Report Claims Religious Liberty Arguments Are Being Used To Stifle Civil Rights

Political Research Associates, an organization devoted to challenging the right and advancing social justice, this week issued a report written by Jay Michaelson titled Redefining Religious Liberty-- The Covert Campaign Against Civil Rights. The Report's Executive Summary reads in part:

A highly-active, well-funded network of conservative Roman Catholic intellectuals and evangelicals are waging a vigorous challenge to LGBTQ and reproductive rights by charging that both threaten their right-wing definition of “religious liberty.” The Christian Right campaign to redefine “religious liberty” has been limiting women’s reproductive rights for more than a decade and has recently resulted in significant religious exemptions from antidiscrimination laws, same-sex marriage laws, policies regarding contraception and abortion, and educational policies. Religious conservatives have succeeded in reframing the debate, inverting the victim-oppressor dynamic, and broadening support for their agenda.

While the religious liberty debate is a growing front in the ongoing culture wars, it is actually an old argument repurposed for a new context. In the postwar era, the Christian Right defended racial segregation, school prayer, public religious displays, and other religious practices that infringed on the liberties of others by claiming that restrictions on such public acts infringed upon their religious liberty. Then as now, the Christian Right turned antidiscrimination arguments on  their heads: instead of African Americans being discriminated against by segregated Christian universities, the universities were being discriminated against by not being allowed to exclude them; instead of public prayers oppressing religious minorities, Christians are being oppressed by not being able to offer them.

Another Small Business Sues To Challenge Contraceptive Coverage Mandate

Lawsuits by small businesses and their owners asserting religious objections to the Affordable Care Act's contraceptive coverage mandate continue to be filed. The latest is Eden Foods, Inc. v. Sebelius, (ED MI, filed 3/20/2013) (full text of complaint). The suit was filed by the corporation and its chairman, president and sole shareholder, Michael Potter. Eden manufactures and sells natural and organic foods, including a line of kosher food. The complaint asserts, in part:

Plaintiff Michael Potter cannot compartmentalize his conscience or his religious beliefs from his daily work and actions as the Chairman, President, and sole shareholder of Plaintiff Eden Foods. Therefore, Plaintiff Michael Potter and Plaintiff Eden Foods share a common mission of conducting their business operations with integrity and consistent with the teachings, mission, and values of the Catholic Church.

The complaint asserts 1st Amendment, RFRA and Administrative Procedure Act claims. Thomas More Law Center issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit.

Colombia's Council of State Invalidates Regulations Mandating Hospitals Perform Certain Abortions

In 2006, Colombia's Constitutional Court struck down the country's total ban on abortions and ruled that abortion must be allowed in cases of rape, incest, fetal malformation or where the life of the mother is threatened. (Background.) Later that year, the country's Ministry of Social Protection issued a decree to implement the court's decision, and refused to exempt Catholic hospitals that had religious objections to performing abortions. In 2009, the Council of State, Colombia's highest administrative court, suspended the decree while considering its constitutionality.  Now, according to a report yesterday by LifeSite News, the Council of State has ruled that the implementing decree is invalid.  It concluded that the Ministry can only issue decrees to implement laws passed by the legislature.  Only the National Congress can issue regulations to implement Constituitonal Court rulings.

Justin Welby Enthroned As New Archbishop of Cantebury

Reuters reports that in Britain today, Justin Welby was officially enthroned as the 105th Archbishop of Canterbury. The Telegraph describes the elaborate ceremony held at Cantebury Cathedral which made Welby the head of the Church of England and the leader of the Anglican Communion around the world. In his inaugural sermon (full text), Archbishop Justin said in part:

For more than a thousand years this country has to one degree or another sought to recognise that Jesus is the Son of God; by the ordering of its society, by its laws, by its sense of community. Sometimes we have done better, sometimes worse. When we do better we make space for our own courage to be liberated, for God to act among us and for human beings to flourish. Slaves were freed, Factory Acts passed, and the NHS and social care established through Christ-liberated courage. The present challenges of environment and economy, of human development and global poverty, can only be faced with extraordinary courage.

The new archbishop brings an unusual personal history to the position.  For 11 years before beginning his theological studies, he worked as an executive in French and British oil exploration and production companies. While he was in France, his 7-month old daughter was killed in a car crash.  Welby's paternal grandfather, Bernard Weiler, was a German Jewish immigrant who moved to England in 1884. (Background). The Archbishop's father led a complicated and secretive life. Welby learned his true family history only as an adult.

Russian Court Rejects Initial Appeal of Sentences By Pussy Riot Members

According to Sky News, in Russia the presidium of the Moscow City Court on March 15 rejected an appeal by Nadezhda Tolokonnikova and Maria Alyokhina, the two members of the punk group Pussy Riot who have been sentenced to two-years in remote prison camps for 'hooliganism motivated by religious hatred." (See prior posting.)  The sentence came in the band's prosecution for an anti-Putin protest performance in Christ the Savior Cathedral. In addition to rejecting the defendants' appeal, the court also rejected an official complaint by Russia's rights ombudsman who sought a new trial for the women, claiming that their actions were not serious enough to be classified as a crime. The judge ruled that the sentence was "fair and proportional to the offence."  The women now plan an appeal to the chairman of the Moscow City Court, and then to the Supreme Court.

British Guest House Owners Get Around Decision Barring Discrimination Against Same-Sex Couples

Last year, England's Court of Appeal upheld upheld a damage award under Britain's Equality Act against a Christian couple who operated a hotel for refusing, on religious grounds, to rent a double-bedded room to a same-sex couple that had reserved it. (See prior posting.) According to today's London Telegraph, the couple say they have now found a way to continue to refuse to rent rooms to same-sex couples. Peter and Hazelmary Bull have turned their guest house into a not-for-profit organization that offers respite care for Christians.  Guests are limited to those who are in agreement with the Bulls' Christian values. Presumably this move allows the Bulls to rely on the exemption in Schedule 23 of the Equality Act which, among other things, permits non-profit organizations formed "to enable persons of a religion or belief to receive any benefit, or to engage in any activity, within the framework of that religion or belief" to discriminate on the basis of religion or sexual orientation in providing facilities or services. Meanwhile the Bulls are also pursuing an appeal of the original decision to the Supreme Court.

5th Circuit Says Bar On Monks' Sale of Caskets Is Unconstitutional

In St. Joseph Abbey v. Castille, (5th Cir., March 20, 2013), the U.S. 5th Circuit held unconstitutional rules issued by the Louisiana Board of Funeral Directors that limit the sale of caskets to funeral homes. The law was challenged by a group of Benedictine monks who make and sell wooden caskets at prices significantly lower than offered by funeral homes. In finding that the law violates the due process and equal protection clauses, the court said:

The great deference due state economic regulation does not demand judicial blindness to the history of a challenged rule or the context of its adoption nor does it require courts to accept nonsensical explanations for regulation. The deference we owe expresses mighty principles of federalism and judicial roles. The principle we protect from the hand of the State today protects an equally vital core principle – the taking of wealth and handing it to others when it comes not as economic protectionism in service of the public good but as “economic” protection of the rulemakers’ pockets. Nor is the ghost of Lochner lurking about. We deploy no economic theory of social statics or draw upon a judicial vision of free enterprise. Nor do we doom state regulation of casket sales. We insist only that Louisiana’s regulation not be irrational – the outer-most limits of due process and equal protection....  

The funeral directors have offered no rational basis for their challenged rule and, try as we are required to do, we can suppose none...

The New Orleans Times-Picayune reports on the decision. (See prior related posting.)

Kentucky Settles Establishment Clause Case With New Safeguards For Child-Care Agencies

A settlement agreement has been reached in the long-running litigation in Pedreira v. Kentucky Baptist Homes for Children (see prior posting).  Yesterday both ABP and an ACLU press release reported on the Settlement Agreement (full text) in the case in which taxpayers charged that payment of state funds to KBHC for the care of children violates the Establishment Clause. The ACLU describes the settlement terms:

Under the settlement, child-care agencies that contract with the state will be forbidden to discriminate in any manner against any child based on the child's views about religion or to pressure children to participate in religious worship or instruction. Publicly funded child-care agencies and foster homes across the state also will be barred from placing religious items in children's rooms without their consent, and religious materials will be given only to children who request them.

In addition, prior to placing a child with a religiously affiliated child-care agency or foster home, the state will inform children and parents of the provider's religious affiliation, and if the child or parent objects, the state will endeavor to provide an alternative placement.

UPDATE: While the state of Kentucky is agreeing to a settlement, Sunrise Children's Services (formerly known as Kentucky Baptist Home for Children) says in a March 21 press release that it is not and is pressing for a ruling on the merits. It claims that it does not engage in religious coercion, nor does government money subsidize any religious activity.

Plaintiffs May Move Ahead On Some of Their Claims Charging Anti-Semitic Bullying

In Shively v. Green Local School District Board of Education, (ND OH, Feb. 28, 2013), parents filed suit claiming that school officials and employees failed to prevent or respond to physical, verbal and electronic religion-based and gender-based bullying of their daughter that went on for years.  Among the many instances of bullying set out in the complaint are claims that students regularly told their daughter she would "rot in Hell" because she did not believe in Jesus Christ, and regularly called her a "dirty Jew" or "Hitler."  An Ohio federal district court permitted plaintiffs to move ahead with substantive due process and equal protection allegations, as well as claims of negligence. However it dismissed several other claims, including one based on the free exercise clause. The court said:

Plaintiffs argue that [their daughter] T.S. has the right to be left alone regarding her religion. Moreover, she has the right not to be punished or put at some disadvantage for being Jewish.... While the events described ... are disturbing on many levels, the Amended Complaint ... presents no facts suggesting that Defendants compromised Plaintiffs’ ability to practice religion.

Factual Issues Remain In 7th Day Adventists' Challenge To Solicitation Ordinance

In South-Central Conference of Seventh Day Adventists v. City of Alabaster, (ND AL, March 19, 2013), Seventh Day Adventists sued to enjoin the city of Alabaster, Alabama from enforcing its Solicitation Permit Ordinance against the church's Literature Evangelists who canvass door-to-door in the summer. Both parties moved for summary judgment. The court held that whether enforcement of the ordinance against plaintiffs violates the 1st Amendment depends on whether they are engaged in commercial or non-commercial speech. It continued:

If ... the Literature Evangelists were evangelizing and selling books, then ... the Plaintiffs’ speech would be religious in nature, and the Ordinances would be invalid as restricting First Amendment protected speech.... [However if] the Literature Evangelists were exclusively selling books and not evangelizing in any way, ... Plaintiffs’ speech would be commercial in nature, and the City could presumably regulate it....

All one must do is read the Literature Evangelists’ and City citizens’ divergent explanations ... to realize that the two distinct narratives that emerge cannot be reconciled. Because the court cannot resolve these differing accounts ... without making some credibility and factual determinations, the court must deny summary judgment for both parties.

Pope's Record Of Dealing With Abusive Priests Is Reviewed

The Washington Post this week reviewed the record of Pope Francis in dealing with sex abuse by priests when he served as Archbishop of Buenos Aires. It focuses particularly on issues raised by the case of  Father Julio Cesar Grassi. The Post reports:

during most of the 14 years that Bergoglio served as archbishop of Buenos Aires, rights advocates say, he did not take decisive action to protect children or act swiftly when molestation charges surfaced; nor did he extend apologies to the victims of abusive priests after their misconduct came to light.

It adds however:

There is no evidence that Bergoglio played a role in covering up abuse cases. Several prominent rights groups in Argentina say the archbishop went out of his way in recent years to stand with secular organizations against crimes such as sex trafficking and child prostitution. They say that Bergoglio’s resolve strengthened as new cases of molestation emerged in the archdiocese and that he eventually instructed bishops to immediately report all abuse allegations to police.

Meanwhile, the National Catholic Reporter yesterday said that the Pope supports zero tolerance of child abuse, citing an interview with him last year.

France's High Court Rules Private School Cannot Fire Muslim Teacher For Wearing Hijab

According to France 24, yesterday the Social Chamber of the Cour de Cassation (France's highest court) ruled that a private nursery school discriminated on the basis of religious belief against a Muslim teacher when it fired her for refusing to remove her hijab while at work. The court held that the principle of secularism established by the French constitution does not apply to private employers, so it cannot be invoked to deprive private employees of the anti-discrimination protections of France's Labor Code. The court ordered the school to pay a fine of 2500 Euros to the fired teacher, Fatima Afif. The court issued a Communique (full text in French) summarizing its decision as well as a decision in a companion case in which it held that the principle of secularism and neutrality did justify dismissing a public service employee for wearing a hijab. According to the court, the prohibition on manifesting religious beliefs by external signs, particularly clothing, applies even to employees providing a public service through a private employer. The employee involved worked for a city's health insurance fund.

Diocese To Pay $700K In Abuse Suit, Avoiding New Trial

The Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel reported yesterday that the Catholic Diocese of Green Bay (WI) has agreed to pay $700,000 in damages to two brothers who were sexually assaulted in the 1970's by now-defrocked priest John Patrick Feeney.  This amount is the damages awarded last July by a state court jury that heard the case.  Subsequently however the verdict was overturned because of juror misconduct, and a new trial had been scheduled to start in May.

Company Charged With Religious Discrimination By EEOC Settles Suit

The EEOC yesterday announced that a Nebraska-based lighting products company has agreed to settle a religious discrimination lawsuit brought against it by the Commission. According to the EEOC complaint, a Tulsa, Oklahoma branch manager advertised for an operations supervisor through the website of a Tulsa church. When Edward Wolf who was not a member of that church applied for the position, most of his job interview focused on his religious activities and beliefs. He was asked to list the churches he had attended, when and where he was "saved", and whether he would attend Bible study at work before clocking in.  Wolf was not hired for the position after the branch manager expressed dissatisfaction with his answers. In the settlement agreement, which must still be approved by the court, Voss Lighting Co. has agreed to pay $82,500 and will also  undertake specified steps to prevent future religious discrimination.

UPDATE: The court approved the settlement on March 20. (Tulsa World).

Was Religious Accommodation Needed For SCOTUS Arguments In Same-Sex Marriage Cases?-- An Editorial Commentary

While much has been written about the intersection of religious belief and same-sex marriage, next week's oral arguments before the U.S. Supreme Court in two same-sex marriage cases pose another religious issue that has hardly been noticed.  Oral arguments are scheduled for March 26 in Hollingsworth v. Perry, and on March 27 in United States v. Windsor. These dates are the first two days of Passover-- holidays in the Jewish calendar on which traditional Jews abstain from work.  One wonders if anyone involved sought, or thought about, religious accommodation.  Three Supreme Court Justices are Jewish (Justices Breyer, Ginsburg and Kagan). One of the eight attorneys presenting oral arguments is Jewish (Roberta Kaplan). The individual who created the legal issue in one of the cases was Jewish-- Edie Windsor's deceased partner, Thea Spyer. Amicus briefs in the cases have been filed by the American Jewish Committee, and by a broad coalition of religious groups that include national organizations representing the Conservative, Reform and Reconstructionist branches of Judaism.

Among the numerous rallies, demonstrations and events planned in Washington next week to coincide with oral arguments, the United for Marriage Coalition has scheduled "Parting the Waters: A Seder for Love, Liberation & Justice" on Tuesday evening, March 26.  So at least someone has noticed the significance of the dates.

In Israel, New Government Is Formed Without Haredi Parties In Coalition

In Israel yesterday, Benjamin Netanyahu's new coalition government was sworn in, without the two haredi (ultra-Orthodox) parties that had traditionally been part of past coalitions included in the government. Instead Netanyahu's coalition relies mainly on the secular Yesh Atid party and the religious pro-settler Jewish Home party.  The Times of Israel chronicles the bitter comments by the haredi Shas and United Torah Judaism lawmakers who now find themselves in their new role as members of opposition parties in the Knesset. AP reports that Yesh Atid will move quickly to submit a bill to reform the military draft to include Orthodox yeshiva students, and will also press for inclusion of more instruction in math, science and English in haredi schools.

Affordable Care Act Pre-Empts State Law Giving Opt Out From Contraceptive Coverage

In Missouri Insurance Coalition v. Huff, (ED MO, March 14, 2013), a Missouri federal district court issued a declaratory judgment finding invalid provisions of Missouri law that permit an opt-out on moral or religious grounds from the federal Affordable Care Act mandate, as well as the state mandate, that health insurance policies cover contraceptive services.  The court concluded that Missouri Revised Statutes § 376.1199, subdivisions 4, 5, and 6(1), (2) and (3) are pre-empted by the federal Affordable Care Act. Those sections provide in part:

Any health benefit plan ... shall provide clear and conspicuous written notice ... : (1) Whether coverage for contraceptives is or is not included; (2) That an enrollee ... has the right to exclude coverage for contraceptives if such coverage is contrary to his or her moral, ethical or religious beliefs; (3) That an enrollee who is a member of a group health benefit plan without coverage for contraceptives has the right to purchase coverage for contraceptives....

The court said:

Here, the federal law and regulations, with limited exceptions, provide that insurers must provide contraceptive coverage, without cost-sharing by an insured. The State law says that insurers cannot provide contraceptive coverage to any person or entity that objects to such coverage based on any moral, ethical, or religious objection. The Court is hard-pressed to see how this does not create a direct conflict for Missouri health insurers.

The court had previously issued a temporary restraining order in the case. AP reports on last week's decision.

House Panel Holds Hearing On Plight of Religious Minorities In Iran

Last Friday, the U.S. House of Representatives Tom Lantos Human Rights Commission held a hearing on The Worsening Plight of Religious Minorities in Iran. In its background statement, the Commission says:

Since the beginning of 2012, there has been an increase in the arrest, imprisonment and killing of religious and cultural minorities in Iran – particularly Christians, Baha’is and Sufi Muslims. 

Transcripts of the testimony of the five witnesses appearing before the Commission are available on the Commission's website.

Ban On School Girls Wearing Hijabs In Russian Caucasus Region Stirs Controversy

The New York Times yesterday reported on the controversy that has been set loose in Stavropol, a region in Russia at the edge of the Caucasus mountain range, after authorities in the far eastern part of the region have banned girls from wearing hijabs in public schools. According to the Times, while Stavropol is 81% ethnic Russian, conservative Muslim Dagestanis have been moving into the region, though only a few girls in a few villages actually wore hijabs to school. The Times continues:

Nevertheless, with conservative, pro-church sentiment surging in Russia, national news broadcasts highlighted the Stavropol story, showing an administrator guiding a child in a hijab back onto the school bus and sending her home.

The ban is being challenged in court, with a first hearing scheduled for tomorrow.

Self-Described Moorish American Nationals Are Taking Over Unoccupied Homes

The Washington Post yesterday reported on an "odd and perplexing phenomenon popping up in cities across the country" in which individuals, claiming to be Moorish American Nationals take over foreclosed or unoccupied homes-- often very expensive ones-- distorting tenets of the Moorish Science Temple of America to support their actions. Asserting claims that black people lived in what is now the United States long before Europeans arrived, they create elaborate arguments that various land instruments are invalid and local laws need not be obeyed. Generally police show up within a few days to evict the trespassers.