Congress Passes Defense Authorization Act With Provisions On Chaplains and Conscience Rights

Congress this week passed HR 4310, the 2013 National Defense Authorization Act, when the House and Senate both agreed to the version of the bill set out in the Conference Committee Report. The 1590-page bill contains provisions impacting military chaplains and conscience rights of members of the military.

Section 508 of the Act (adding 10 USC Sec. 8039) creates the position of Chief of Chaplains in the Air Force.

Section 533 of the Act protects conscience rights of military members and chaplains. It provides:

SEC. 533. PROTECTION OF RIGHTS OF CONSCIENCE OF MEMBERS OF THE ARMED FORCES AND CHAPLAINS OF SUCH MEMBERS. 

(a) PROTECTION OF RIGHTS OF CONSCIENCE.—

(1) ACCOMMODATION.—The Armed Forces shall accommodate the beliefs of a member of the armed forces reflecting the conscience, moral principles, or religious beliefs of the member and, in so far as practicable, may not use such beliefs as the basis of any adverse personnel action, discrimination, or denial of promotion, schooling, training, or assignment.

(2) DISCIPLINARY OR ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION.—Nothing in paragraph (1) precludes disciplinary or administrative action for conduct that is proscribed by chapter 47 of title 10, United States Code (the Uniform Code of Military Justice), including actions and speech that threaten good order and discipline. 

(b) PROTECTION OF CHAPLAIN DECISIONS RELATING TO CONSCIENCE, MORAL PRINCIPLES, OR RELIGIOUS BELIEFS.—No member of the Armed Forces may—

(1) require a chaplain to perform any rite, ritual, or ceremony that is contrary to the conscience, moral principles, or religious beliefs of the chaplain; or 

(2) discriminate or take any adverse personnel action against a chaplain, including denial of promotion, schooling, training, or assignment, on the basis of the refusal by the chaplain to comply with a requirement prohibited by paragraph (1). 

(c) REGULATIONS.—The Secretary of Defense shall issue regulations implementing the protections afforded by this section.

God and Country Blog has more on Sec. 533.

As reported by Politico, last month the White House threatened a veto over various other provisions in the Senate version of the bill, including limitations on transfer of prisoners from Guantanamo Bay. (Statement by Executive Office of the President.) However, National Journal now reports that a Presidential veto is highly unlikely.

9th Circuit Bars Enforcement of Reparative Therapy Ban Pending Appeal

As reported by AFP, the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals yesterday issued an injunction in Pickup v. Brown barring enforcement pending an appeal, of California's ban on so-called reparative therapy for minors.  The federal district court in the case held that the state's ban on sexual orientation change efforts does not impact 1st Amendment free expression since healthcare treatment is not expressive conduct. (See prior posting.) [Corrected-- earlier version of posting had incorrect circuit.]

District Court Modifies Wilmington Diocese Bankruptcy Order, Eliminating Ban On Payments To Accused Priests

In an appeal of the bankruptcy court's confirmation of the Chapter 11 reorganization plan of the Catholic Diocese of Wilmington, a Delaware federal district court has eliminated the bankruptcy court's order banning payment of any salaries, employment benefits, medical benefits, charity payments, pensions or other financial benefits to a list of nine removed priests. The appeal was filed by one of the nine priests, Kenneth Martin. In Martin v. Catholic Diocese of Wilmington, Inc., (D DE, Dec. 18, 2012), the Delaware federal district court held that a crucial letter by now-deceased Bishop Salterelli was hearsay that was wrongly admitted into evidence.  The letter, on which the list of priests denied benefits was based, represented in a conclusory fashion the names of priests as to whom Saltarelli had confirmed sexual abuse allegations. The court said in part:

In this case, the bankruptcy court imposed a permanent injunction on third parties without referring to any evidentiary requirements ... and without requiring the Diocese (or the Official Committee or the Ad Hoc Committee) to bear any burden of proof in that regard.  Moreover, the record demonstrates that the imposition of the Injunction will have no impact on the property of the estate, as the Diocese has represented, through its agent under oath, that it has no intention of providing any prospective benefits to appellant or other similarly situated individuals....

In weighing the public interest, the court does not question the motivations behind the imposition of the Injunction.  However, good intentions cannot trump the rule of law and the fundamental requirement that there be a nexus established between the wrongs alleged and the remedy imposed.  No such nexus exists of record,  as there is no indication at bar that appellant was the subject of any of the survivor claims actually at issue in the Diocese's chapter 11  proceedings, and appellant was not given the opportunity to contest his inclusion as a subject of the Injunction.

The Wilmington News Journal reports on the decision.

Court Rejects Father's Establishment Clause Challenge To Divorce Decree Provision On Religious Education of Children

In Roberts v. Roberts, (TX App., Dec. 19, 2012), a Texas appeals court rejected a father's Establishment Clause challenge to a provision in a divorce decree under which his former wife was given the right to pick up the children for religious classes on Sundays on which the father otherwise had possession of the children.  The court said in part:

Just as  the  court has discretion to mold the decree to accommodate activities such as soccer games and music lessons if it finds them in the child’s best interest, it may accommodate a parent’s desire for the children’s religious education, provided that it does not favor one parent’s religion over another or over a preference for no religion.  Martin has not directed us to, nor  have we located, any evidence in the record that the court’s decreed visitation schedule, accommodating, inter alia, the children’s current religious education, in any way  favors Margaret’s religion.

Two More Decisions In Challenges To ACA Mandate; 10th Circuit and Missouri District Court Have Divergent Views

In Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. v. Sebelius, (10th Cir., Dec. 20, 2012), the U.S. 10th Circuit Court of Appeals refused to grant an injunction pending resolution of an appeal in a challenge by two closely-held  for-profit corporations and their Christian owners to the contraceptive coverage mandate under the Affordable Care Act.  The court concluded that plaintiffs had not demonstrated a substantial likelihood of success on the merits because it was unlikely that the mandate imposed a substantial burden on plaintiffs' exercise of religion:

other cases enforcing RFRA have done so to protect a plaintiff’s own participation in (or abstention from) a specific practice required (or condemned) by his religion.  We do not think there is a substantial likelihood that this court will extend the reach of RFRA to encompass the independent conduct of third parties with whom the plaintiffs have only a commercial relationship.

LifeNews reports on the decision. (See prior related posting.) In a press release, Becket Fund indicated that plaintiffs will now seek relief from the U.S. Supreme Court. UPDATE: Here is the petition to the Supreme Court for an injunction pending appellate review.

However, in American Pulverizer Co. v. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, (WD MO, Dec. 20, 2012), a Missouri federal district court granted a preliminary injunction against enforcement of the contraceptive coverage mandate in a challenge filed by a group of metal recycling businesses owned by Evangelical Christians Paul and Henry Griesediek. (See prior posting.) The court held: "Plaintiffs have raised questions concerning their likelihood of success on the merits that are so serious and difficult as to call for more deliberate investigation." In reaching that conclusion, the court said in part:

Plaintiffs must either pay for a health plan that includes drugs and services to which they religiously object or incur fines.  Accordingly, the Court determines that there is a substantial likelihood that Plaintiffs will able to prove, on the merits, that the ACA substantially burdens Plaintiffs’ exercise of religion.

The Court notes that Defendants argue that Plaintiffs cannot show that the ACA substantially burdens any exercise of religion as the Griesedieck Companies are secular entities and, thus, cannot “exercise religion” under the RFRA. ... [T]here are many entities under which an individual can run a business, i.e. a corporation, partnership, LLC, closely-held subchapter-s corporation, or sole proprietorship.  Does an individual’s choice to run his business as one of these entities strip that individual of his right to exercise his religious beliefs?....

National Review reports on the decision.

TRO Vindicates Woman's Display of Offensive Holiday Decorations

The Louisiana ACLU announced yesterday that it has obtained a temporary restraining order on behalf of a Denham Springs (LA) woman in an unusual dispute over holiday light displays. The complaint (full text) in Childs v. City of Denham Springs, (MD LA, filed 12/20/2012), recounts that as part of an ongoing disagreement with her neighbors, plaintiff Sarah Childs installed on her roof "a string of holiday lights in the shape of a human hand with an extended middle finger."  After neighbors complained, police told Childs to remove the lights, and initially she did. Subsequently she put the display back up, this time featuring two hands with extended middle fingers. Police then issued Childs various summonses for other items about which her neighbors complained such as obstructing traffic, disturbing the peace and assault, and eventually police ordered Childs to remove the second display.  After doing so, she sued claiming free speech, due process and other violations. (Links to filings in the case.) AP reports on the issuance of the TRO.

Nominal-Rent Lease To Scouts of City Property Does Not Violate California No-Aid Bar, or Establishment Clause

In Barnes-Wallace v. City of San Diego, (9th Cir., Dec. 20, 2012), the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals rejected state and federal constitutional challenges to the city's leases of property for nominal or no rent to the Boy Scouts. The Boy Scouts bar youths or adults who are atheists, agnostics,or homosexuals from being members or volunteers.  One set of plaintiffs in the case is a lesbian couple, and the other plaintiffs are agnostics, so they cannot be Boy Scout volunteers.  As parents they refuse to allow their sons to become Boy Scout members because of these exclusionary policies, and refuse to allow their sons to use the property as members of the public so long as the Boy Scouts administer the properties.  Reversing the District Court, the 9th Circuit held that the leases do not violate the "No Aid" Clause of the California Constitution since any benefit to the Scout's religious purposes is merely incidental. (See prior related posting.) Nor do the leases violate the California "No Preference" Clause or the federal Establishment Clause. A reasonable observer "could not conclude that the City was engaged in religious indoctrination, or was defining aid recipients by reference to religion."  Finally the court rejected equal protection, statutory and contract claims. (See prior related posting.)

Judge Kleinfeld, concurring, would also have denied standing to plaintiffs, saying: "Revulsion for a group so intense that one cannot bear to be on property they manage cannot, in a tolerant society, be deemed harm sufficiently concrete as to confer standing to sue."  The Los Angeles Times reports on the decision.

In Tunisia, Advocacy Group Sues Imam Over Anti-Jewish Remarks In Sermon

The Times of Israel reported yesterday that in Tunisia, the Tunisian Association to Support Minorities has filed a lawsuit against a prominent imam for anti-Jewish remarks he made in a televised sermon [excerpts] delivered at the Khatib mosque near Tunis last month. The suit alleges that Sheikh Ahmad Al-Suhayli violated Tunisia’s 2011 Decree 115 [background] which prohibits "calls to hatred between races and religions, and the population" when he told listeners: "God wants to destroy this sprinkling of Jews… and is for sterilizing the wombs of Jewish women."

Canada's Supreme Court, in Split Decision, Sets Out Balancing Test On Right of Witness To Wear Niqab

The Supreme Court of Canada today, in a widely watched case, handed down its decision on whether a Muslim woman who for religious reasons wears a niqab that covers her face can be required to remove it while testifying in court. The issue arose at a preliminary inquiry involving criminal charges against the woman's uncle and cousin who she accused of repeatedly sexually assaulting her when whe was a young girl.  (See prior posting.) In R. v. N.S., (Sup. Ct. Canada, Dec. 20, 2012), Chief Justice McLachlin, writing for 4 of the 7 Supreme Court justices set out a balancing test, and held that the case should be remitted to the judge conducting the preliminary inquiry to apply the test:

Two sets of Charter rights are potentially engaged — the witness’s freedom of religion and the accused’s fair trial rights, including the right to make full answer and defence.  An extreme approach that would always require the witness to remove her niqab while testifying, or one that would never do so, is untenable.  The answer lies in a just and proportionate balance between freedom of religion and trial fairness, based on the particular case before the court.  A witness who for sincere religious reasons wishes to wear the niqab while testifying in a criminal proceeding will be required to remove it if (a) this is necessary to prevent a serious risk to the fairness of the trial, because reasonably available alternative measures will not prevent the risk; and (b) the salutary effects of requiring her to remove the niqab outweigh the deleterious effects of doing so.....

Justice LeBel joined by Justice Rothstein held that they would impose a "clear rule" that a niqab cannot be worn at any stage of the criminal trial:

The Charter protects freedom of religion ....  But fundamental too are the rights of the accused to a fair trial, to make full answer and defence to the charges brought against him, to benefit from the constitutional presumption of innocence and to avert wrongful convictions.  Since cross-examination is a necessary tool for the exercise of the right to make full answer and defence, the consequences of restrictions on that right weigh more heavily on the accused, and the balancing process must work in his or her favour.

Justice Abella, on the other hand, would allow the witness to wear her niqab while testifying:

Since not being able to see a witness’s whole face is only a partial interference with what is, in any event, only one part of an imprecise measuring tool of credibility, there is no reason to demand full “demeanour access” where religious belief prevents it..... Defence counsel still has the opportunity to rigorously cross-examine the witness.

A witness who is not permitted to wear her niqab while testifying is prevented from being able to act in accordance with her religious beliefs.  This has the effect of forcing her to choose between her religious beliefs and her ability to participate in the justice system.  As a result, complainants ... may choose not to bring charges for crimes they allege have been committed against them, or ... may resist being a witness in someone else’s trial.  Where the witness is the accused, she will be unable to give evidence in her own defence.... [S]exual assault complainants, whose evidence will inevitably be contested, will be forced to choose between laying a complaint and wearing a niqab, which may be no meaningful choice at all.

 The Toronto Globe and Mail reports on the decision, as does Constitutional Law Prof Blog. CBC News reviews several other controversies in Canada in recent years involving the right to wear a niqab. [Thanks to Ruthann Robson for the lead.]

Church Deacon Among Others Charged In Asylum Fraud Schemes

The U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York announced Tuesday the unsealing of indictments (full text of charging documents) charging 26 individuals in overlapping immigration fraud schemes involving fabricated claims of persecution asserted by Chinese aliens seeking asylum.  Those charged were lawyers and paralegals in ten different law firms in the Chinatown area of Manhattan and Queens, as well as four translators and a church employee, all of whom were involved in the scheme to prepare false applications, coach clients on how to lie in their immigration interviews and mis-translate their answers when necessary to support their claims.  According to the U.S. Attorney's Office:

the law firms made up stories of persecution that often followed one of three fact patterns: (a) forced abortions performed pursuant to China’s family planning policy; (b) persecution based on the client’s belief in Christianity; or (c) political or ideological persecution, typically for membership in China’s Democratic Party or against followers of Falun Gong.

One of those indicted was Liying Lin (charging document) who claimed to be a deacon at the Full Gospel Church in Flushing, NY. It was charged that at bi-weekly sessions she provided training in the basic tenets of Christianity to asylum applicants who were falsely claiming religious persecution. In exchange for cash contributions to the Church, or to Liying Lin personally, she would coach clients on what questions regarding religion would be asked during the interview, and on how to answer them. She would sometimes also provide certificates of church attendance or baptism. Sometimes she served as the translator during the asylum interview and signaled applicants when they gave a wrong answer, or mistranslated their statements to make the answer consistent with their persecution and religious belief claims. The New York Times reports on the indictments.

Man Pleads Guilty In Ohio Mosque Arson Attack

In Toledo, Ohio yesterday, 52-year old Randolph Linn plead guilty in federal district court to one count each of intentionally defacing, damaging, and destroying religious property; using a fire to commit a felony; and using and carrying a firearm to commit a crime of violence in an attack on the Islamic Center of Greater Toledo. According to the Toledo Blade:

Linn admitted he set fire to the rug in the prayer room at the mosque on Sept. 30 after walking through the building with a gun to check for people in each room. He said he was motivated to drive the nearly two hours from his Indiana home to the Perrysburg mosque “to get some payback” for Americans who had been killed.

Under a binding plea agreement Linn will be sentenced to 20 years in prison and be required to pay restitution to the mosque.  The Islamic Center suffered extensive water and smoke damage as a result of the attack.

British Court, Citing Precedent, Says Scientology Chapel Cannot Be Registered As Place of Worship

A British trial court in Hodkin v. Registrar General of Births, Deaths and Marriages, (High Ct., Dec. 19, 2012), upheld the refusal by the Registrar General of Births, Deaths and Marriages in England and Wales to register a Church of Scientology chapel as "a place of meeting for religious worship." (Court summary of decision.) Without such registration, marriages cannot be solemnized in the chapel to the dismay of plaintiff, a 23-year old Scientologist who wants to marry her fiance in Scientology's London Church Chapel.  The High Court held that it was bound by a 1970 Court of Appeal decision holding that Scientology services did not involve acts of worship, so their chapels did not qualify under the Places of Worship Registration Act 1855.  (See prior related posting.) The Telegraph reports on the decision.

LDS Church Sued Along With Scouts In Suit Over Abuse By Scoutmaster

The Legal Intelligencer reports that last week, in Common Pleas Court in Philadelphia (PA), a 28-year old man filed suit against the Boy Scouts of America and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints for damages because of sexual abuse plaintiff suffered at the hands of scout leader Vance Hein in 1998- 1999. The suit, filed Dec. 12, alleges that the LDS Church "jointly operated and/or controlled" the troop along with the Boy Scouts. Hein, who is currently in prison, was also a church youth leader.  Plaintiff's lawyers plan to depose LDS Church leaders to determine their role in keeping Hein on as a scout leader.

Corporate Entities Fail To Show Religious Identity To Support Credit Discrimination Claim

In New Louisiana Holdings, LLC v. Arrowsmith, (ND IL, Dec. 4, 2012), an Illinois federal district court dismissed claims under 42 USC Sec. 1981 and the Equal Credit Opportunity Act of anti-Semitic discrimination in the administration of loan agreements.  At issue were loans taken out to acquire a network of nursing homes. Plaintiffs in the case are the LLCs (referred to by the court as corporate entities) that borrowed the funds as well as Harris Schwartzberg who, with his father, acquired the nursing homes through the LLCs.  In the portion of the complaint at issue, the LLCs (the "Corporate Plaintiffs') alleged that GE Capital's agent, Richard Arrowsmith, discriminated against them on the basis of their Jewish racial and religious identities in declaring a series of loan defaults and taking other injurious actions under the loan agreements. The business entities claim to have a Jewish identity because the Schwartzbergs are Jewish. The court held, however that the allegations in the complaint:

fail to provide the Court with a factual basis for finding that Corporate Plaintiffs have acquired a racial or religious identity. Plaintiffs do not allege any facts regarding the ownership structures of Corporate Plaintiffs, whether Corporate Plaintiffs have been certified as having minority identities by a governmental institution, or whether Corporate Plaintiffs' purposes are to serve or advance Jewish interests. For instance, the complaint does not identify whether the Schwartzbergs are the sole shareholders or majority shareholders of Corporate Plaintiffs.

Future of Capitalism reports on the decision.

DC Circuit Holds Challenges By Religious Colleges To Contraceptive Coverage Mandate In Abeyance

As previously reported, earlier this year the federal district court for the District of Columbia dismissed for lack of standing and ripeness challenges by Wheaton College and Belmont Abbey College to the mandate issued under the Affordable Care Act requiring group health insurance policies to cover contraceptive services for women. Because the Department of Health and Human Services had announced a one-year enforcement safe harbor for non-profit groups whose religious beliefs are violated by the mandate, the court concluded that the schools do not face imminent enforcement action. The colleges appealed, in part arguing that enforcement of the mandate is still sufficiently imminent to make the cases appropriate for decision. (Appellants' Brief.) Now in an order captioned Wheaton College v. Sebelius, (DC Cir., Dec. 18, 2012) which covers both cases, the D.C. Circuit decided to hold the cases in abeyance and require the government to file status reports with the court every 60 days, saying that the government:

represented to the court that it would never enforce 45 C.F.R. § 147.130(a)(1)(iv) in its current form against the appellants or those similarly situated as regards contraceptive services....  There will, the government said, be a different rule for entities like the appellants, ... and we take that as a binding commitment.  The government further represented that it would publish a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking for the new rule in the first quarter of 2013 and would issue a new Final Rule before August 2013.... We take the government at its word and will hold it to it....  Based expressly upon the understanding that the government will not deviate from its considered representations to this court, we conclude that the cases are not fit for review at this time....

Becket Fund, in a press release announcing the order, called it a victory for all religious non-profits because the government has been forced to promise that it will never enforce the mandate in its current form against non-profit religious employers.

Accused Ft. Hood Shooter May Get To Wear Beard At Trial

The Austin (TX) Statesman yesterday reported that now that a new military judge has been appointed to preside over the trial of accused Fort Hood shooter Maj. Nidal Hasan (see prior posting),  Hasan may be allowed to wear his beard that he has grown for religious reasons.  In an exchange at a hearing yesterday, while not finally ruling on the issue, newly-appointed military judge Col. Tara Osborn told Hasan: "I’m not going to hold (the beard) against you, but people on the (jury) panel may. Do you understand?" Col. Osborn also asked defense attorneys to draw up possible jury instructions to be used if Hasan wears a beard during his trial.

Hawaii Appeals Court Says Archaeological Survey Was Required Before Disinterments

In Hall v. Department of Land and Natural Resources, (HI App., Dec. 14, 2012), the Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals held that an Archaeological Inventory Survey under Hawaii's historic preservation law should have been conducted by the State Historic Preservation Commission before the state permitted the Kawaiahao Church in 2010 to disinter 69 sets of Native Hawaiian human remains while constructing a new Multipurpose Center. Plaintiff in the case, a native Hawaiian, was concerned that family members were buried in unmarked graves on the church site.  Subsequently, according to Hawaii News Now last September, another 579 more recent remains were found on the site.  Honolulu Civil Beat speculates that last week's appeals court decision may require re-interment in original burial sites of the remains of the over-600 persons that were dug up and are being stored on church property.

In Split Decision, Montana High Court Rejects Broad Challenge To Unequal Treatment Of Same-Sex Couples

In a 4-3 decision in Donaldson v. Montana, (MT Sup. Ct., Dec. 17, 2012), the Montana Supreme Court rejected a suit by couples in a committed same-sex relationship challenging their inability under Montana law to obtain the same protections and benefits available to heterosexual couples who can marry. The majority said in part:

In  the  present  case ... Plaintiffs  do  not  seek  a declaration that any particular statute is unconstitutional or that its implementation should be enjoined.  Rather, Plaintiffs seek a general declaration of their rights and seek orders enjoining the State to provide them a “legal status and statutory structure” that protects their rights.... Broadly  determining  the  constitutionality  of  a “statutory  scheme”  that  may,  according  to  Plaintiffs,  involve  hundreds  of  separate statutes, is contrary to established jurisprudence.

The majority held that plaintiffs could file an amended complaint more narrowly challenging specific laws.

Justice Nelson filed a strong 108-page dissent, saying in part:

The problem ... is that this Court has chosen to punt.  And in simply kicking  the  can  down  the  road,  the  Court  has  denied  Plaintiffs  the  dignity,  respect, fairness, justice, and equality to which they are entitled—foremost as human beings, and legally under Montana’s Constitution.... Sexual orientation is a big deal to those who demand that their personal religious beliefs, their Bible’s  abhorrence,  and their partisan ideology  concerning homosexuality must apply to everyone else, across the board, no exceptions.  But future generations—indeed, most young people today—will not fear, much less honor, the sexual-orientation taboo.... [T]he taboo will die because the scare tactics, propaganda, and misinformation of those who would hang on to the maledictions and stereotypes have proven to be so patently false, malicious, and absurd.  Most decent people  just hate  being  lied  to.

As part of his dissent, Justice Nelson concluded that Montana's "Marriage Amendment,"-- the provision in the state constitution barring the recognition of same-sex marriage-- is invalid:

Montana’s  Marriage  Amendment  is  an  unconstitutional  attempt  to  enforce  a sectarian belief (held by some) through Montana’s secular law.... Indeed, the Marriage Amendment is undisputedly grounded in religious doctrine.  That much is apparent not only from the federal district court’s findings, but particularly from the fulminations of numerous religious organizations in the present case, led by the Montana  Catholic  Conference,  against  the  prospect  that  gay,  lesbian,  and  bisexual Montanans  might  enjoy  some  measure  of  legal  protection  for  their  relationships.   If homosexuality and same-sex relationships were not a religious issue, it is highly doubtful that any of these amici would be so actively involved in this case.

Justices Cotter and Wheat filed a brief separate opinion concurring with most of Justice Nelson's dissent, but refusing to join the portion of the dissent dealing with the Marriage Amendment because plaintiffs did not challenge that amendment. They also disagreed with certain other language in Justice Nelson's opinion.

The Montana Supreme Court also published a Synopsis of the Case.  AP reports on the decision. [Thanks to Alliance Alert for the lead.]

Pennsylvania Settles Suit By Rabbi Challenging Funeral Director Law

AP reports  that the Pennsylvania Board of Funeral Directors has settled a federal lawsuit filed against it and other state officials by a Pittsburgh rabbi challenging the Board's requirement to use a licensed funeral director even when a funeral is supervised by a religious authority and there is no embalming or fee-for-service. (See prior posting.) Under the settlement agreement filed with the court yesterday, the state will not apply the Funeral Director Law to clergy and others carrying out their religious functions and beliefs, so long as the person does not advertise as a funeral director, engage commercially in the funeral business or perform embalming.

University's Firing Of HR-VP Over Remarks About Gays Is Upheld By 6th Circuit

In Dixon v. University of Toledo, (6th Cir., Dec. 17, 2012), the U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals held that the University of Toledo-- part of the state University system in Ohio-- did not violate the 1st Amendment free expression rights of its Associate Vice President for Human Resources when it terminated her because of an op-ed column she wrote expressing her views about homosexuality.  Responding to an editorial in the Toledo Free Press that implicitly compared the gay rights movement to the civil-rights movement, UT Associate VP Crystal Dixon, expressing her views as a Christian, African-American woman, argued that homosexuality is not an immutable characteristic.  She was fired because the views she expressed contradicted University policies, procedures and the core values of its strategic plan. (See prior posting.) The 6th Circuit held that a policy-making official "who writes publicly against the very policies that her government employer charges her with creating, promoting, and enforcing" is not engaging in speech that is protected by the 1st Amendment.  According to the court, Dixon's op-ed implicitly suggests that LGBT employees and students are not entitled to civil rights protections.  AP reports on the decision. See prior related posting.) [Thanks to Alliance Alert for the lead.]