Interposition Ordered By Alabama Chief Justice On Same-Sex Marriage

Interposition-- a doctrine rarely seen since the early days of the civil rights movement-- seems to be close to reappearing in Alabama's response to federal court same-sex marriage decisions.  As previously reported, on Jan. 27 Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice Roy Moore sent a letter to Alabama Governor Robert Bentley urging defiance at least of lower federal court decisions validating same-sex marriage in the state.  With the U.S. Supreme Court's order earlier today refusing to stay a federal district court order in Strange v. Searcy invalidating the state's same-sex marriage ban, same-sex marriages began in some Alabama counties.  But as reported by the New York Times, at least 50 of Alabama's 67 county probate courts were not issuing licenses to same-sex couples.

The confusion stems in part from an Administrative Order issued yesterday by Alabama Chief Justice Moore providing in part:

To ensure the orderly administration of justice within the State of Alabama, to alleviate a situation adversely affecting the administration of justice within the State, and to harmonize the administration of justice between the Alabama judicial branch and the federal courts in Alabama:

Effective immediately, no Probate Judge of the State of Alabama nor any agent or employee of any Alabama Probate Judge shall issue or recognize a marriage license that is inconsistent with Article 1, Section 36.03, of the Alabama Constitution or § 30-1-19, Ala. Code 1975.

Should any Probate Judge of this state fail to follow the Constitution and statutes of Alabama as stated, it would be the responsibility of the Chief Executive Officer of the State of Alabama, Governor Robert Bentley....

However, in response Gov. Bentley issued a statement saying in part:

This issue has created confusion with conflicting direction for Probate Judges in Alabama. Probate Judges have a unique responsibility in our state, and I support them. I will not take any action against Probate Judges, which would only serve to further complicate this issue.

 Earlier today, plaintiffs in the Searcy case filed a motion with an Alabama federal district court asking it to hold in contempt the Probate Court judge in Mobile County who, without explanation, has not opened the court's marriage license division today. [Thanks to Tom Rutledge for the lead on part of this post.]

UPDATE: In a Feb. 9 opinion (full text), the district court refused to hold the Probate Judge in contempt since the injunction did not directly order him to do anything.

Supreme Court Denies Stay Of Alabama Same-Sex Marriage Decision

The U.S. Supreme Court today in Strange v. Searcy refused to grant a stay of an Alabama federal district court order invalidating Alabama's ban on same-sex marriage, allowing same-sex marriages to begin in the state today. (See prior related posting.) Justice Thomas, joined by Justice Scalia, dissented from the denial of a stay, saying in part:

Today’s decision represents yet another example of this Court’s increasingly cavalier attitude toward the States. Over the past few months, the Court has repeatedly denied stays of lower court judgments enjoining the enforcement of state laws on questionable constitutional grounds.... It has similarly declined to grant certiorari to review such judgments without any regard for the people who approved those laws in popular referendums or elected the representatives who voted for them. In this case, the Court refuses even to grant a temporary stay when it will resolve the issue at hand in several months.

Reuters reports on the Court's action.

Free Exercise Challenge To Marijuana Seizure Rejected

In Jenkins v. Micks, (ND CA, Feb. 5, 2014), a California federal magistrate judge dismissed a civil rights action alleging that plaintiff's free exercise rights were infringed when Del Norte, California sheriff's officers seized marijuana allegedly authorized for medical use.  The court said:

Plaintiff provides a discussion of the use of cannabis by different cultures and religions, including the Native American Church. He states that he believes that for him, "Cannabis enhances the truth of the universe," that this plant is a "beneficial and life sustaining herb," and that "by consuming Cannabis [he] is communing with nature."... He also expresses his views regarding the regulation of Cannabis by governmental entities, and some of his political and religious beliefs. No where, however, does Plaintiff allege that he has a central religious belief or practice that is burdened by the criminalization of marijuana. The court finds, therefore, that Plaintiff has failed to state a free exercise of religion claim under the First Amendment. 

Bitter Legal Dispute Continues Over Colorado Land For Jewish Retreat Center

The Denver Post reported yesterday on a long-running and bitter legal dispute over 22 acres of desert land in Gardner, Colorado that Gary Lensky, an Orthodox Jew who is also versed in Eastern religions, is attempting to develop as a Jewish spiritual retreat center. In 1997, Lensky purchased a small home in the center of Gardner for $29,000.  He then discovered that adjacent structures used by the house's former owners were on property technically owned by an individual who had died decades ago.  Lensky paid the back taxes on 17 acres of the land, planning to build a religious retreat on it that he would call Camp D'ORvid at Casa D'el Arroyo.  Claiming under the doctrine of adverse possession, Lensky then proceeded to file a suit to quiet title not just on the 17 acres, but on 5 additional adjoining acres that other neighbors were using as well.  Initially the court granted his quiet title request, but reversed itself seven years later. Lensky has spent nearly $200,000 in legal fees to try to get title to the 22 acres that have an assessed value of $13,450.  There have also been physical confrontations, harassment and ethnic slurs, with Lensky charging anti-Semitism.  The neighbors say Lensky is trying to steal their land.  A non-binding mediation of the dispute is scheduled for March 20.

Catholic and Conservative Christian Groups Urge Congressional Disapproval of Two D.C. Ordinances

Under Title VI of the District of Columbia Home Rule Act, Congress may disapprove laws enacted by the D.C. City Council.  Last week, fifteen Catholic and conservative Christian organizations sent a letter (full text) to members of Congress urging disapproval of two recently enacted D.C. laws-- the Reproductive Health Non-Discrimination Amendment Act of 2014 and Human Rights Amendment Act of 2014 (see prior posting). According to the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops press release:

The Reproductive Health Non-Discrimination Amendment Act of 2014 prevents religious institutions, faith-based employers, and pro-life advocacy organizations in the city from making employment decisions consistent with their sincerely held religious beliefs or moral convictions about the sanctity of human life.  

For example, the law requires “organizations to hire or retain individuals whose speech or public conduct contradicts the organizations’ missions,” the letter stated. “The law plainly violates the First Amendment, the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (RFRA), and possibly other federal laws and clearly contradicts the Supreme Court’s recent, unanimous ruling in Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Church and School v. EEOC.”  

Another law enacted by the Council of the District of Columbia, the Human Rights Amendment Act of 2014, requires religiously affiliated educational institutions to endorse, sponsor, and provide school resources to persons or groups that oppose the institutions’ religious teachings regarding human sexuality. 

“In doing so, the law violates the First Amendment and RFRA on similar grounds”....

Recent Articles of Interest

From SSRN:

• Jordan Mathews, State RFRAs: Trust Judges to Strike the Proper Balance Between Religious Freedom and Anti-Discrimination Law, (February 1, 2015).
• Leah Achor, A Historical Defense of State Protection of Private Conscience, (December 13, 2014).
• Douglas NeJaime & Reva Siegel, Conscience Wars: Complicity-Based Conscience Claims in Religion and Politics, (Yale Law Journal, Vol. 124, 2015 Forthcoming).
• Brandon Harvard Riches, Codifying Commonsense: Religious Viewpoint Antidiscrimination Acts and the Free Speech Rights They Protect, (February 3, 2015).
• Howard Kislowicz, Law, Religion, and Feeling Included/Excluded: Case Studies in Canadian Religious Freedom Litigation, (Canadian Journal of Law and Society (Forthcoming 2015)).
• Nelson Tebbe, The End of Religious Freedom: What Is at Stake?, (Pepperdine Law Review, Vol. 41, No. 963, 2014).
• Clayton Douglas Adams, Personal Foul, Roughing the Speaker: The Illusory War between the Establishment Clause & College Football, (February 4, 2015).
• Jennifer Ann Drobac & Jill L. Wesley, Religion and Employment Antidiscrimination Law: Past, Present, and Post Hosanna-Tabor, (NYU Annual Survey of American Law, Vol. 69, p. 761, 2014).
• Khaled A. Beydoun, Facing Mecca from Prison: Religious Accommodation of Muslim Prisoners Before Holt v. Hobbs, (February 7, 2015).
• Derek Joseph Goff, New Life in the First Amendment: Funeral Protest Statutes after McCullen v. Coakley, (January 31, 2015).
• Ellis Goldberg, Territorial States: Monopolies in the Market for Justice, (January 30, 2015).
• Alice Ristroph, Just Violence, (Arizona Law Review, Vol. 56, 2014).

From SmartCILP:

• Antony Barone Kolenc. Not "For God and Country": Atheist Military Chaplains and the Free Exercise Clause, 48 University of San Francisco Law Review 395-456 (2014).
• Inaugural Themed Issue: Faith-Based Legal Systems. Articles by Mohamed A. Arafa and David L. Johnston. 24 Indiana International & Comparative Law Review 859-920 (2014).

Recent Prisoner Free Exercise Cases

In Patterson v. Linderman, (9th Cir., Feb. 3, 2015), the 9th Circuit upheld an inmate's suspension from the kosher meal plan for sharing or trading of food with other inmates.

In Karsjens v. Jesson, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11779 (D MN, Feb. 2, 2015), a Minnesota federal district court, in a suit challenging many aspects of the Minnesota Sexual Offender Program, permitted plaintiffs to move ahead with their claim that MSOP's policies and practices restrict when and where plaintiffs may worship and limit their ability to practice their sincerely held religious beliefs.

In Stemple v. Shearin, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12253 (D MD, Feb. 2, 2015), a Maryland federal district court dismissed a Wiccan inmate's complaints regarding the inadequacy of the previous location of Wiccan services and his 6-month suspension from congregate worship opportunities for rule violations.

In Woodstock v. Shaffer, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13158 (D CO, Feb. 4, 2015), a Colorado federal magistrate judge ordered plaintiff, a Messianic Jewish inmate, to file an amended complaint setting out the personal involvement of each defendant in the alleged failure to provide a kosher diet

In Trice v. Shearin, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13653 (D MD, Feb. 4, 2015), a Maryland federal district court permitted a Native American inmate to move ahead with his complaint that he was not permitted to attend congregate services and that Cherokee Native American religious services were not permitted in an outside grassy area as religiously required.

In Jackson v. Crawford, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14222 (WD NO, Feb. 6, 2015), a Missouri federal district court permitted an inmate to proceed with his complaint that his religious exercise was substantially burdened by the inability to list atheism as his religion.

Challenge To "Under God" In Pledge Rejected

In American Humanist Association v. Matawan-Aberdeen Regional School District, (NJ Super. Ct., Feb. 4, 2015), a New Jersey state trial court dismissed a lawsuit that claimed the daily recitation of the pledge of allegiance in public schools violates the equal protection guaranties of the New Jersey constitution to atheist and humanist students, even when they are not required to participate in the pledge.  The court said in part:

the court is not insensitive to the Does and Doechild's claim that they feel marginalized by the inclusion of the words "under God" in the text of the Pledge.  Subjective feelings, however, do not and cannot serve as a constitutional litmus test for equal protection in the absence of some invidious classification because potentially anything offensive to one's subjective sensibilities could be struck down as unconstitutional.

The Becket Fund issued a press release announcing the court's decision.

UPDATE: Here is a link to the full opinion and court's order.

2nd Circuit OK's Differential Child Protection Requirements In Public and Private Schools

In U.L. v. New York State Assembly, (2d Cir., Feb. 5, 2015), the U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's dismissal of a lawsuit brought by a minor student enrolled in a Nassau county yeshiva and by her father claiming that students' equal protection, due process and free exercise rights are violated  by the state legislature's exclusion of private schools (including religious schools) from some of the state child protection requirements that are mandatory in public schools. (See prior posting). The district court dismissed on sovereign and legislative immunity grounds.  The 2nd Circuit in affirming and refusing to allow plaintiffs to replead the case said:

Assuming U.L. could successfully plead around the immunity doctrines, his claims would still fail as a matter of law. The challenged child-protection laws, which are unquestionably secular, are equally inapplicable to all private schools, religious and secular. Nothing about them offends the Establishment or Free Exercise Clauses of the First Amendment....

U.L.’s claims under the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment likewise fail, because the laws neither target a suspect class nor impair the exercise of a fundamental right, and easily pass muster under rational basis review.

[Thanks to Elliot Pasik for the lead.]

New Poll Shows Americans Favor Same-Sex Marriages, But Want To Protect Religious Objectors

Yesterday AP-GfK announced the release of their latest poll (full poll results) which asks respondents about their views on same-sex marriage and abortion rights. In the poll, 35% favor same-sex marriage, while 31% oppose. Respondents are divided 48% to 48% on how the Supreme Court should rule in its pending same-sex marriage cases. By 50% to 46%, respondents favor religious exemptions to the requirement to issue same-sex marriage licences for officials who object to doing so.  By 57% to 39%, respondents favor exemptions for wedding related businesses who object to providing services for same-sex couples. Finally poll showed a 51% to 45% margin favoring legalized abortion in most or all cases.

Newly Added Religious Items Must Be Covered Before Hernandez Jury Visit

Jurors in the murder trial of former New England Patriots player Aaron Hernandez are scheduled to visit Hernandez's home today. Hernandez is charged in the 2013 murder of Odin Lloyd.  AP reports that when the prosecutor took a tour through the house yesterday ahead of the jury visit, he found that religious items (as well as career memorabilia) had been added in several rooms, along with furniture to hold them.  Bristol County Superior Court Judge Susan Garsh ruled yesterday that anything added to the house since 2013 must be removed or covered before the jury's visit which is designed to see the house as it existed at the time of the killing. The defense has agreed to remove or cover the new items.

Court Refuses To Defer To Ecclesiastical Determination In Church Embezzlement Prosecution

Chicago Tribune reports that a Wisconsin state trial court has refused to apply the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine to a criminal prosecution of a Greek Orthodox priest charged with embezzling trust funds from the church where he served for many years.  James Dokos was trustee of a $1.1 million trust benefiting Annunciation Greek Orthodox Church in Milwaukee. The indictment (full text) alleges that Dokos wrote checks for $110,000 outside the terms of the trust, and mostly for his personal benefit. Before going to civil authorities, leaders of Annunciation complained to its parent body, the Metropolis of Chicago, which investigated and concluded that Dokos had done nothing wrong.

Dokos claimed that the case involves a dispute between a priest and a parish council over the use of church funds, and should be decided by the Greek Orthodox Church's internal dispute resolution process. The court disagreed, holding:

Determining whether or not the defendant embezzled money does not require this court to appoint religious ministers, decide tenets of faith (or) interpret church doctrine.

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.]