and Establishment Clause rights. National Center for Law & Policy issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit.

Kentucky Legislature Overrides Veto of Transgender Bill Restricting Schools and Doctors

As reported by AP, the Kentucky legislature yesterday voted to override Kentucky Governor Andy Beshear's veto of Senate Bill 150 (full text). The elaborate bill requires schools to notify parents of all school health and mental health services related to human sexuality, contraception or family planning and of parents' right to withhold consent for such services.

The bill prohibits policies that keep student information confidential from parents and policies that require use of pronouns that do not conform to a student's biological sex. However, information may be kept from parents if disclosure is likely to result in the child becoming abused or neglected.

Under the bill, no instruction on sexuality may be offered to children below grade 6, and no course at any grade level may discuss gender identity, gender expression or sexual orientation. Parental consent is required for students to take sex education courses. However, this does not bar discussing sexuality of historic persons or answering relevant student questions about human sexuality. 

The bill bars schools from allowing students to use restrooms or locker rooms reserved for students of the opposite biological sex. However other accommodations should be made for transgender students. 

Also, health care providers are prohibited from furnishing puberty blockers or providing other gender transition procedures to minors.

Governor Beshear's March 24 veto message said in part:

Senate Bill 150 allows too much government interference in healthcare issues and rips away the freedom of parents to make medical decision for their children. Senate Bill 150 further strips freedom from parents to make personal family decisions on the names their children are called and how people should refer to them....

I am also vetoing Senate Bill 150 because my faith teaches me that all children are children of God and Senate Bill 150 will endanger the children of Kentucky....

Lex18 reports on the bill.

Michigan Legislature Adds LGBTQ Protections to State Civil Rights Act

The Michigan legislature today gave final approval to Senate Bill 4 (full text) which adds "sexual orientation" and "gender identity or expression" to the anti-discrimination provisions of the Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act. The bill now goes to Governor Gretchen Whitmer for her signature. Detroit News reports that she has promised to sign the bill into law. During its consideration of the bill, the Michigan Senate rejected a number of proposed religious liberty amendments. The Michigan Supreme Court previously held that existing language of the Act bars sexual orientation discrimination. The state Court of Claims has held that it also bars discrimination on the basis of gender identity. (See prior posting.) Senate Bill 4 now makes these holdings explicit.

Suit Challenges California's Protection of Out-of-State Minors Seeking Gender-Affirming Health Care

Suit was filed yesterday in a California federal district court challenging the constitutionality of California Senate Bill 107 which protects out-of-staters obtaining gender transition services for a minor in California from the reach of laws in their home states that create civil or criminal liability for allowing a minor to receive such services. The complaint (full text) in Our Watch With Tim Thompson v. Bonta, (CD CA, filed 3/7/2023), claims that:

SB 107 will allow California doctors, via telehealth appointments, to prescribe cross-sex hormones to children in South Dakota or Utah, where gender-reassignment treatment is banned. 

... SB 107 also denies parents the right to access their child’s medical information. Section 1 of the bill mandates that doctors conceal a child's medical information from parents if it is related to "gender identity" drugs and procedures. S.B. 107 § 1. 

SB 107 amended California law to directly conflict with federal law by taking away other states’ rightful jurisdiction of children visiting California who seek – or claims to be seeking – puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones, irreversible gender reassignment surgery, etc. Section 4 of SB 107 updates the California Family Code to read: “[t]he presence of a child in this state for the purpose of obtaining gender-affirming health care or gender-affirming mental health care…is sufficient to meet the requirements” for California courts to exercise jurisdiction over a custody decision. S.B. 107 § 4. This ignores the proper and rightful jurisdiction of the child’s home state....

The suit alleges that the law violates constitutional rights of familial association as well as Article IV's full faith and credit clause. Advocates for Faith & Freedom issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit.

Mississippi Governor Signs Ban on Gender Transition Procedures for Minors

Yesterday Mississippi Governor Tate Reeves signed into law House Bill 1125, the Regulate Experimental Adolescent Procedures Act (full text). The new law bans providing gender transition procedures (including puberty blockers, hormonal treatments and surgery) for persons under the age of 18.  It also prohibits use of public funds and Medicaid coverage for such procedures and prohibits state income tax deductions for expenses of the procedures.  In a press release announcing his signing of the bill, Governor Reeves said in part:

At the end of the day, there are two positions here. One tells children that they’re beautiful the way they are. That they can find happiness in their own bodies. The other tells them that they should take drugs and cut themselves up with expensive surgeries in order to find freedom from depression. I know which side I’m on.

Cert. Petition Filed in Suit by Christian College Over Gender Identity Discrimination Under Fair Housing Act

 A petition for certiorari (full text) was filed yesterday asking the U.S. Supreme Court to grant review in The School of the Ozarks v. Biden. In the case, the U.S. 8th Circuit Court of Appeals held that a Christian college lacks standing to challenge a memorandum issued by an acting assistant secretary of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. The memorandum directs the HUD office that enforces the Fair Housing Act to investigate all discrimination complaints, including discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity. The school maintains single-sex residence halls and does not permit transgender individuals to live in residence halls that do not match their biological sex. (See prior posting.) ADF issued a press release announcing the filing of the petition.

Catholic Bookstore Sues Challenging Florida City's Public Accommodation Law

Suit was filed yesterday in a Florida federal district court challenging the constitutionality of applying Jacksonville's public accommodation law to Queen of Angels, a Catholic bookstore. The complaint (full text) in The Catholic Store, Inc. v. City of Jacksonville, (MD FL, filed 2/22/2023) alleges Free Speech, Free Exercise and vagueness claims, saying in part:

Following a disturbing nationwide trend, the City has expanded its public-accommodation law to cover gender-identity discrimination and thereby require businesses to address customers using their preferred pronouns and titles regardless of a customer's biological sex. The law even prevents businesses from publishing "any communication" a customer or government official might subjectively interpret as making someone feel "unwelcome, objectionable, or unacceptable," such as statements opposing gender-identity ideology.

All this in turn puts Jacksonville's law on a collision course with the First Amendment and ... "Queen of Angels"...,.The bookstore also publishes a website (with blog) any YouTube channel to promote its Catholic faith and products.

As a Catholic bookstore, Queen of Angels follows Catholic teachings-- including the belief that God created everyone in His image, male or female, worthy of dignity and respect. The store serves and sells everything to everyone regardless of gender identity. The bookstore just cannot speak contrary to its beliefs-- to affirm, for example, the view that sex can be changed. So the store cannot use customers' pronouns or titles contrary to their biological sex. Queen of Angels must instead profess an ideological view it opposes....  In effect, the law requires this Catholic bookstore to stop being fully Catholic....

ADF issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit.

South Dakota Passes Law Banning All Gender-Affirming Treatments For Minors

The South Dakota legislature last week gave final passage to House Bill 1080 (full text) which prohibits healthcare professionals from providing either drug, hormonal or surgical treatments to minors for the purpose of altering the appearance of the minor's sex or validating a minor's perception of their sex that is inconsistent with the biological indication of their gender. The bill specifically includes a ban on administering drugs that delay puberty for minors. Minors currently receiving drug or hormonal treatments for gender dysphoria must be weaned off their medication by Dec. 31, 2023.  According to CNN, Gov. Noem will sign the bill into law.

Australia Proposes New Antidiscrimination Requirements For Religious Educational Institutions

On January 27, the Australian Law Reform Commission released a 54-page Consultation Paper on Religious Educational Institutions and Anti-Discrimination Laws (full text). The Commission summarized the Paper in a press release:

The Australian Law Reform Commission seeks stakeholder submissions on proposals to change the way Commonwealth anti-discrimination law applies to religious schools and other educational institutions.

The Consultation Paper sets out four general propositions supported by 14 technical proposals for reform. If adopted, these would:

make discrimination against students on the grounds of sexual orientation, gender identity, marital or relationship status, or pregnancy in schools and other religious educational institutions unlawful, by removing exceptions currently available under federal law,

protect teachers and other school staff from discrimination on the grounds of sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, marital or relationship status, or pregnancy, by removing similar exceptions, and

allow religious schools to maintain their religious character by permitting them to:

give preference to prospective staff on religious grounds where the teaching, observance, or practice of religion is a part of their role (and it is not discriminatory on other grounds); and

require all staff to respect the educational institution’s religious ethos.

Law and Religion Australia has more extensive reporting on the proposal.

Baker Cannot Refuse to Provide Non-expressive Cake to Transgender Customer

In Scardina v. Masterpiece Cakeshop, Inc., (CO Ct. App., Jan. 26, 2023), a Colorado state appellate court held that Masterpiece Cakeshop and its co-owner Jack Phillips violated the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act when they refused a transgender woman's order for a pink cake with blue frosting.  The woman sought the cake to celebrate her birthday and her gender transition. The court said in part:

[A] proprietor may not refuse to sell a nonexpressive product to a protected person based on that person’s intent to use the product as part of a celebration that the producer considers offensive....

We conclude that creating a pink cake with blue frosting is not inherently expressive and any message or symbolism it provides to an observer would not be attributed to the baker. Thus, CADA does not compel Masterpiece and Phillips to speak through the creation and sale of such a cake to Scardina....

Masterpiece and Phillips argue, requiring them to make a cake that they know will be used to celebrate an occasion that their faith informs them is an affront to God’s design violates their right to freely exercise their religion.

In the context of providing public accommodations, however, a proprietor’s actions based on their religious beliefs must be considered in light of a customer’s right to be free from discrimination based on their protected status. The Supreme Court has long held that the Free Exercise Clause does not relieve a person from the obligation to comply with a neutral law of general applicability.... CADA is a neutral law of general applicability.... 

The Supreme Court has consistently held that the state has a legitimate, indeed compelling, interest in eliminating discrimination from public accommodations.,,, Thus, CADA is rationally related to a legitimate governmental interest. Accordingly, CADA may be enforced against Masterpiece and Phillips without violating their right to the free exercise of religion.

In a press release, ADF said that it would appeal the decision.

Catholic Hospital's Denial of Gender Dysphoria Procedure Is Illegal Sex Discrimination

In Hammons v. University of Maryland Medical System Corp., (D MD, Jan. 6, 2023), a Maryland federal district court held that a hospital's refusal to allow plaintiff to have a hysterectomy performed at the hospital to treat gender dysphoria was sex discrimination in violation of the Affordable Care Act's discrimination ban. The hospital was originally a Catholic hospital, and when the University of Maryland System acquired it, the purchase agreement required it to continue to abide by the Ethical and Religious Directives for Catholic Health Services promulgated by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops. In finding discrimination, the court said in part:

It may be true that St. Joseph prohibits medical personnel from performing hysterectomies on all individuals, regardless of sex, who do not have a medical need for that surgery—i.e., individuals who seek a hysterectomy solely for the purpose of elective sterilization. However, Mr. Hammons did have a medical need for his requested hysterectomy; he was not seeking a hysterectomy for the purpose of elective sterilization.

The court also concluded that since defendant is a wholly owned subsidiary of a state actor, a RFRA defense is not available to it. It added that even if defendant is considered a private actor, a RFRA defense is not available because RFRA only applies to burdens on free exercise imposed by the government. Daily Citizen reports on the decision.

11th Circuit En Banc Upholds School Policy Assigning Restrooms on Basis of Biological Sex

In Adams v. School Board of St. Johns County, Florida, (11th Cir., Dec. 30, 2022), the U.S. 11th Circuit Court of Appeals sitting en banc in a 7-4 decision held that separating use of male and female bathrooms in public schools based on students' biological sex does not violate either the Equal Protection Clause or Title IX. The six opinions filed in the case span 150 pages.  A 3-judge panel in a 2-1 decision had previously ruled to the contrary. The majority opinion on en banc review said in part:

The School Board’s bathroom policy is clearly related to—indeed, is almost a mirror of—its objective of protecting the privacy interests of students to use the bathroom away from the opposite sex and to shield their bodies from the opposite sex in the bathroom, which, like a locker room or shower facility, is one of the spaces in a school where such bodily exposure is most likely to occur. Therefore, the School Board’s bathroom policy satisfies intermediate scrutiny.

The district court avoided this conclusion only by misconstruing the privacy interests at issue and the bathroom policy employed.... [T]he bathroom policy does not unlawfully discriminate on the basis of biological sex....

The policy impacts approximately 0.04 percent of the students within the School District—i.e., sixteen transgender students out of 40,000 total students—in a manner unforeseen when the bathroom policy was implemented. And to accommodate that small percentage, while at the same time taking into account the privacy interests of the other students in the School District, the School Board authorized the use of sex-neutral bathrooms as part of its Best Practices Guidelines for LGBTQ issues....

Contrary to the dissent’s claim, the School Board, through the Best Practices Guidelines, did not discriminatorily “single[] out transgender students.” ... The School Board sought to accommodate transgender students by providing them with an alternative—i.e., sex-neutral bathrooms—and not requiring them to use the bathrooms that match their biological sex— i.e., the bathroom policy Adams challenges.... Ultimately, there is no evidence of purposeful discrimination against transgender students by the School Board, and any disparate impact that the bathroom policy has on those students does not violate the Constitution.

Judge Lagoa filed an opinion Specially Concurring, saying in part:

 I write separately to discuss the effect that a departure from a biological understanding of “sex” under Title IX—i.e., equating “sex” to “gender identity” or “transgender status”—would have on girls’ and women’s rights and sports.

Judge Wilson dissented, saying in part:

Underlying this sex-assigned-at-matriculation bathroom policy ... is the presumption that biological sex is accurately determinable at birth and that it is a static or permanent biological determination. In other words, the policy presumes it does not need to accept amended documentation because a student’s sex does not change. This presumption is both medically and scientifically flawed....

The case of intersex students therefore proves that a privacy concern rooted in a thin conception of biological sex is untenable.

Judge Jordan filed a dissenting opinion, joined by Judges Wilson and Rosenbaum, saying in part:

[T]he School Board’s policy allows a transgender student just like Drew to use the boys’ bathroom if he enrolls after transition with documents listing him as male. Because such a student poses the same claimed safety and privacy concerns as Drew, the School Board’s bathroom policy can only be justified by administrative convenience.

Judge Rosenbaum filed a dissenting opinion, saying in part:

I join Judge Jordan’s dissent in its entirety and Judge Jill Pryor’s dissent’s equal-protection analysis. I write separately only to emphasize one point ...: the Majority Opinion’s misplaced suggestions that affirming the district court’s order on equal-protection grounds would require courts in this Circuit to find that all challenges involving restrooms, locker rooms, and changing facilities must necessarily be upheld are wrong.

Judge Jill Pryor filed a dissenting opinion (which Judge Rosenbaum joined as to her equal protection analysis) saying said in part:

In contrast to transgender students, all cisgender students are permitted to use the restroom matching their gender identity. The policy, therefore, facially discriminates against transgender students by depriving them of a benefit that is provided to all cisgender students. It places all transgender students on one side of a line, and all cisgender students on the other side. The School District cannot hide beyond facially neutral-sounding terms like “biological sex.” As the Supreme Court has observed, “neutral terms can mask discrimination that is unlawful.”...

[T]he bathroom policy’s assignment of Adams to the girls’ restrooms would actually undermine the abstract privacy interest the School District wished to promote. While he attended Nease and was excluded from the boys’ bathrooms, Adams had “facial hair,” “typical male muscle development,” a deep voice, and a short haircut.... He had no visible breast tissue; his chest appeared flat. He wore masculine clothing. Any occupant of the girls’ restroom would have seen a boy entering the restroom when Adams walked in. Thus, the district court found, “permitting him to use the girls’ restroom would be unsettling for all the same reasons the School District does not want any other boy in the girls’ restroom.”...

The School District’s policy categorically assigned transgender students, including Adams, to bathrooms based on only one biological marker: their sex assigned at birth. Adams’s claim that the School District’s notion of what “sex” means is discriminatory is not foreclosed by the Title IX carveouts....

Law & Crime reports on the decision. 

Another Catholic Parish Sues Michigan Over Expanded Interpretation of State's Anti-Discrimination Laws

 As previously reported, in August the Michigan Supreme Court interpreted the state's civil rights law which bans sex discrimination to cover discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity. Yesterday, a Catholic parish, including its school, as well as several parents of students in the school filed suit in a Michigan federal district court alleging that, interpreted in this manner, the employment, education and public accommodation provisions of the Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act violate plaintiffs' First and 14th Amendment rights.  The complaint (full text) in Sacred Heart of Jesus Parish v. Nessel, (WD MI, filed 12/22/22), alleges in part:

To comply with Michigan’s re-understood laws, Sacred Heart Parish and its school, Sacred Heart Academy, would be forced to hire faculty and staff who lead lives in direct opposition to the Catholic faith, speak messages that violate Church doctrine, and refrain from articulating Catholic beliefs in teaching its students and when advertising the school to prospective students or job applicants. All of this violates Sacred Heart’s free speech and free exercise rights. Rather than defy Catholic doctrine in these ways, Sacred Heart would shut down. 

But if Sacred Heart cannot operate consistent with its Catholic faith, the parental and free exercise rights of its families are also implicated. Parents have explicitly opted out of public schools in favor of sending their children to Sacred Heart for an authentic Catholic education where their children would never be exposed to harmful ideas and ideologies that contradict the Catholic faith. When Michigan prevents Sacred Heart from operating its school consistent with its Catholic beliefs, it also necessarily violates the fundamental parental and free exercise rights of Sacred Heart families.

ADF issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit.  Earlier this month, a different Catholic parish filed a similar lawsuit.

Suit Challenges Exclusion of Gender Transition Care From Health Insurance Policies

Suit was filed this week in a Georgia federal district court challenging under Title VII and Title IX the exclusion from certain state of Georgia's employee health care plans coverage for gender transition procedures.  The complaint (full text) in Rich v. Georgia, (ND GA, filed 12/14/2022) alleges in part:

United withdraws coverage for care that would otherwise be covered as medically necessary when it is needed for the purpose of “sex transformation operations and related services.” It lists this exclusion under the heading “Personal Care, Comfort or Convenience,” along with televisions, air conditioners, and barber service.

The complaint alleges that this exclusion, and a similar one by another company, amount to illegal sex discrimination. TLDEF issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit.

Teacher Sues Over School's Policy on Transgender Students

Suit was filed this week in an Ohio federal district court by a middle school teacher who resigned after refusing on religious grounds to comply with the school's policy regarding transgender students.  The school required teachers to address students by their preferred names and pronouns. The complaint (full text) in Geraghty v. Jackson Local School District Board of Education, (ND OH, filed 12/12/20222), alleges in part:

2. The Constitution guarantees a freedom of thought that includes a freedom to differ.... 

3. The Constitution protects this freedom to differ, in part, by prohibiting the government from adopting and enforcing a set of approved views on these matters in America’s public schools.... 

4. Defendants have abandoned this guiding light and adopted one particular view on this subject: that a person’s subjective identity determines whether a person is male or female, not a person’s sex. Compounding their unlawful adoption of an orthodoxy in this area, they have created and implemented a Policy requiring teachers, including Plaintiff Vivian Geraghty, to mouth her own support of Defendants’ views by forcing her, as a condition of keeping her job as a public school teacher, to participate in the “social transition” of children in her class.

5. Ms. Geraghty has a different view of this fundamental matter, informed by her scientific understanding and her Christian faith....

7. Because no interest justifies the state’s treatment of Ms. Geraghty—indeed, the very nature of free speech, free exercise of religion, and freedom from state-enforced orthodoxy on fundamental matters condemns the state’s attempt to purge contrary views from its schools—she brings this Complaint for injunctive, declaratory, and compensatory relief.

ADF issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit.

Texas Sues HHS To Invalidate Rule on LGBTQ Discrimination by Adoption Agencies

Suit was filed yesterday in a Texas federal district court challenging a rule adopted by the Department of Health and Human Services that prohibits adoption and foster care agencies receiving federal funds from discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity.  It also requires them to recognize same-sex marriages.  In 2019, amidst other litigation, the government previously issued a Notice of Nonenforcement of this rule. (See prior posting.) However, that Notice is being challenged in other litigation.  The complaint (full text) in State of Texas v. Becerra, (SD TX, filed 12/12/22), contends that the rule by its terms does not apply to child placing agencies that contract with state agencies that initially receive federal grants, and that the rule, for numerous reasons, is an invalid exercise of agency authority. Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit.

8th Circuit Affirms RFRA Rights of Catholic Health Care Organizations to Refuse Gender Transition Services

In Religious Sisters of Mercy v. Becerra, (8th Cir., Dec. 9, 2022), the U.S. 8th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed a district court decision that enjoined the federal government from requiring various Catholic health care organizations to perform or provide insurance coverage for gender transition procedures. The district court concluded that plaintiffs' rights under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act were violated by the requirements imposed by the government's interpretation of the Affordable Care Act and Title VII.  On appeal, the government raised only jurisdictional challenges-- standing, ripeness and lack of irreparable harm.  The 8th Circuit rejected the government's challenges, except as to standing of one organizational plaintiff.

Catholic Parish Sues Michigan Over Expansion of Its Civil Rights Act

Suit was filed this week in a Michigan federal district court by a Catholic parish which operates an elementary school claiming that the Michigan Supreme Court's interpretation of the state's anti-discrimination law violates the parish's First Amendment rights.  The complaint (full text) in St. Joseph Parish St. Johns v. Nessel, (WD MI, filed 12/5/2022), alleges in part:

5. In a series of actions culminating in a Michigan Supreme Court decision from July 2022, the Michigan Attorney General, the Michigan Department of Civil Rights, and the Michigan Civil Rights Commission ... reinterpreted the Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act (“ELCRA”) such that provisions which previously prohibited conduct based only on biological sex now also apply to distinctions made based on sexual orientation and gender identity....

10. As a result, Michigan’s new understanding of “sex” discrimination deems it unlawful for St. Joseph’s to follow the 2,000-year-old teachings of the Catholic Church, including its teaching that marriage is a lifelong commitment between one man and one woman, that sexual relations are limited to marriage, and that human beings are created as either male or female....

11. Michigan’s reinterpretation poses an imminent threat to St. Joseph. St. Joseph needs to hire new employees and to publicize its job openings. St. Joseph’s advertisements would note, as they have in the past, that applicants must be “practicing Catholic[s] with the ability to infuse Catholic faith and teaching throughout the curriculum.”... 

12. St. Joseph is also reviewing applications for new families seeking to send their children to its school. And families at St. Joseph Catholic School enter a “Family – School Agreement.” This agreement requires, among other things, that parents and students agree “to live their lives in a way that supports, rather than opposes, the mission of our school and our faith beliefs.”

13. Also at stake is St. Joseph’s ability to rent its facilities—like its gymnasium and soccer fields—and whether it can carry out its parish activities open to all, like attending Mass, without being held liable as a public accommodation....

15. St. Joseph’s religious decisions regarding how to advance its mission and ministry are protected by the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution. Michigan cannot force the Catholic Church to compromise its religious character simply as a function of its doors being open to all.

Becket has a case page with more details on the case.