Religious Speakers At Republican Convention

Politico sets out the full schedule of speakers and events at the Republican Convention that began yesterday.  Here is the list of religious figures delivering invocations, remarks and benedictions:

Monday Afternoon Session:

• Invocation: Rabbi Ari Wolf
• Benediction: Pastor Mark Burns. Harvest Praise and Worship Center

Monday Evening Session:

• Prayers from Maria Foundation
• Invocation: Monsignor Keiran Harrington, Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn, NY
• Benediction Pastor Paula White, New Destiny Christian Center

Tuesday Session:

• Invocation:  Harmeet Dhillon, San Francisco, CA
• Benediction: Sajid Tarar, Founder, American Muslims for Trump

Wednesday Session:

• Invocation: Nathan Johnson, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
• Remarks: Darrell Scott, Senior Pastor, New Spirit Revival Center Ministries
• Benediction: His Eminence Archbishop Demetrios Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America and Exarch of the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans

Thursday Session:

• Invocation Reverend Dr. Steve Bailey, Pastor, New Philadelphia First United Methodist Church
• Remarks: Jerry Falwell, Jr., President, Liberty University
• Benediction: Roger W. Gries, Auxiliary Bishop Emeritus

New Pew Survey On Religion and the 2016 Campaign

Last week, the Pew Research Center released a 35-page Report (summary) (full text) setting out the results of a new survey on Religion and the 2016 Campaign, and on attitudes toward Religion in Public Life.  The survey found that white evangelical voters strongly favor Donald Trump, while religiously unaffiliated voters favor Hillary Clinton. The survey also found that a declining number of U.S. adults (62% vs. 67% in 2012) think it is important for the President to have strong religious beliefs. The survey was conducted June 15-26, 2016, using a national sample of 2,245 adults.

Recent Articles of Interest

From SSRN:

• Holly Fernandez Lynch & Gregory Curfman, Bosses in the Bedroom: Religious Employers and the Future of Employer-Sponsored Health Care, (Law, Religion, and Health in the United States (Holly Fernandez Lynch, I. Glenn Cohen, Elizabeth Sepper, eds.) Cambridge University Press, 2017 Forthcoming).
• Roland Pierik, On Religious and Secular Exemptions. A Case Study of Childhood Vaccination Waivers, (General Subserie Research Paper No. 2016-02 (2016)).
• Kellen R. Funk, 'Interference in Churches Must Be Referred to the Rights of Property': Church Corporations and Conflict of Laws in Antebellum America, (Journal of Law and Religion, Vol. 33, No. 1, 2018).
• Merel Jonker, Mariëtte van den Hoven & Wendy Schrama, Editorial: Religion and Culture in Family & Law, (Utrecht Law Review, Vol. 12, No. 2, p. 1-6, June 2016).
• Wibo M. van Rossum & Mariëtte van den Hoven, Paucity and the Need for Value Sensitivity in Dealing with Youth Care: Why Legal and Youth Professionals Should Take Cultural and Religious Considerations Seriously, (Utrecht Law Review, Vol. 12, No. 2, p. 7-23, June 2016).
• Tammy Harel Ben-Shahar, Race, Class and Religion: Creaming and Cropping in Religious Charter Schools, (Columbia Journal of Race and Law, Forthcoming).
• Adam MacLeod, Tempering Civil Rights Conflicts: Common Law for the Moral Marketplace, (Michigan State Law Review, Forthcoming).
• Ethan Blevins, A Fixed Meaning of 'Religion' in the First Amendment, (July 13, 2016).

From SSRN (Non-U.S. Law):

• Aan Jaelani, Religion, Economy, and State: Economic Thought of Al-Mawardi in Adab Al-Dunya Wa-Al-Din, (MPRA Paper No. 72090 (June 2016)).
• Jet Tigchelaar & Merel Jonker, How is a Judicial Decision Made in Parental Religious Disputes? An Analysis of Determining Factors in Dutch and European Court of Human Rights Case Law, (Utrecht Law Review, Vol. 12, No. 2, p. 24-40, June 2016).
• Eva Brems, SAS V France: A Reality Check, (July 15, 2016).

European Court Favors Muslim Employee's Right To Wear Hijab At Work

The Court of Justice of the European Union last week released an Advocate General's opinion on whether under European Union Directive 2000/78 a private employer may bar a Muslim employee from wearing a hijab at work when a customer objects to the head covering. The Advocate General's opinion in Bougnaoui v. Micropole SA, (CJ EU, July 13, 2016), is the first step in the Court's rendering an advisory opinion to France's Court of Cassation on the meaning of the EU employment discrimination directive.  The Advocate General's opinion provides a recommendation to a panel of the Court's judges who will then render a decision. The Advocate General concluded that barring wearing of the hijab under these circumstances amounts to both illegal direct and indirect discrimination. The Advocate General said in part:

73. When the employer concludes a contract of employment with an employee, he does not buy that person’s soul. He does, however, buy his time. For that reason, I draw a sharp distinction between the freedom to manifest one’s religion – whose scope and possible limitation in the employment context are at the heart of the proceedings before the national court – and proselytising on behalf of one’s religion. Reconciling the former freedom with the employer’s right to conduct his business will, as I shall demonstrate, require a delicate balancing act between two competing rights. The latter practice has, in my view, simply no place in the work context. It is therefore legitimate for the employer to impose and enforce rules that prohibit proselytising, both to ensure that the work time he has paid for is used for the purposes of his business and to create harmonious working conditions for his workforce....

133. ... It seems to me that in the vast majority of cases it will be possible, on the basis of a sensible discussion between the employer and the employee, to reach an accommodation that reconciles adequately the competing rights of the employee to manifest his or her religion and the employer to conduct his business. Occasionally, however, that may not be possible. In the last resort, the business interest in generating maximum profit should then in my view give way to the right of the individual employee to manifest his religious convictions. Here, I draw attention to the insidiousness of the argument, ‘but we need to do X because otherwise our customers won’t like it’. Where the customer’s attitude may itself be indicative of prejudice based on one of the ‘prohibited factors’, such as religion, it seems to me particularly dangerous to excuse the employer from compliance with an equal treatment requirement in order to pander to that prejudice. Directive 2000/78 is intended to confer protection in employment against adverse treatment (that is, discrimination) on the basis of one of the prohibited factors. It is not about losing one’s job in order to help the employer’s profit line.

Law & Religion UK has more on the decision.

Recent Prisoner Free Exercise Cases

In Johnson v. Federal Bureau of Prisons, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 90255 (MD PA, July 11, 2016), Muslim inmates alleged various interferences with their ability to pray 5 times per day.  A Pennsylvania federal magistrate judge recommended dismissing a number of the claims for failure to exhaust administrative remedies and dismissing on the merits a claim that plaintiff is not allowed to pray while in the prison library and while at his adult education classes.

In Lane v. Tavares, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 91052 (MD PA, July 12, 2016), a Pennsylvania federal magistrate judge recommended that a Muslim inmate be allowed to proceed with his complaint that authorities have failed to accommodate his religious needs.  He often cannot attend Friday Prayers because his heart condition prevents him from climbing the five flights of stairs to reach the chapel.

In Giraldes v. Beard, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 91205 (ED CA, July 13, 2016), a California federal magistrate judge, denying a preliminary injunction, rejected a Catholic inmate's claim that denial of conjugal visits infringed his free exercise rights and his rights under RLUIPA.

In Roberts v. Perry, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 91639 (WD NC, July 14, 2016), a North Carolina federal district court allowed an inmate to proceed with his complaint that authorities refuse to recognize Nation of Israel as an approved faith group and that inmates are limited to ten religious publications.

In Allah v. Commonwealth of Virginia, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 91939 (WD VA, July 15, 2016), a Virginia federal district court dismissed an inmate's complaint that the file from his litigation that included much Nation of Gods and Earths material was seized by prison authorities.

House Hearing Examines Blasphemy Laws and Censorship Around the World

On Thursday, Congressional Hearings titled Blasphemy Laws and Censorship by States and Non-State Actors: Examining Global Threats to Freedom of Expression  were held by the Tom Lantos Human Rights Commission.  Transcripts of most of the testimony as well as a video of the full hearing are available on the House Committee's website.

Difficult Week For New York Orthodox Rabbi As Politics of U.S. and Israel Cause Him Problems

It has been a difficult week for respected Modern Orthodox Rabbi Haskel Lookstein.  Lookstein is the Rabbi Emeritus of Manhattan's Congregation Kehilath Jeshurun, the synagogue attended by Donald Trump's daughter and son-in-law. Lookstein is also the rabbi who sponsored Ivanka Trump's conversion to Judaism.  So this week he was tapped to offer an invocation at the Republican National Convention. However a petition (full text) signed by over 800 Orthodox Jews took Lookstein to task, saying in part:

We, the undersigned, are outraged that Rabbi Haskel Lookstein – rabbi emeritus of Congregation Kehilath Jeshurun and the Ramaz School – has decided to lend his blessing to Donald Trump and speak at the Republican National Convention.

Donald Trump openly spouts racist, misogynistic rhetoric; he advocates torture, the expulsion of millions of families, some long settled in America, and insinuates that some citizens of this great country are somehow less than others.

So Lookstein decided not to speak at the Convention after all, saying: " The whole matter turned from rabbinic to political, something which was never intended."  The Forward reports on these developments.

Meanwhile, as reported by the Times of Israel, Israel's Supreme Rabbinical Court, the court which hears appeals in personal status matters, ruled on Wednesday that it will not recognize religious conversions performed by Rabbi Lookstein in the United States. It required an American woman who had converted to Judaism under Lookstein's auspices to convert again in Israel in order to get married there.  The ruling, of course, calls into question the Israeli rabbinate's willingness to recognize Ivanka Trump's conversion as well.  Israel's Ashkenazi Chief Rabbi David Lau says he recognizes Lookstein's conversions, but the Chief Rabbinate is separate from the Supreme Rabbinical Court. Israeli officials such as Jewish Agency head Natan Sharanksy also back Lookstein.

7th Circuit Grants Preliminary Injunction To Wiccan Inmate

In Knowles v. Pfister, (7th Cir., July 13, 2016), the U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals in an opinion by Judge Posner reversed the trial court and ordered entry of a preliminary injunction to allow a Wiccan inmate to wear a one-inch pentacle medallion around his neck.  Finding that the inmate's "freedom of religion has been gratuitously infringed by the prison," the appeals court rejected the Illinois federal district court's reasoning, saying in part:

We have trouble seeing the force of these points—(1) what an adequate remedy at law would be (monetary compensation for the loss of a religious entitlement?); (2) how forbidding a religious observance important to a devout practitioner could be thought harmless to him because other observances remained open to him... and (3) how the plaintiff could obtain any relief unless the warden was enjoined from violating RLUIPA.

11th Circuit: Florida Prisons Must Offer Kosher Food

In United States v. Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections, (11th Cir., July 14, 2016), the US 11th Circuit Court of Appeals held that under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act, Florida must provide kosher meals for inmates with a sincere religious basis for demanding such meals. The court wrote in part:

The Secretary argues that denying a kosher diet statewide is the least restrictive means of furthering Florida’s interest in cost containment, but she fails to rebut three arguments to the contrary. First, she fails to explain why the Department cannot offer kosher meals when the Federal Bureau of Prisons and other states do so.... Second, the Secretary fails to explain why the Department cannot offer kosher meals when it offers vegan, medical, and therapeutic diets at similar marginal costs.... Third, the Secretary fails to explain why the less restrictive alternative of enforcing rules that limit access to, and continued participation in, the program would not further her stated interest. The United States produced evidence that the Department is not screening out insincere applicants or enforcing the rules of participation in the program, and the Secretary does not contest that evidence. She instead responds that enforcing the rules would be too time intensive....

AP reports on the decision, pointing out that it was handed down only two days after oral argument in the case.

Israel Finally Appoints Rabbinical Appellate Judges

After months of controversy, nine new judges have finally been appointed to Israel's Supreme Rabbinical Court, the court which hears appeals in Jewish divorce and certain other personal status matters.  Jerusalem Post reports that nine judges were appointed on Tuesday, bringing the court up to its required complement of ten. Facing a large backlog of cases, the court was operating with temporary appointments which were about to expire. (Haaretz. June 16).  The new appointees for the first time include 5 judges who have served in the IDF.  However women's groups strongly criticized one of the new appointees.

New Blog Focuses On Religious Freedom and LGBT Rights

Michigan State Law Professor Frank Ravitch has launched a new blog, Freedom's Edge.  The blog will focus on the relationship between Religious Freedom, LGBT Rights, and Reproductive Freedom. Freedom's Edge is now listed in the Religion Clause sidebar.  Welcome to the blogosphere!

Anti-Islamic Group Sues Claiming Federal Law Shields Social Media Censorship

Yesterday the American Freedom Defense Initiative, its President Pamela Geller, its Vice President and the organization Jihad Watch sued the federal government contending that Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act shields Facebook, Twitter and YouTube when they censor anti-Islamic postings by plaintiffs.  The complaint (full text) in American Freedom Defense Initiative v. Lynch, (D DC, filed 7/13/2016), alleges that censorship and discrimination by social media outlets violate California anti-discrimination laws, but the CDA section on "Protection for 'Good Samaritan' blocking and screening of offensive material" allows Facebook, Twitter and YouTube to engage in discriminatory conduct. Among the allegations in the complaint against the social media sites are:

The discriminatory way in which Facebook applies its restrictions is evidenced by the fact that Facebook allows vicious posts and pages against Israel to stand, but when Plaintiff Geller and others expose the truth behind that Islamic hatred, the speech is prohibited.,,,

The Twitter policy, in effect, mirrors Islamic blasphemy standards as applied to censor speech critical of Islam, such as Plaintiffs’ speech.

The Center for Security Policy issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit.

Mississippi AG Will Not Appeal Injunction Against Conscience Protection Act, Despite Governor's Appeal of Decision [UPDATED]

In a strong statement (full text) issued yesterday, Mississippi state Attorney General Jim Hood announced that he will not appeal a federal district court's injunction against enforcing HB 1523 , Mississippi's anti-LGBT Conscience Protection Act, (See prior posting.) Hood said in part:

First, both HB 1523’s critics and supporters acknowledge that the bill did not change state or federal law. For example, there is no state law requiring pastors to marry same-sex couples, and I doubt that the Legislature would ever pass one.  Moreover, the Mississippi Legislature has already passed the Religious Freedom Restoration Act which protects a person’s right to exercise his or her religious beliefs.  HB 1523’s critics and supporters also recognize that HB 1523 cannot overturn or preempt federal law.  As acknowledged by our Governor, HB 1523 is not a defense to a federal lawsuit.

Simply stated, all HB 1523 has done is tarnish Mississippi’s image while distracting us from the more pressing issues of decaying roads and bridges, underfunding of public education, the plight of the mentally ill and the need to solve our state’s financial mess....

Second, to appeal HB 1523 and fight for an empty bill that dupes one segment of our population into believing it has merit while discriminating against another is just plain wrong. I don’t believe that’s the way to carry out Jesus’ primary directives to protect the least among us and to love thy neighbor....

Misinformation that, without HB 1523, pastors, churches, bakers, wedding planners or other private service providers will be forced to violate their religious beliefs has been used repeatedly to frighten our citizens into supporting the dogmatic politicians who use religion for political gain.

Hood added however that depending on the wording of the final order he might appeal a separate federal court decision extending the injunction in an earlier same-sex marriage case to all court clerks who were not parties.(See prior posting.)

UPDATE: It should be noted that Mississippi Governor Phil Bryant has already filed a Notice of Appeal in the case, so presumably he will pursue the appeal using counsel other than the Attorney General.

Ark Encounter and Public High Schools

According to Tuesday's Lexington Herald-Leader, now that Ark Encounter has opened in Kentucky, the Freedom From Religion Foundation has sent letters to more than 1,000 school districts in Kentucky, Tennessee, Ohio, Indiana and West Virginia telling them that field trips to the Noah's Ark theme park would violate the Establishment Clause. FFRF says it would expose students to proselytizing.  In response, Kentucky Education Commissioner Stephen Pruitt told schools that field trips should be an extension of classroom learning, and that neither outside groups nor the state Department of Education should dictate selection. Meanwhile FFRF has also protested the participation of two Kentucky high school marching bands in Ark Encounter's July 5 opening ceremonies. (FFRF press release.)

EEOC Sues For Rastafarian Fired From Disney World Hotel

The EEOC announced yesterday that it has filed a religious discrimination lawsuit against HospitalityStaff, an Orlando, Florida based staffing company that fired Courtney Joseph, a Rastafarian employee who was assigned to work as a prep cook at a Walt Disney World resort hotel.  Joseph grew his hair into dreadlocks because of his religious beliefs.  For over a year, he worked with his dreadlocks tucked under his hat. However after a 2013 inspection of the kitchen by a Disney staff member for compliance with the company's appearance standards, the staffing company told Joseph he must cut his hair. When he refused, he was fired. The lawsuit alleges that HospitalityStaff made no effort to accommodate Joseph's religious beliefs. Orlando Sentinel reports on the lawsuit.

House Holds Hearing On HR 2802, First Amendment Defense Act

The House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform yesterday held a hearing on Religious Liberty and H.R. 2802, The First Amendment Defense Act (FADA). The Committee's website has extensive video and transcripts of the hearing.  As described by the Committee, FADA (full text of HR 2802) is a reaction to the Supreme Court's Obergefell  decision and would prohibit the federal government from taking discriminatory action against a person because the person believes, speaks, or acts in accordance with a sincerely held religious belief or moral conviction about marriage. Among the witnesses was the lead plaintiff in the Obergefell case. Washington Blade reports on the hearing. Think Progress focuses on Rep. Cummings statements. On Monday, a group of interfaith religious and advocacy organizations sent the committee a letter (full text) opposing the bill.

Title VII Is Sole Basis For Claims of Religious Discrimination Against Federal Employee

In Holly v. Jewell, (ND CA, July 11, 2016), a California federal magistrate judge held that Title VII is the sole remedy for discrimination in federal employment.  Neither the First Amendment nor RFRA may be used as the basis for a religious discrimination claim by a federal employee.  In the case, plaintiff who was employed as a maintenance worker at the  San Francisco Maritime National Historic Park was also a Baptist minister.  While on a break and out of uniform, he performed a baptism at the seashore adjoining the park.  He was terminated for this-- though plaintiff also complained that he was questioned about a Bible that he kept to read on breaks.  The court dismissed plaintiff's RFRA claim, holding that recent Supreme Court RFRA decisions have not changed the rule that Title VII is the exclusive remedy for discrimination in federal employment.  The court also dismissed plaintiff's free exercise claim to the extent that it challenges conduct protected by Title VII, but held that plaintiff can file an amended complaint to the extent that he has a First Amendment claim that is separate from his Title VII claim.

Court Rejects Churches' Challenge To California's Abortion Coverage Requirement

In Foothill Church v. Rouillard, (ED CA, July 11, 2016), a California federal district court rejected challenges brought by three churches to letters issued by the California Department of Managed Health Care to seven health insurance companies informing them that under California law they cannot exclude abortion services from coverage when they cover maternity services.  Initially finding that the churches have standing to challenge the directive, the court dismissed with leave to amend plaintiffs' free exercise and equal protection challenges.  The court concluded that the directive was a neutral law of general applicability that survives the rational basis test.  The court dismissed without leave to amend the churches' free speech and establishment clause claims. (See prior related posting.)

Brexit Apparently Does Not Threaten Britain's European Human Rights Obligations

Reuters reports that in Britain, Interior Minister Theresa May will become the country's new Prime Minister tomorrow. She will be responsible for steering Britain's exit from the European Union.  She said yesterday  that there could be no second referendum and would be no attempt to rejoin the EU by the back door. According to a review by Law & Religion UK,  before the referendum May favored staying in the EU but withdrawing from the European Convention on Human Rights.  However on June 30 she said:

I’ve set my position on the ECHR out very clearly but I also recognise that this is an issue that divides people, and the reality is there will be no Parliamentary majority for pulling out of the ECHR, so that is something I’m not going to pursue.

Florida County Elections Supervisor Removes Mosque As Polling Site After Complaints

The Palm Beach Sun-Sentinel last week reported that Palm Beach County, Florida Elections Supervisor Susan Bucher has reversed her decision to make the Islamic Center of Boca Raton a polling location in the August state primary elections. After receiving some 50 complaints, she moved the polling site to a public library.  A CAIR press release yesterday called the move discriminatory, and said it would request reinstatement of the original decision, in light of the fact that churches and synagogues regularly serve as polling stations. CAIR also says it will file a public records request for all communications relating to the move. A CAIR spokesperson said:

The supervisor of elections is evidently targeted by an organized lobbying campaign spreading fear and Islamophobia. Her discretion to designate or remove polling sites must never be based on religious, racial or ethnic bias...