Objective coverage of church-state and religious liberty developments, with extensive links to primary sources.
Thursday, December 17, 2009
Full 9th Circuit Hears Oral Arguments In Establishment Clause Challenge To San Francisco Resolution
New Mexico Court Upholds Human Rights Agency's Finding Against Photographer
The court also concluded that enforcement did not infringe Hugenin's free exercise of religion. Huguenin argued that this forced her to attend a religious ceremony that violates her conscience. The court held however that the HRA is a neutral law of general applicability. Finally the court rejected a claim under the New Mexico Religious Freedom Restoration Act. Alliance Defense Fund announced yesterday that it will appeal the decision. [Thanks to Eugene Volokh via Religionlaw for the lead.]
Wednesday, December 16, 2009
Britain's Supreme Court Holds Jewish School's Application of Halachic Criteria Is Racial Discrimination
The case grew out of competition for admission to JFS, a premier Jewish school. When the school was oversubscribed, preference was given to students who were considered Jewish by the Office of the Chief Rabbi. The suit was filed by parents of a student who was not considered Jewish because his mother was converted to Judaism by a non-Orthodox rabbi-- reflecting an internal disagreement among various branches of Judaism. A press release issued by the Court summarized the opinions in part as follows:
The New York Times reports on the decision, saying that it will affect both publicly funded and private Jewish schools in Britain, and may affect Sikh and Muslim schools as well. (See prior related posting.) [Thanks to Rabbi Michael Simon and Steve Sheinberg for leads on this case.]The judgments of the Court should not be read as criticising the admissions policy of JFS on moral grounds or suggesting that any party to the case could be considered 'racist' in the commonly understood, pejorative, sense.....
In determining whether there is direct discrimination on grounds of ethnic origins for the purposes of the 1976 Act, the court must determine, as a question of fact, whether the victim’s ethnic origins are the factual criterion that determined the decision made by the discriminator.... If so, the motive for the discrimination and/or the reason why the discriminator considered the victim’s ethnic origins significant is irrelevant....
To treat an individual less favourably on the ground that he lacks certain prescribed ethnic origins constitutes direct discrimination.... [T]he factual criterion that determined the refusal to admit M to JFS is clear: the fact that he is not descended in the matrilineal line from a woman recognised by the OCR as Jewish.... The crucial question to be determined is whether this requirement is properly characterised as referring to M’s ethnic origins....
The test applied by JFS focuses upon the ethnicity of the women from whom M is descended.... There can be no doubt that the Jewish people are an ethnic group
within the meaning of the 1976 Act. While JFS and the OCR would have overlooked this fact if M's mother had herself undergone an approved course of Orthodox conversion, this could not alter the fundamental nature of the test being applied. If M’s mother herself was of the requisite ethnic origins in her matrilineal line no conversion requirement would be imposed.....
[T]reating an individual less favourably because of his ancestry ignores his unique characteristics and attributes and fails to respect his autonomy and individuality.... It might be said that the policy adopted by JFS and the OCR was based on both ethnic grounds and grounds of religion, in that the reason for the application of a test based upon ethnic origins was the conviction that such a criterion was dictated by Jewish religious law. The fact that the rule adopted was of a religious character cannot obscure or alter the fact that the content of the rule itself applies a test of ethnicity....
It is not clear that the practice-based test adopted by JFS following the Court of Appeal's judgment will result in JFS being required to admit children who are not regarded by Jewish by one or more of the established Jewish movements.... It may be arguable that an explicit exemption should be provided from the provisions of the
1976 Act in order to allow Jewish faith schools to grant priority in admissions on the basis of matrilineal descent; if so, formulating such an exemption is unquestionably a matter for Parliament.
Quebec Issues New Policy Against Homophobia
They're going to try for the longest possible to just use social pressure and increasingly isolate the recalcitrant entities and institutions.... It's going to lead to ostracizing different churches that have doctrinal oppositions to homosexual behaviour.... [W]e won't see overt sanctions, overt punitive measures, for a while. But those will come eventually.
UK Court of Appeal: No Discrimination In Requring Official To Register Civil Partnerships
Today's London Mail reports on the decision.Ms Ladele was employed in a public job and was working for a public authority; she was being required to perform a purely secular task, which was being treated as part of her job; Ms Ladele's refusal to perform that task involved discriminating against gay people in the course of that job; she was being asked to perform the task because of Islington's Dignity for All policy, whose laudable aim was to avoid, or at least minimise, discrimination both among Islington's employees, and as between Islington (and its employees) and those in the community they served; Ms Ladele's refusal was causing offence to at least two of her gay colleagues; Ms Ladele's objection was based on her view of marriage, which was not a core part of her religion; and Islington's requirement in no way prevented her from worshipping as she wished....
Ms Ladele's proper and genuine desire to have her religious views relating to marriage respected should not be permitted to override Islington's concern to ensure that all its registrars manifest equal respect for the homosexual community as for the heterosexual community
Rifqa Bary's Parents Want Ohio Social Services To Screen Daughter's Christmas Cards
DC Circuit Hears Oral Arguments In Challege To Inaugural Oath and Prayers
At the hearing, the DC Circuit opened with its usual cry: "God save the United States and this honorable court." Plaintiffs' emergency motion asking the court to eliminate the cry before arguments in this case was denied last week. (See prior posting.) In response, apparently Michael Newdow (and Bob Ritter of the American Humanists) absented themselves from the courtroom during the cry. (Comment by Bob Ritter.)
Florida Court Says No-Aid Claim Against Faith-Based Treatment Program Can Proceed
Vietnam President Visits Pope; Church Order Seeks Return of Land
D.C. Council Votes Final Passage of Gay Marriage Bill
Lawsuits Challenge Brooklyn Diocese Over Election Calls
Tuesday, December 15, 2009
Evangelist Oral Roberts Dies
Arkansas Court Allows Freethinkers Display Next To Capitol's Creche
Federal Executive Branch Employees Get Half Day Off On Christmas Eve
Senate Committee Approves Feldblum For EEOC
Dutch Court Says Public Transport Company Can Ban Employees From Wearing Religious Necklace
Final Decision Denies Attorney Fees and Court Costs To High School Teacher
Egyptian Court Reverses Al-Ahzar Ban On Niqab
Unenforceable North Carolina Provision Barring Atheists From Office Is Focus of Attention [Corrected]
Nevertheless, former Asheville NAACP President H.K. Edgerton, who is a Southern Heritage activist, has suggested that he might sue Bothwell. This news account and others (such as AP) then suggest that such a suit might tie Bothwell up in litigation for years:
But the federal protections don't necessarily spare atheist public officials from spending years defending themselves in court. Avowed atheist Herb Silverman won an eight-year court battle in 1997, when South Carolina's highest court granted him the right to be appointed as a notary despite the state's law.Overlooked in this suggestion is the fact that Bothwell is in office, while the 1997 case, Silverman v. Campbell, involved a plaintiff who had been denied appointment to office and had to sue to obtain the appointment. The Silverman case specifically held that Art. VI, Sec. 2 of the South Carolina Constitution, a comparable provision requiring a belief in God to hold office, violates the U.S. Constitution.
NOTE: The original version of this posting inaccurately conflated North Carolina and South Carolina.