Court Denies Injunction In Businesses' Challenge To Contraceptive Coverage Mandate

In Gilardi v. Sebelius. (D DC, March 3, 2013), the D.C. federal district court refused to issue a preliminary injunction to prevent enforcement of the Affordable Care Act contraceptive coverage mandate in a suit by two related for-profit Subchapter S corporations and their Catholic owners.  Plaintiffs object on religious grounds to providing coverage for contraception, sterilization and contraceptive methods that act as abotifacients. The court concluded that plaintiffs failed to show a likelihood of success on the merits of their claim under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.

The court refused to impute the owners' religious views onto their corporations, holding that it must evaluate the claims of the owners and the businesses separately.  Declining to decide whether a for-profit business could ever exercise religion, the court held that in this case the charitable activities and other actions pointed to by plaintiffs do not establish that these companies exercise religion, so the contraceptive coverage mandate cannot impose a substantial burden on them.  Moving to claims by the individual owners, the court held that a substantial burden is not shown merely by plaintiffs claiming that it is such. Here the owners have not shown a substantial burden because they are not required to personally support, endorse or engage in pro-abortion or pro-contraception activity; only the corporations are.

US and Russian Branches of Chabad At Odds Over Putin's Suggested Lawsuit Compromise

As previously reported, U.S. courts have ordered the Russian government to return two expropriated collections of valuable Jewish religious books and manuscripts (the Schneerson Library and the Archive) to the U.S. Chabad organization. Recently Russian President Vladimir Putin has suggested a possible compromise-- keeping the portion of the collection that was nationalized by the Bolsheviks in Moscow's Jewish Museum and Tolerance Center, a museum controlled by the Russian branch of Chabad.  According to yesterday's Forward, the proposal has placed the Russian and U.S. branches of Chabad at odds. Nathan Lewin, lawyer for the Brooklyn-based branch of Chabad has rejected Putin's suggestion.  However, Boruch Gorin, a spokesman for the Russian Chabad's Federation of Jewish Communities, said that Lewin's rejection of the proposed compromise could be "dangerous [for] the future of the Jewish community in Russia." Gorin says that the U.S.-based Chabad should focus on seeking return only of the Archive, which was seized by the Nazis, and only later by the Red Army. The Library, on the other hand, was nationalized by the Bolshevik government in 1917, and its return would create a more difficult precedent for Russia because of the large amount of property nationalized by the Bolsheviks.

Recent Articles of Interest

From SSRN:

• Vito Breda, Sharia Law in Catholic Italy: A Non-Agnostic Model of Accommodation, (February 18, 2013).
• Megan Pearson, Proportionality: A Way Forward for Resolving Religious Claims?, (Nick Spencer (ed.) Religion and Law (London: Theos Think Tank, 2012).)
• Andrew M. Koppelman, And I Don't Care What It Is: Religious Neutrality in American Law, (Pepperdine Law Review, Vol. 39, 2013).
• Paul Horwitz, Defending (Religious) Institutionalism, (Virginia Law Review, Forthcoming).
• John Witte and Joel A. Nichols, Who Governs the Family? Marriage as a New Test Case of Overlapping Jurisdictions, (Faulkner Law Review (Forthcoming 2013)).
• Elizabeth L. Hillman, Outing the Costs of Civil Deference to the Military, (60 Journal of Homosexuality 312, 2013).

From SmartCILP:

• Symposium: The Competing Claims of Law and Religion. Introduction by Robert F. Cochran, Jr. and Michael A. Helfand; articles by James Davison Hunter, Andrew Koppelman, Michael Stokes Paulsen, Abdullahi A. An-Na'im, Mark Strasser, Susan J. Stabile, Barak D. Richman, Sherman J. Clark and John Lawrence Hill; responses by Zachary R. Calo, Patrick McKinley Brennan, Chad Flanders, Richard W. Garnett, Eugene Volokh and Mohammad H. Fadel. 39 Pepperdine Law Review 1051-1425 (2013).
  
• The Sixth Annual John F. Scarpa Conference on Law, Politics, and Culture. A Celebration of the Work of John Finnis. Introduction by Patrick McKinley Brennan; articles by George C. Christie, Michelle Madden Dempsey, Frederick G. Lawrence, Rev. Martin Rhonheimer, Candace Vogler and Michael J. White; responses by Patrick McKinley Brennan, Matthew Lister, Anna Bonta Moreland, Michael P. Moreland and Rev. Richard A. Munkelt; keynote response by John Finnis. 57 Villanova Law Review 809-955 (2012).

Legal Documents To Assist In Following the Upcoming Papal Election

With the proceedings leading to the election of a new Pope scheduled to begin tomorrow, here are formal legal documents and other useful resources for following the process.

The formal rules for electing a pontiff are found in the Apostolic Constitution, On the Vacancy of the Apostolic See and the Election of the Roman Pontiff, promulgated by Pope John Paul II in 1996, as modified by the Apostolic Letter, On Certain Modifications to the Norms Governing the Election of the Roman Pontiff, promulgated by Pope Benedict XVI on Feb. 22, 2013. (An intermediate amendment to the rules promulgated by Pope Benedict XVI in 2007 (full text in French) has been superseded by his 2013 amendments.)

On March 1, Angelo Cardinal Sodano, Dean of the College of Cardinals, issued a formal letter (full text) notifying the Cardinals of the vacancy in the Apostolic See and convoking "the first of the General Congregations of the College of Cardinals, to be held Monday, March 4 at 9:30 am in Paul VI Hall, in the room of the Synod of Bishops."

The OUP Blog has posted a useful guide titled An Oxford Companion to the 2013 Papal Elections.

Recent Prisoner Free Exercise Cases

In Williams v. Fisher, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23275 (ND NY, Feb. 20. 2013), a New York federal district court adopted a magistrate’s recommendation (2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 24560, Jan. 29, 2013) and refused to dismiss a complaint by a Nazarite Jewish inmate that his religious dietary needs were not being met.

In Elder v. Scolapia, (WV Sup. Ct., Feb. 22, 2013), the West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals rejected claims by petitioner who was sentenced to home incarceration after pleading guilty to sexual abuse and assault charges that his rights were infringed when the trial court denied his request to attend religious services at a specific church.

In Smith v. Owens, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22722 (MD GA, Feb. 20, 2013), a Georgia federal district court adopted a magistrate's recommendation (2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 25428, Jan. 15, 2013) and permitted a Muslim inmate to proceed with his claim for injunctive relief under RLUIPA.  Plaintiff claims that the Georgia prison grooming policy violates his rights by not permitting him to grow a beard for religious purposes. Other claims by plaintiff were dismissed.

In Rogers v. Giurbino, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 26293 (SD CA, Feb. 26, 2013), a California federal district court dismissed an inmate's claim that suspension of Protestant group prayer services, fellowship and ministry classes during the prison lock downs violated his rights under RLUIPA.

In Toland v. Williams, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 26198 (SD GA, Feb. 26, 2013), a Georgia federal magistrate judge permitted an inmate to proceed with his claim that he did not receive the restricted vegan diet demanded by his religious beliefs.

In Mills v. McGarry, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 26953 (SD WV, Feb. 26, 2013), a West Virginia federal district court, rejecting a magistrate's recommendation (2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 186457, Dec. 11, 2012), permitted a Hare Krishna inmate to proceed with his motion for an emergency preliminary injunction under RLUIPA challenging a policy that required him to waive his medical diet in order to receive a diet that comported with his religious beliefs. Agreeing with the magistrate's other recommendations, the court dismissed plaintiff's 1st and 8th amendment and state constitutional claims, saying in part that: "giving a prisoner daily sustenance whose quality comports with the overwhelming majority of society's standards, but of a nature that does not fully comport with a prisoner's religious beliefs" does not amount to cruel and unusual punishment.

In Rutherford v. Hines, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 24255 (D SC, Feb. 22, 2013), a South Carolina federal district court adopted a magistrate's recommendations (2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 26312, Jan. 31, 2013) and dismissed an inmate's free exercise claims regarding not receiving a pork-free diet while a pre-trial detainee.

In Duwenhoegger v. King, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23498 (D MN, Feb. 21, 2013), a Minnesota federal district court adopted a magistrate's recommendations (2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 25255, Jan. 28, 2013), and dismissed an inmate's complaint that he was not permitted to send or receive mail using the honorific title "Pastor," and was denied participation in a correspondence Bible studies course while he was in segregation. The court also rejected a large number of complaints about other aspects of plaintiff's confinement.

In Bramlett v. Ligget, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 27374 (SD IL, Feb. 28, 2013), an Illinois federal district court permitted an inmate to proceed with claims that the correctional center mail room supervisor interfered with his receiving gospel tracts and a religious enrollment form that had been sent to him.

In Cooke v. United States Bureau of Prisons, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 26947 (D NC, Feb. 27, 2013), a North Carolina federal district court allowed inmates, who were confined to wheel chairs, to proceed with complaints under RFRA and the 1st Amendment that unlike detainees without disabilities they cannot access the religious library or outdoor pagan worship area at their correctional facility.

In Hughes v. Heimgartner, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 26727 (D KA, Feb. 27, 2013), a Kansas federal district court, while dismissing a number of claims, permitted a Muslim inmate to move ahead with claims for declaratory and injunctive relief under RLUIPA and the 1st Amendment in a suit alleging that while in segregation he had been denied the Halal meal for Eid  ul Fitr that was available to other Muslim inmates.

In Maldonado v. Yates, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 27163 (ED CA, Feb. 26, 2013), a California federal magistrate judge recommended dismissal of an inmate's complaint that under prison rules he is not allowed to attend religious services of more than one religious group, and that he was denied a kosher diet that he says is better for his health and mental disability. The court said in part: "Plaintiff appears to seek the option to sample whatever religion suits his interest, which is not the purpose of the rights protected by the Free Exercise Clause."

Constitutional Issue Avoided In Preacher's Guilty Plea For Possessing Poisonous Snakes

In a Tennessee trial court last Monday, James Coots, pastor of the Full Gospel Tabernacle in Jesus Name in Middlesboro, Kentucky, pleaded guilty to illegally possessing poisonous snakes. According to UPI, Coots, whose church engages in the practice of snake handling, legally acquired the snakes in Alabama and was driving through Tennessee taking the snakes to Kentucky where they are also legal to possess. Tennessee police discovered the snakes when they pulled Coots over for having too darkly tinted windows in his car.  Coots lawyer says he believes seizing the snakes was unconstitutional. However, apparently in a plea deal, Coots received only one-year probation in exchange for his guilty plea.

Clergy Have Mixed Views of Arkansas Lifting of Gun Ban In Churches

As previously reported, last month Arkansas adopted the Church Protection Act that removes the absolute ban on carrying handguns in houses of worship and leaves the decision on who may carry a concealed weapon into a church up to each congregation. The Arkansas Times reports this week that the change has been greeted with mixed feelings.

Faith Assembly of God minister Nic Horton says that the new law will allow smaller, rural churches to provide security by arming a few specific trusted parishioners. He says that allowing churches to make that kind of decision is "the real meaning of the separation of church and state."  However Presbyterian minister Marie O'Connell has a different perspective. She complains:

I have to take time out from pastoring and teaching and preaching to work on an issue that was a non-issue before the government decided they wanted it to be an issue. It's a perfect example of society imposing on religion, and religion having to consider: What does this mean? What does this mean for what I believe?"

Court Denies Preliminary Injunction To Non-Liturgical Protestant Navy Chaplains

In In re: Navy Chaplaincy, (D DC, Feb. 28, 2013), the D.C. federal district court refused to issue a preliminary injunction in a suit claiming that the U.S. Navy's chaplain selection process results in denominational favoritism that prefers Catholic and liturgical Protestant chaplains, to the disadvantage of non-liturgical Protestant chaplains. The suit brought by former chaplains, chaplain endorsing agencies and a group of churches claimed, primarily on the basis of statistical evidence, that the Navy discriminates against non-liturgical chaplains in violation of the Establishment Clause and the equal protection component of the 5th Amendment. Plaintiffs point to the unique voting procedures used by chaplains on selection boards. The court held that plaintiffs must prove discriminatory intent to show a constitutional violation, and have failed to do so. The mere disparate impact shown here was not enough to require an inference of purposeful intent. The court's decision came after the case was remanded to it from the D.D. Circuit Court of Appeals. (See prior posting.)

Spanish Supreme Court Invalidates City's Burqa Ban

ANSAMED reports that on Thursday the Supreme Court of Spain overturned a local ban on clothing that covers the face, such as the burqa.  The Catalonian city of Lierda enacted the ban in 2010.  In a challenge to it by the Catalan Muslim Association, the Supreme Court ruled that banning the Islmic veil infringes religious freedom. The full Supreme Court opinion in Spanish is available from this link.

Colorado Appeals Court Rejects Challenge To School Voucher Program

In Taxpayers for Public Education v. Douglas County School District, (CO App., Feb. 28, 2013), a Colorado state appeals court in a 2-1 decision upheld  Douglas County, Colorado's "Choice Scholarship Program" under which parents of eligible students could obtain vouchers covering a  portion of the tuition costs of sending their children to certain private schools, a majority of which have religious affiliations. The appeals court majority held that plaintiffs lack standing to claim that the scholarship program violates the Colorado Public School Finance Act.  The majority also concluded that the voucher program does not violate provisions of the Colorado Constitution that prohibit funding or support of sectarian institutions. Judge Bernard dissented, arguing that the program violates Colorado Constitution Art. IX, Sec. 7 that prohibits state support for any school controlled by any church or sectarian denomination. The ACLU issued a press release, saying it would appeal the decision to the Colorado Supreme Court.

Justice Department Briefs Its Position On Merits In Both SCOTUS Same-Sex Marriage Cases

The U.S. Department of Justice has now filed briefs setting forth its arguments on the merits in the two same-sex marriage cases that will be argued before the Supreme Court later this month.  On Feb. 22, the Justice Department filed a merits brief (full text) in United States v. Windsor, the challenge to the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act.  Yesterday the Justice Department filed an amicus brief (full text) with the U.S. Supreme Court in Hollingsworth v. Perry, the federal equal protection challenge to California's Proposition 8. In both cases, the Justice Department argued that classifications based on sexual orientation should, when challenged under the Equal Protection Clause, be subject to heightened scrutiny. In its Hollingsworth brief, DOJ stated directly that: "The President and Attorney General have determined that classifications based on sexual orientation should be subject to heightened scrutiny for equal protection purposes."

In its Windsor brief, DOJ argued rather straight forwardly that Section 3 of DOMA fails heightened scrutiny. In its Hollingsworth brief, however, the Department of Justice took a more complicated position.  As discussed by Lyle Denniston at SCOTUS Blog, DOJ took the position that California's Proposition 8 fails the heightened scrutiny test, but in an argument that stops short of contending that the U.S. Constitution requires all states to recognize same-sex marriage.  DOJ reasoned that California does not substantially further any important governmental interest by barring same-sex marriage since it already gives same-sex couples the right to enter domestic partnerships that confer all the same rights as marriage.  This argument would apply only to the 8 states that have granted domestic partners or those who have entered civil unions rights equal to those of married couples.

Court Refuses TRO Against Contraceptive Coverage Mandate In Challenge By For-Profit Senior Care Companies

In Briscoe v. Sebelius, (D CO, Feb. 27, 2013), a Colorado federal district court refused to grant a temporary restraining order to a for-profit corporation, two related for-profit LLCs and their evangelical Christian owner who were challenging the application of the Affordable Care Act contraceptive coverage mandate to them. The companies manage and operate senior care assisted living centers and skilled nursing facilities, and offer a self-insurance plan to their over 200 employees. Business owner Stephen Briscoe Briscoe says that his religious beliefs prevent him from including coverage for contraceptives, abortifacients, and sterilization procedures in his companies' insurance plans. The court concluded that plaintiffs' had not shown a substantial likelihood of success on the merits of their claims.

Rejecting plaintiffs' claim under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, the court held that "secular, for-profit corporations neither exercise nor practice religion." It went on to reject the claim that the mandate imposes a substantial burden on the business owner's practice of religion:

Briscoe claims a substantial burden based on what his companies must do, rather than what he himself must do. The AHCA’s mandate does not prevent Briscoe from personally exercising his religion....  [A]ny burden Briscoe claims on his ability to exercise his religion based on his companies’ compliance with the AHCA mandate, is slight and attenuated. Further, Briscoe’s argument implicitly requests that I disregard the distinction between a corporation and its officers and owners. Briscoe cannot use corporate status to shield himself from liability and at the same use it as a sword to assert an RFRA claim.

The court also rejected plaintiffs' 1st Amendment free exercise, free speech and Establishment Clause challenges.

Texas Diocese's Challenge To Contraceptive Coverage Mandate Dismissed On Ripeness Grounds

In Roman Catholic Diocese of Dallas v. Sebelius, (ND TX, Feb. 26, 2013), a Texas federal district court dismissed on ripeness grounds a challenge by the Catholic Diocese of Dallas to the contraceptive coverage mandate under the Affordable Care Act. The court held that while plaintiff at the time of filing the lawsuit faced sufficiently imminent injury to have standing, subsequent developments require a dismissal for lack of ripeness. The government's Feb. 2013 Notice of Proposed Rulemaking undermine a realistic and pragmatic consideration of the issue at this time.

Canadian Supreme Court Upholds Key Part of Saskatchewan's Hate Speech Law

In Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission v. Whatcott, (Sup. Ct. Canada, Feb. 27, 2013), the Supreme Court of Canada, in a 116-page opinion, upheld the constitutionality of a key provision in the Saskatchewan Human Rights Code, Sec. 14.  However it invalidated a portion of the statute's language.  At issue in the case were 4 flyers critical of homosexuality published and  distributed by William Whatcott. The Supreme Court concluded that 2 of the flyers violated the Saskatchewan ban, while two other flyers did not.

Sec. 14 in part bars publication of any statement

that exposes or tends to expose to hatred, ridicules, belittles or otherwise affronts the dignity of any person or class of persons on the basis of a prohibited ground.

The court held that while this provision imposes limitations on freedom of expression and conscience, the limitations are permissible under Sec. 1 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms that allows "reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society." The Court said in part:

[H]ate speech seeks to delegitimize group members in the eyes of the majority, reducing their social standing and acceptance within society.... Hate speech lays the groundwork for later, broad attacks on vulnerable groups that can range from discrimination, to ostracism, segregation, deportation, violence and, in the most extreme cases, to genocide. Hate speech also impacts on a protected group’s ability to respond to the substantive ideas under debate, thereby placing a serious barrier to their full participation in our democracy....

The societal harm flowing from hate speech must be assessed as objectively as possible and the focus must be on the likely effect of the hate speech on how individuals external to the group might reconsider the social standing of the group. Section 14(1)(b) of the Code reflects this approach. The prohibition only prohibits public communication of hate speech; it does not restrict hateful expression in private communications between individuals....

The fact that s. 14(1)(b) of the Code does not require intent by the publisher or proof of harm, or provide for any defences does not make it overbroad.... [T]he preventive measures found in human rights legislation reasonably centre on effects, rather than intent.

However, the court found that some of the prohibitions in Sec. 14 go too far:

[E]xpression that “ridicules, belittles or otherwise affronts the dignity of” does not rise to the level of ardent and extreme feelings constituting hatred required to uphold the constitutionality of a prohibition of expression in human rights legislation. Accordingly, those words in s. 14(1)(b) of the Code ... unjustifiably infringe freedom of expression.... and must be struck from s. 14(1)(b)....

 The Globe and Mail and AFP report on the decision.

Dutch Court Upholds Fine On Orthodox Jew For Failing To Carry ID On Sabbath

AP reported Tuesday that in the Netherlands, an appeals court held that a 2005 law which makes it mandatory to carry an identification card and show it to police on request does not exempt individuals who fail to carry the ID card for religious reasons. The Hague Appeals Court upheld a 60 Euro fine imposed on an Orthodox Jewish man who could not produce the ID card for police on the Sabbath because it was against his religious beliefs to carry anything on the Sabbath. [Thanks to Joel Katz (Relig. & State in Israel) for the lead.]

Ohio High Court Hears Oral Arguments On Fired Science Teacher's Rights

The Ohio Supreme Court yesterday heard oral arguments (video of full arguments) in Freshwater v. Mount Vernon City School District Board of Education.  In the case, a state appeals court upheld the firing of John Freshwater, a middle school school science teacher. The school board based the firing on Freshwater's injecting his religious views, including belief in Creationism, into the classroom and for insubordination in failing to remove certain religious materials from the classroom after being ordered to do so by the school board. (See prior posting.) The oral argument preview posted by the Ohio Supreme Court describes the question at issue as follows:

Did the firing of a public school teacher for violating a school district policy that prohibits teachers from distributing extracurricular materials of a religious nature to students in the classroom or endorsing the beliefs or principles of any religion in the course of instructing students violate the teacher’s right to freedom of speech and freedom of religion under the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution?

AP and the Columbus Dispatch, reporting on yesterday's oral arguments, said that the Justices particularly questioned David Kane Smith, attorney for the school's insurance company, who argued the case for the school board.

4th Circuit Upholds Regulation of Fortune Tellers Over 1st Amendment Objections

In Moore-King v. County of Chesterfield, Virginia, (4th Cir., Feb. 26, 2013), the U.S. 4th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld against various constitutional challenges a Virginia county's regulation of fortune tellers. The regulations require fortune tellers to obtain a license and business permit, and to obtain a conditional use permit in order to locate their business in specifically zoned areas.  The court held that while the 1st Amendment's free speech clause gives some protection to fortune telling, here the county has merely enacted a generally applicable licensing and regulatory scheme regulating professional speech. The court also rejected the argument that the regulation infringes the free exercise of religion in violation of the 1st Amendment and RLUIPA.  It concluded that the beliefs of the "spiritual counselor" here challenging the regulation are "personal and philosophical choices consistent with a way of life," and are "not deep religious convictions shared by an organized group deserving of constitutional solicitude." Finally the court rejected plaintiff's equal protection challenge to the regulatory scheme. AP reports on the decision. (See prior related posting.)

Australia's Top Court Upholds Permit Requirement For Preaching On Streets

Yesterday the High Court of Australia, the country's supreme court, upheld a By-Law of the city of Adelaide that requires the obtaining of a permit in order to "preach, canvass, harangue, tout for business or conduct any survey or opinion poll" on any public or private street. The by-law was challenged by two street preachers.  In Attorney-General (SA) v Corporation of the City of Adelaide, (HCA, Feb. 27, 2013), Justice Hayne, writing one of the opinions upholding the By-Law, said:

... [T]he concern of those who must decide whether to grant or withhold consent is confined to the practical question of whether the grant of permission will likely create an unacceptable obstruction of the road in question.  Once that is understood, it is readily evident that the impugned provisions are reasonably appropriate and adapted to prevent obstruction of roads in a manner which is compatible with the maintenance of the constitutionally prescribed system of representative and responsible government.... 

The Australian reporting on the decision gives additional background on events that led to the case:

In September 2010, the preachers - who are not affiliated with any church - were banned from holding their self-described "prayer meetings" in the mall. Retailers and shoppers had complained their preaching - done through amplifiers and megaphones - was "xenophobic, homophobic and sexist". They claimed the group "shout and scream slanderous" comments including "Muslims are dirty" and "you are all sinners who will be killed by God". Adelaide City Council claimed it had the power to exclude them from the Mall under a bylaw governing the proper use of roadways.

Milwaukee Mexican Festival Agrees To End Ticket Discount For Mass Attendees

Each year, the Wisconsin Hispanic Scholarship Foundation sponsors a festival, Mexican Fiesta, at Milwaukee's Sumerfest Grounds. As reported by WITI News, in past years the Fiesta offered a steeply discounted admission price to individuals who attended a Catholic Mass held on the festival grounds prior to the opening of the festival. Last year the Freedom From Religion Foundation objected, arguing that this amounts to preferential treatment in public accommodations on the basis of creed-- a violation of Wis. Stat. 106.52(3)(a)(2). It filed a complaint with the state Equal Rights Division. Now the festival has agreed to a settlement in the case including an agreement that "future Mexican Fiesta promotions will not be timed to coincide with times of entry or exit of the annual Mass."

Group Wins Settlement In Suit Alleging Discrimination Against Nonbelievers

The Center For Inquiry (CFI) announced yesterday that it has successfully settled a religious discrimination and breach of contract lawsuit it brought last year against a Michigan country club.  The Wyndgate Country Club of Rochester Hills, Michigan cancelled its contract for CFI to hold a dinner at the country club after the club learned that the speaker for the event was famous atheist Richard Dawkins.  The club justified the cancellation by saying "the owner does not wish to associate with certain individuals and philosophies." (See prior posting.) CFI says that this may be the first time federal and state laws barring religious discrimination in public accommodations have been successfully invoked by nonbelievers.