6th Circuit: Ministerial Exception Is Non-Waivable

In Conlon v. InterVarsity Christian Fellowship/ USA, (6th Cir., Feb. 5, 2015), the U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals faced its first "ministerial exception" case since the Supreme Court's 2012 Hosanna-Tabor decision.  In the case, InterVarsity Christian Fellowship, a Christian campus organization, asserted a "ministerial exception" defense in a sex discrimination suit against it by its former spiritual director who claimed that her firing because her marriage was heading toward divorce violated Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act and Michigan's Elliot-Larsen Act.  The 3-judge panel's majority opinion held first that IVCF, while not a church, is still a religious organization that can claim the ministerial exception for a ministerial employee such as plaintiff.

Conlon claimed that IVCF had waived the ministerial exception, but the majority held:

The ministerial exception is a structural limitation imposed on the government by the Religion Clauses, a limitation that can never be waived....

Finally the majority held that the First Amendment's ministerial exception can be asserted as a defense against state law claims, and can be raised by individuals when they are personally sued for discrimination as the agents of a religious employer.

Judge Rogers concurred in the result, but contended that the majority went further than necessary in reaching its conclusion.  He said:

Our decision today does not require us to decide whether a religious employer could enter into a judicially-enforceable employment contract with a ministerial employee not to fire that employee on certain grounds (such as pregnancy). Judicial enforcement of such a contract might unduly interfere with the independence of religious institutions, but barring religious institutions from offering such a legally binding guarantee might make it harder for some religious institutions to hire the people they want. Conlon in this case now disavows any contractual argument. Thus, to the extent that any analysis in the majority opinion might be read to govern non-Title VII employer obligations, such analysis is not necessary to our judgment. 

Acton Institute Power Blog reports on the decision. [Thanks to Paul deMello Jr. for the lead.] 

President Delivers Important Address To National Prayer Breakfast

President Obama delivered an important address (full text) at today's annual National Prayer Breakfast in Washington, D.C.  First, in a gesture defying China's objections, the President warmly welcomed the Dalai Lama, saying:

I want to offer a special welcome to a good friend, His Holiness the Dalai Lama -- who is a powerful example of what it means to practice compassion, who inspires us to speak up for the freedom and dignity of all human beings.  (Applause.)  I’ve been pleased to welcome him to the White House on many occasions, and we’re grateful that he’s able to join us here today.  (Applause.) 

As reported by the Washington Post:

Obama bowed his head and brought his hands together in a Namaste gesture when the Dalai Lama was introduced at the beginning of the breakfast. The Dalai Lama was seated at a table with top Obama adviser Valerie Jarrett. She was dispatched to Dharamsala, India, where the Dalai Lama lives in exile, after the White House canceled a meeting with the leader ahead of Obama's first visit to Beijing in 2009.

Chinese leaders sharply criticized the presence of the Dalai Lama at the Prayer Breakfast -- as Beijing did the previous three times the two men met in the past. This time, the White House stressed they did not invite the Dalai Lama and that he and Obama had no plans to meet.

Second, the President spelled out at length his views on the complex relationship of religion and world affairs, and emphasized the U.S. view on the relationship of religious liberty and freedom of expression.  These portions of his remarks are sufficiently important to be set out at  length:

 [P]art of what I want to touch on today is the degree to which we've seen professions of faith used both as an instrument of great good, but also twisted and misused in the name of evil. 

As we speak, around the world, we see faith inspiring people to lift up one another -- to feed the hungry and care for the poor, and comfort the afflicted and make peace where there is strife....

But we also see faith being twisted and distorted, used as a wedge -- or, worse, sometimes used as a weapon.  From a school in Pakistan to the streets of Paris, we have seen violence and terror perpetrated by those who profess to stand up for faith, their faith, professed to stand up for Islam, but, in fact, are betraying it.  We see ISIL, a brutal, vicious death cult that, in the name of religion, carries out unspeakable acts of barbarism  -- terrorizing religious minorities like the Yezidis, subjecting women to rape as a weapon of war, and claiming the mantle of religious authority for such actions. 

We see sectarian war in Syria, the murder of Muslims and Christians in Nigeria, religious war in the Central African Republic, a rising tide of anti-Semitism and hate crimes in Europe, so often perpetrated in the name of religion.

So how do we, as people of faith, reconcile these realities -- the profound good, the strength, the tenacity, the compassion and love that can flow from all of our faiths, operating alongside those who seek to hijack religious for their own murderous ends? 

Humanity has been grappling with these questions throughout human history.  And lest we get on our high horse and think this is unique to some other place, remember that during the Crusades and the Inquisition, people committed terrible deeds in the name of Christ.  In our home country, slavery and Jim Crow all too often was justified in the name of Christ.  Michelle and I returned from India -- an incredible, beautiful country, full of magnificent diversity -- but a place where, in past years, religious faiths of all types have, on occasion, been targeted by other peoples of faith, simply due to their heritage and their beliefs -- acts of intolerance that would have shocked Gandhiji, the person who helped to liberate that nation. 

So this is not unique to one group or one religion.  There is a tendency in us, a sinful tendency that can pervert and distort our faith.  In today’s world, when hate groups have their own Twitter accounts and bigotry can fester in hidden places in cyberspace, it can be even harder to counteract such intolerance. But God compels us to try.  And in this mission, I believe there are a few principles that can guide us, particularly those of us who profess to believe. 

And, first, we should start with some basic humility.  I believe that the starting point of faith is some doubt -- not being so full of yourself and so confident that you are right and that God speaks only to us, and doesn’t speak to others, that God only cares about us and doesn’t care about others, that somehow we alone are in possession of the truth. 

Our job is not to ask that God respond to our notion of truth -- our job is to be true to Him, His word, and His commandments.  And we should assume humbly that we’re confused and don’t always know what we’re doing and we’re staggering and stumbling towards Him, and have some humility in that process.  And that means we have to speak up against those who would misuse His name to justify oppression, or violence, or hatred with that fierce certainty.  No God condones terror.  No grievance justifies the taking of innocent lives, or the oppression of those who are weaker or fewer in number.

And so, as people of faith, we are summoned to push back against those who try to distort our religion -- any religion -- for their own nihilistic ends.  And here at home and around the world, we will constantly reaffirm that fundamental freedom -- freedom of religion -- the right to practice our faith how we choose, to change our faith if we choose, to practice no faith at all if we choose, and to do so free of persecution and fear and discrimination.

There’s wisdom in our founders writing in those documents that help found this nation the notion of freedom of religion, because they understood the need for humility.  They also understood the need to uphold freedom of speech, that there was a connection between freedom of speech and freedom of religion.  For to infringe on one right under the pretext of protecting another is a betrayal of both. 

But part of humility is also recognizing in modern, complicated, diverse societies, the functioning of these rights, the concern for the protection of these rights calls for each of us to exercise civility and restraint and judgment.  And if, in fact, we defend the legal right of a person to insult another’s religion, we’re equally obligated to use our free speech to condemn such insults -- (applause) -- and stand shoulder-to-shoulder with religious communities, particularly religious minorities who are the targets of such attacks.  Just because you have the right to say something doesn’t mean the rest of us shouldn’t question those who would insult others in the name of free speech.  Because we know that our nations are stronger when people of all faiths feel that they are welcome, that they, too, are full and equal members of our countries.

So humility I think is needed.  And the second thing we need is to uphold the distinction between our faith and our governments.  Between church and between state.  The United States is one of the most religious countries in the world -- far more religious than most Western developed countries.  And one of the reasons is that our founders wisely embraced the separation of church and state.  Our government does not sponsor a religion, nor does it pressure anyone to practice a particular faith, or any faith at all.  And the result is a culture where people of all backgrounds and beliefs can freely and proudly worship, without fear, or coercion....   

That’s not the case in theocracies that restrict people’s choice of faith.  It's not the case in authoritarian governments that elevate an individual leader or a political party above the people, or in some cases, above the concept of God Himself.  So the freedom of religion is a value we will continue to protect here at home and stand up for around the world, and is one that we guard vigilantly here in the United States.

Alabama Asks Supreme Court For Stay of Same-Sex Marriage Injunction

As reported by Jurist, Tuesday the U.S. 11th Circuit Court of Appeals refused to grant a stay beyond the current Feb. 9 effective date of a district court order in Searcy v. Strange invalidating Alabama's bans on same-sex marriage. (See prior posting.)  The state immediately filed an application for a stay of the injunction (full text) with Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, who has the option of ruling on the application himself or referring it to the full court. SCOTUSblog also reports on developments.

Court Says Religious Non-Profits Need Not Identify Their Insurers To HHS

In Christian and Missionary Alliance Foundation, Inc. v. Burwell, (MD FL, Feb. 3, 2015), a Florida federal district court granted a preliminary injunction barring enforcement of part of the latest rules accommodating religious non-profits' objections to the Affordable Care Act contraceptive coverage mandate:

The Court finds that the portion of the accommodation process which requires plaintiffs to self-certify their eligibility for the accommodation and provide that written self-certification to the HHS does not substantially burden plaintiffs’ exercise of religion.... This notification need not be on a government-issued form.

... [However] the Court reaches the opposite conclusion as to the portion of the government form which requires identification of and the contact information for plaintiffs’ insurance carrier and/or third party administrator.... Compelling plaintiffs to identify their providers or administrators to the HHS clearly facilitates the government’s ability to implement contraceptive coverage for plaintiffs’ female employees. While plaintiffs cannot preclude the government from such implementation, the identification requirement compels plaintiffs to become excessively entangled in the process of providing coverage for services which their sincerely held religious beliefs prohibit....

AP reports on the decision.

California Legislators Urge End To Vaccination Exemptions For Religious and Personal Beliefs

With the number of measles cases in California since December reaching 99, California's two U.S. Senators-- Barbara Boxer and Dianne Feinstein-- yesterday sent a letter (full text) to the state's Health and Human Services Secretary urging that state religious and personal belief exemptions to vaccination requirements be eliminated.  The letter reads in part:

California’s current law allows two options for parents to opt out of vaccine requirements for school and daycare: they must either make this decision with the aid of a health professional, or they can simply check a box claiming that they have religious objections to medical care. We think both options are flawed, and oppose even the notion of a medical professional assisting to waive a vaccine requirement unless there is a medical reason, such as an immune deficiency.

The Wall Street Journal reported yesterday that State Sen. Richard Pan, a pediatrician, plans to introduce legislation to end these exemptions, though he is open to discussion about keeping the religious exemption.

EEOC Releases 2014 Data

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission yesterday released fiscal year 2014 private sector data tables providing detailed breakdowns for the 88,778 charges of workplace discrimination filed with the agency.  During the year, the EEOC received 3549 complaints alleging religious discrimination (4% of all complaints), and it resolved 3575 religious discrimination cases.  In 65.1% of the cases resolved, the agency found no reasonable cause. 19.2% of the complaints were administratively closed.  268 cases were settled.  In cases not settled or withdrawn, the EEOC found reasonable cause to believe that religious discrimination occurred in 116 cases.  Successful conciliation was reached in 34 of those cases.  Settlements and conciliations of religious discrimination complaints resulted in complainants receiving $8.7 million in benefits. This does not include additional amounts that may have been recovered in litigation. Wall Street Journal reports on other data released.

Biblical Theme Park To Sue Over Denial of Tax Rebates

Answers in Genesis announced this week that it plans to file a federal lawsuit challenging Kentucky's refusal to allow its planned Ark Encounter theme park to participate in the state's tax rebate incentive program. In December, the state reversed an earlier preliminary decision to allow the Noah's Ark theme park some $18 million in sales tax rebates in a program designed to promote Kentucky tourism. The state said that the park had evolved from a tourist attraction into a project to promote a literal reading of the Biblical book of Genesis. It also objects to the park's plan to hire only Christians. (See prior posting.) The lawsuit will contend that the state's action amounts to unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination.

Religious Freedom Laws Limit Reach of Homeowners Association Rules

A state court judge in Collin County, Texas yesterday ruled that the Texas Religious Freedom Restoration Act and the federal Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act trump Home Owners' Association rules. According to the Dallas Morning News, a neighbor, joined later by the property owners association, sued to enforce deed restrictions barring use of a north Dallas home by Congregation Toras Chaim, a group of 30 Orthodox Jewish families, for daily prayer services.  Plaintiffs argued unsuccessfully that the state and federal religious freedom statutes apply only to action by governmental entities. [Thanks to Steven H. Sholk for the lead.]

Suit Against Legion of Christ Over Bequest Settled

According to Monday's Providence Journal, a Rhode Island federal district court lawsuit against the scandal-ridden Catholic order, the Legion of Christ, has been settled out of court. The suit was brought by Paul Chu as executor of his father's estate. (See prior related posting.) His father, James Boa-Teh Chu, a former Brown University mechanical engineering professor who died in 2009, left annuities worth between $1 and $2 million to the Legion. The suit claimed that the Legion used undue influence on the elder Chu in his last years in order to obtain the bequest. The terms of the out-of-court settlement were not disclosed.

Break-Away S.C. Episcopal Churches Win Right To Real, Personal and Intellectual Property

In Protestant Episcopal Church In The Diocese of South Carolina v. Episcopal Church, (SC Cir. Ct., Feb. 3, 2015), a South Carolina state trial court held that 38 break-away Episcopal parishes in South Carolina retain ownership of their real, personal and intellectual property. It rejected claims by The Episcopal Church that an express or a constructive trust existed under which it could claim the property. Finally the court enjoined The Episcopal Church from using the names or seals of the break-away churches and their Diocese. FITS News reports on the decision.

New Islamic Tribunal Is Set Up In Texas

What is perhaps the first Islamic Tribunal in the United States has been set up in Dallas, Texas.  The Tribunal offers to the Muslim community mediation and non-binding arbitration that follows Islamic principles. CBS 11 News reports on the new Tribunal. Breibart last week carried a rather unsympathetic article on the Tribunal

International Court of Justice Clears Both Serbia and Croatia of Genocide Charges

Yesterday the International Court of Justice at The Hague handed down a 145-page opinion rejecting both Croatia's claim of genocide against Serbia (vote of 15-2) and Serbia's claim of genocide against Croatia (unanimous decision) growing out of the 1991-2001 War in the Balkans. Twelve judges filed separate opinions.   The Telegraph has an excellent summary of the decision:

Croatia’s case turned on the fate of the city of Vukovar, which endured three months of bombardment by Serbian irregular forces and the Yugoslav national army in 1991.... Croatia argued that the “attacks on Vukovar were directed not simply against an opposing military force, but also against the civilian population”.... But the ICJ rejected Croatia’s case, concluding that the crucial element of an intention to destroy a specific ethnic group had not been proved....

Serbia, for its part, accused Croatia of committing genocide by launching “Operation Storm” in 1995. During this military offensive, Croatia recaptured a Serb-inhabited region of its territory known as Krajina. In the process, about 200,000 Serbs were driven from their homes.

The crucial evidence was a meeting held on the Croatian island of Brioni between Franjo Tudjman, then president, and the country’s military leaders. Serbia argued that the full transcript of this conversation showed the aim of Operation Storm was the elimination of the Serbs of Krajina.  But the ICJ rejected this interpretation.... The “specific intent to destroy which characterises genocide” was missing from the Krajina offensive, found the ICJ.

All the pleadings and records of proceedings in the case are available from the Court's website. The Court also issued its own press release summarizing the decision.

Administrative Law Judge Finds Bakery's Refusal To Furnish Same-Sex Wedding Cake Violates Anti-Discrimination Law

In In re Melissa Klein, (OR BOLI, Jan. 29, 2015), an Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries Administrative Law Judge, in a 52-page opinion, held that Aaron Klein, a co-owner of the bakery "Sweetcakes by Melissa", discriminated on the basis of sexual orientation, in violation of the public accommodation provisions of ORS 695A.403.  The case grew out of the refusal on religious grounds to provide a wedding cake for a same-sex couple.  The court held that co-owner Melissa Klein will be jointly and severally liable for any damages awarded. The ALJ rejected free exercise and compelled speech defenses put forward by respondents, concluding that the state's anti-discrimination law is a neutral law of general applicability.

The administrative agency issued a press release announcing the Interim Order, saying:

The Interim Order finds that the undisputed material facts support charges of unlawful discrimination under the Oregon Equality Act. An administrative hearing scheduled for March will focus on damages for the same-sex couple.

The Oregonian reports on the decision. [Thanks to Joel Sogol via Religionlaw for the lead.]

Summum Loses Monument Bid Again-- This Time In Utah Supreme Court

Since 2003, Summum has been attempting to require Pleasant Grove City, Utah to accept a "Seven Aphorisms" monument to be placed in a city park where a Ten Commandments monument already stands.  In litigation, part of which went to the U.S. Supreme Court, federal courts held that the city had violated neither the 1st Amendment's free speech or Establishment clause in refusing the monument.  Summum then filed suit in state court contending that the Utah Constitution's religious liberty clause requires the city to erect the Seven Aphorisms monument.  In Summum v. Pleasant Grove City, (UT Sup. Ct., Jan. 30, 2015). the Utah Supreme Court rejected Summum's contention. The Court, emphasizing that Summum had not asked for it to order the removal of the Ten Commandments monument, held that monuments are different than sectarian prayers before city council. The neutrality test the Court had developed in the context of legislative prayer does not apply to public monuments:

[R]equiring Pleasant Grove to erect a second religious monument would not render the allocation of public property and money to the two monuments neutral. The citizens of Pleasant Grove, and Utah in general, undoubtedly espouse a broad variety of religious views.... Displaying monuments that communicate the beliefs of only two of these viewpoints would not amount to an impartial distribution of public property.... And because there is a finite amount of space in Pioneer Park, allowing all interested groups to install their own religious or antireligious monuments in the park would be unworkable.... 

Because the government property at issue in this case is itself the message, it cannot be allocated in an impartial manner.... Summum attempts to use the neutrality test as a tool to facilitate the placement of its own proposed monument in Pioneer Park. It argues that the district court should order the installation of a Seven Aphorisms monument in order to establish an impartial allocation of public property towards religious expression in the park. But because the neutrality test does not apply in the context of public monuments, this tool is unavailable to Summum.

Justice Lee filed an opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment.

No Title VII Liability For Refusing To Hire Applicant Who Will Not Furnish Social Security Number

In Yeager v. FirstEnergy Generation Corp., (6th Cir., Jan. 28, 2015), the U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals held that an employer is not liable under Title VII or Ohio's anti-discrimination law when the employer refuses to hire an applicant because the applicant has not furnished a social security number.  The Internal Revenue Code requires employers to collect and provide employees' social security numbers.  Plaintiff Donald Yeager disavowed his social security number for religious reasons-- he believes it is the "mark of the beast" referred to in the Book of Revelation. The court said:

Title VII does not require an employer to reasonably accommodate an employee’s religious beliefs if such accommodation would violate a federal statute.

Cleveland.com has details of the case beyond those set out by the 6th Circuit in its per curiam opinion.

Recent Articles and Book of Interest

From SSRN:

• Michael Heise, Lost Ground: Catholic Schools, the Future of Urban School Reform, and Empirical Legal Scholarship, (Cornell Legal Studies Research Paper, Jan. 2015).
• Shaun Alberto de Freitas, Proselytism and the Right to Freedom from Improper Irreligious Influence: The Example of Public School Education, (Potchefstroom Electronic Law Journal, Vol. 17, No. 3, 2014).
• Fatima Osman, Legislative Prohibitions on Wearing a Headscarf: Are They Justified?, (Potchefstroom Electronic Law Journal, Vol. 17, No. 4, 2014).
• Vincent Phillip Munoz, Church and State in the Founding-Era State Constitutions, (January 28, 2015).
• Alex Chung, Religion, Pluralism and the Secular State: Commentary on Marriage Equality and Disability Rights, (University of Notre Dame Australia B.A. Honors Thesis, October 31, 2014).
• Leo E. Strine, A Job is Not a Hobby: The Judicial Revival of Corporate Paternalism and its Problematic Implications, (January 26, 2015).
• Tasha Alyssa Hill, Inmates' Need for Federally Funded Lawyers: How the Prison Litigation Reform Act, Casey, and Iqbal Combine with Implicit Bias to Eviscerate Inmate Civil Rights, (62 UCLA Law Review 176 (2015)).
• Michael J. T. McMillen, Islamic Banking: Some Distinguishing Regulatory Considerations, (New York State Bar Association 2015 Annual Meeting Papers).
• Fran Quigley, For Goodness’ Sake: A Two-Part Proposal for Remedying the U.S. Charity/Justice Imbalance, (January 30, 2015). 

Recent Book:

• Karen Armstrong, Fields of Blood: Religion and the History of Violence, (Knopf, Oct. 2014, reviewed by Buffalo News.

Recent Prisoner Free Exercise Cases

In Brooks v. Roy, (8th Cir., Jan. 27, 2015), the 8th Circuit upheld dismissal of an inmate's claims that a chemical-dependency program conflicted with his Native American religious faith. From the complaint, the court could not determine the nature of the prisoner's religious beliefs and thus prison officials were not put on notice of his claims.

In Robertson v. Call, 2015 Kan. App. Unpub. LEXIS 33 (KS App., Jan. 15, 2015), a Kansas state appellate court reversed a trial court's summary dismissal of a Messianic Jewish inmate's claim that allowing his meetings with his rabbi only to be by video link violates the free exercise and establishment clauses.

In Henderson v. Hernandez, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8773 (ND CA, Jan. 23, 2015), a California federal district court allowed a Muslim inmate to move ahead with 1st Amendment and RLUIPA claims that he has been denied congregate prayer, appropriate Ramadan and festival meals, a qualified Muslim chaplain and resource group, and various religious items. The court dismissed his claim that Muslim inmates should be housed in the same building.

In Grisham v. Pritcher, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9132 (MD TN, Jan. 27, 2015), a Tennessee federal district court permitted an inmate to move ahead with his complaint that authorities refused to provide a room for Hanafi Muslims to meet twice a week for study and prayer.

In Payne v. Gipson, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9218 (ED CA, Jan.26, 2015), a California federal district court dismissed with leave to amend a Muslim inmate's claim for damages for denial of a Halal meal. Various other claims for equitable relief involving religious exercise concerns were dismissed as moot.

In Cejas v. Myers, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9258 (ED CA, Jan. 27, 2015), a California federal magistrate judge recommended allowing an inmate to move ahead with his free exercise claim alleging that Buddhist inmates were denied unsupervised access to the chapel, while Jewish and Muslim inmates were allowed such access. UPDATE: The court adopted the magistrate's recommendations at 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 46627 (April 9, 2015).

In Mohammed-Bey v. Pool, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9348 (ND CA, Jan. 26, 2015), a California federal district court denied a preliminary injunction and TRO to an inmate seeking for religious reasons to change his ethnicity from "negro," or "black" to "Moorish-American."

In Brown v. City of New York, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10469 (SD NY, Jan. 29, 2015), a New York federal district court dismissed with leave to amend a Muslim inmate's complaint that he did not have access to an Imam.

In Dixie v. Virga, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11429 (ED CA, Jan. 29, 2015), a California federal magistrate judge permitted a Muslim inmate to proceed with his complaint that Enhanced Outpatient Program prisoners were barred from attending Jumu'ah prayer sessions with General Population inmates. The court also ruled on a number of discovery requests.

Luxembourg Revises Support of Religious Communities

Article 106 of the Luxembourg Constitution provides:

The salaries and pensions of ministers of religion shall be borne by the State and regulated by the law

Earlier this week, the government of Luxembourg signed an agreement with the country's faith groups to reallocate and modify the current government funding of religious communities. For the first time funding will be extended to the Muslim community, while funding to the Catholic Church will be severely cut. Over 70% of Luxembourg's population is Catholic. As reported by Law & Religion UK:

The stipends of all those within the faith groups who are currently paid by the state will continue; but those appointed in future will have to be supported by their respective religious communities. There will continue to be some Government subsidy for salaries of those engaged in counselling. The state subsidies currently received by the Roman Catholic Church will be severely reduced; and the agreement also foresees that the Roman Catholic seminary in Weimershof will become an interfaith learning centre, while the Church’s properties will be put into what Luxemburger Wort describes as a “public fund” – presumably something along the lines of a separate charitable trust. In addition, Roman Catholic confessional education in schools is set to be replaced with an ethics and morals course, including units on world religions.

Also the various political parties have agreed that the Constitution should be amended to provide a declaration of separation of church and state.

Chile's Parliament Approves Civil Unions

On Wednesday, the National Congress of Chile (Chile's Parliament) gave final approval to the Civil Union Agreement bill.  PanAm Post reports that if, as expected, Chilean President Michelle Bachele signs the bill, this will make Chile the seventh South American country to recognize civil unions. The bill, which applies to both same-sex and opposite-sex civil unions, provides for inheritance, pension and health plan rights.

Muslim Texans Face Hostile Reception At State Capitol

Yesterday CAIR Texas sponsored its annual Texas Muslim Capitol Day, featuring sessions on political activism and meetings with state representatives.  According to the Texas Tribune, participants visiting freshman representative Molly White's office received an unusual greeting.  White was back in her district, but she left an Israeli flag on the reception desk in her office and instructed her staff to ask representatives from the Muslim community "to renounce Islamic terrorist groups and publicly announce allegiance to America and our laws." In her Facebook posting announcing this, she added: "We will see how long they stay in my office."

CAIR responded by sending a letter (full text) raising ethics questions to House Speaker Joe Straus, in part asking:

Has Rep. White violated any House rules in creating such an internal office policy that is selectively being enforced to discriminate against certain religious minorities trying to meet with her or her staff? Are House members prohibited from making constituents take oaths before meeting with their elected representatives or house staff?

Yesterday afternoon White issued a statement backing off somewhat from her earlier comments.

Protesters also interrupted the Muslim group's press conference at the Capitol yesterday. One grabbed the microphone and screamed: "Islam will never dominate the United States and by the grace of God, it will never dominate Texas."  More than 420,000 Muslims live in Texas. [Thanks to Scott Mange for the lead.]