Objective coverage of church-state and religious liberty developments, with extensive links to primary sources.
Friday, July 13, 2007
Romanian Court Dismisses Lawsuit Filed Against God
Thursday, July 12, 2007
New Mexico Town Will Place 10 Commandments By City Hall
Wisconsin Supreme Court Rejects Statute of Limitations Argument In Fraud-Abuse Case
the claims of fraud for intentional misrepresentation are independent claims based on the Archdiocese's alleged knowledge of the priests' prior sexual molestation of children and the Archdiocese's intent to deceive children and their families. We further conclude that the date of the accrual of the fraud claims is "when the plaintiffs discovered or, in the exercise of reasonable diligence, should have discovered" that the Archdiocese's alleged fraud was a cause of their injuries.Two justices dissenting in part argued that the negligent supervision claims should not have been dismissed either.
LDS Church Loses Bid to Keep Finances Secret
Muslim Head Scarves Remain Controversial In U.S.
Meanwhile, yesterday's Sacramento (CA) Bee reports that a Muslim woman has filed a discrimination suit in Solano, California Superior Court against Whitehall Jewelry stores. Shereen Attia had previously worked part-time for the stores. Her former supervisor asked her to return to work, but when he discovered that she had begun to wear a head scarf for religious reasons, he refused to hire her. Whitehall already employed one woman who wore a head scarf. Attia's suit alleges that the stores' district manager vetoed her hiring, saying "Oh no, not another one."
Cobb County, GA Wins On Most of Its Prayer Practices
UPDATE: The full opinion is now available on Lexis: BATS v. Cobb County Georgia, 2007 U..S. Dist. LEXIS 50196 (ND GA, July 6, 2007).
Jews For Jesus Challenges Leafleting Restrictions
Recent Articles On Church-State Issues
Leslie C. Griffin, Conscience and Emergency Contraception, Houston Journal of Health Law and Policy, Vol. 6, No. 299, 2006.
From Asian Journal of Comparative Law, (Vol. 2, Issue 1, 2007):
Andrew Harding, Buddhism, Human Rights and Constitutional Reform in Thailand.
Mohamed Azam Mohamed Adil, Law of Apostasy and Freedom of Religion in Malaysia.
From SmartCILP:
Dana E. Blackman, Refusal to Dispense Emergency Contraception in Washington State: An Act of Conscience or Unlawful Sex Discrimination?, 14 Michigan Journal of Gender & Law 59-97 (2007).
Kristin B. Gerdy, The Irresistible Force Meets the Immovable Object: When Antidiscrimination Standards and Religious Belief Collide in ABA-Accredited Law Schools, 85 Oregon Law Review 943-991 (2006).
Michele Estrin Gilman, Fighting Poverty With Faith: Reflections on Ten Years of Charitable Choice, 10 Journal of Gender Race & Justice 395-438 (2007).
Symposium: The Jurisprudential Legacy of John Paul II. 45 Journal of Catholic Legal Studies 221-669 (2006).
Dean Sanderford, The Sixth Amendment, Rules 606(b), and the Intrusion into Jury Deliberations of Religious Principles of Decision, 74 Tennessee Law Review 167-197 (2007).
Wednesday, July 11, 2007
Church Gets TRO Against Bidet Ad On Billboards At Its Building
Kentucky County Will Issue Revenue Bonds To Finance Church Addition
NY Rabbinical College Sues For Permission to Build
IRS Issues New Rev. Proc. On Sec. 501 Determinations
Military Conscientious Objector Rules Are Depublished
Conference Honors Roy Moore
Anti-Discrimination Policy vs Student Religious Rights: Once More Unto the Breach
The Alliance Defense Fund and Christian Legal Society have filed a suit against the University of Florida because, according to a CLS Blog post, "University officials refuse to recognize [Brothers Under Christ/Beta Upsilon Chi] as a registered student organization because the fraternity limits membership to men, and refuses to allow the fraternity to go under the Greek system because it requires members to share the group's Christian beliefs."
Franchise Story 2: Forbes Discusses One Franchisor's Practices
. . . Is it legal? There are no federal laws that prohibit companies from asking
nosy questions about religion and marital status during interviews. Most companies don't because it can open them up to discrimination claims, says James Ryan, a spokesman for the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Chick-fil-A has more freedom to ask whatever it wants of franchisees because they are independent contractors and not necessarily subject to federal employment discrimination laws. (Employees, however, may sue under those laws.)
Franchise Story 1: 7th Circuit Allows Race-Based Discrimination-in-Franchising Case to Proceed
Elkhatib claims that Dunkin Donuts refused to allow him to renew his franchisee agreements or relocate when it learned that he was not selling Dunkin Donuts' breakfast sandwiches. The Court determined that Dunkin Donuts' citation of Elkatib's failure to carry the products was pretext, concluding "there is significant evidence that the carrying of breakfast sandwiches was not an issue of importance to Dunkin Donuts." Slip. Op. at 10.
What may be more interesting to the readers of Religion Clause is how the two courts dealt with (or not) the religious element of his claim. In granting Dunkin Donuts' motion for summary judgment, the trial court sua sponte construed Elkhatib’s claim to be one of religious discrimination rather than racial discrimination, based on the court’s determination that the restrictions on handling pork are associated with religion, not race:
Elkhatib alleges discrimination based on race. See Compl., ¶ 9 (“Plaintiff, as an Arab is forbidden from dealing, buying or selling pork products, because of his race's traditions and religious practices”). Elkhatib cites St. Francis Coll. v. Al-Khazraji, 481 U.S. 604, 613 (1987) for the proposition that Arabs may sue for racial discrimination under § 1981. In that case, plaintiff Al-Khazraji sued a university that denied him tenure on the alleged grounds of racial discrimination. The Supreme Court held that “[i]f Respondent on remand can prove that he was subjected to intentional discrimination based on the fact that he was born an Arab, rather than solely on the place or nation of his origin, or religion, he will have made out a case under § 1981.” Id. at 613. Al-Khazraji based his claim solely on racial grounds. However, the court construes Elkhatib's claim to be one of religious discrimination rather than racial discrimination. The dietary restrictions Elkhatib points to are associated with religion rather than race. Islamic and Jewish law both prohibit the handling and consumption of pork. . . . Claims of religious discrimination are not cognizable under § 1981 and § 1982. Elkhatib v. Dunkin' Donuts, Inc. 2004 WL 2600119, *3 (N.D.Ill. 2004) (notes and religious citations removed). [Ed Note: Links Repaired].
Somewhat surprisingly, the Seventh Circuit accepted this characterization without comment (and without examining the district court's contention) and treated the claim as a race-based one.
Thanks to How Appealling for the lead.
Tuesday, July 10, 2007
Hudson Institute's Religious Freedom in the World 2007
Some of the statistics in the survey can be found here:
- Country Religious Freedom Scores Compared to Freedom House Rankings of Political Rights and Civil Liberties
- Grim & Finke Scores for Government Regulation of Religion (GRI), Government Favoritism of Religion (GFI), and Social Regulation of Religion (SRI)
Here is a National Review piece by Paul Marshall on the study he edited.
Thanks to Melissa Rogers for the lead.
InnerChange: Latest Developments
Yesterday's Des Moines Register (IA) has an editorial calling that decision into question, writing "If the state desires to institute 'values based' programs aimed at reforming convicted criminals, it must be sure they are not disguised as government-sponsored avenues for evangelization."
Defendants have also filed two F.R.A.P. 28(j) letters providing supplemental authorities to the court. One relates to rates of recidivism for inmates in the program. The second discusses the Supreme Court's decisions in Hein v Freedom from Religion Foundation, 551 U.S. ____ (2007) (June 25, 2007) and University of Notre Dame v Laskowski, No. 06-582 (US June 29, 2007) (cert. granted, judgment vacated and remanded in light of Hein). Both of these cases are discussed here.
Defendants argue that the district court relied heavily on Laskowski, and "[t]hus the anomalous legal basis for allowing private, taxpayer plaintiffs to compel restitution to the government is gone, and the decision below granting that remedy should be reversed." Plaintiffs argue in reply that unlike the case in Hein, "InnerChange was funded for the last four years with appropriations by the Iowa Legislature specifically for the program." Plaintiffs also argue that "The restitution question is an issue of remedy, not standing. Hein does not impact the logic of prior cases that treated restitution as an available remedy...."
Asylum Seeker Has Right to Profess Faith in Public
The administrative law judges reviewing the decision accepted her argument that a 2004 European Union directive requires the granting of asylum to those who face persecution for practicing their religion in public. Moreover, the court doubted that she could return to the secret practice of her religion after living openly in Germany.
Article 10 of that directive holds that:
1. Member States shall take the following elements into account when assessing the reasons for persecution: (a) . . . . (b) the concept of religion shall in particular include the holding of theistic, non-theistic and atheistic beliefs, the participation in, or abstention from, formal worship in private or in public, either alone or in community with others, other religious acts or expressions of view, or forms of personal or communal conduct based on or mandated by any religious belief . . .