about whether the government may force [plaintiff] to express ideas about human nature, unrelated to the school's curriculum, that he believes are false.Plaintiff also contends that
[his] views and expression related to gender identity, would require [him] to violate his sincerely held religious beliefs.Washington Post reports on the lawsuit.
...[W]e are all reminded of the virtues we can incorporate into our lives to better us as a Nation—kindness, compassion, and love. Together, with devotion to these ideals, we can form more sincere bonds with people of all faiths to help spread peace and prosperity in the United States and abroad.
Melania and I pray that those celebrating Rosh Hashanah build a more meaningful relationship with God throughout the High Holy Days. May the Almighty bless you all.
[I]t cannot be said that the practice of animal sacrifice is essential to the core of the tenets rituals, ceremonies, ceremonies, beliefs observances or the practice of religion within the temple of Mata Tripureswari or other temples managed by the State within the State of Tripura....
In the instant case, sacrifice of animal in temples is not done out of necessity but merely on the unsighted conviction and credence that such activity would please the deity, who in return would bestow them with blessings and wellbeing. ...
The ban on sacrifice of animal ... does not infringe the fundamental right as enshrined in Part III under Art 25(1) of the constitution for the reason that such practice is contrary to constitutional morality and health....
The animals have basic rights and we have to recognise and protect them. The animal and bird breath like us. They are also creation of God. They have also a right to live in harmony with human beings and the nature....The Leaflet discusses the decision at length.
The First Amendment bars this action for at least two independent reasons. First, Plaintiff’s action seeks to penalize an indisputably expressive association—the Archdiocese—for deciding which schools may identify as Catholic under its associational umbrella.....
Second, Plaintiff seeks to embroil this Court in a dispute over the Archdiocese’s application of Catholic law, in violation of the church-autonomy doctrine.A Justice Department press release announced its filing with the court.
The State pays St. Vincent to place children with foster or adoptive parents certified as suitable by the State. St. Vincent has done that faithfully, regardless of whether the certified parents were opposite sex, same-sex, or unmarried couples. St. Vincent would like to continue doing so under existing and renewed contracts with the State.
What St. Vincent has not done and will not do is give up its traditional Catholic belief that marriage as instituted by God is for one man and one woman. Based on that belief, St. Vincent has exercised its discretion to ensure that it is not in the position of having to review and recommend to the State whether to certify a same-sex or unmarried couple, and to refer those cases to agencies that do not have a religious confession preventing an honest evaluation and recommendation. In 2015, the Michigan legislature enacted legislation designed to protect that choice, and until January of 2019, the State defended the right of the State and St. Vincent to make that choice.
That changed when Defendant Attorney General Nessel took office. Leading up to and during the 2018 general election campaign, she made it clear that she considered beliefs like St. Vincent’s to be the product of hate. She stated that the 2015 law seeking to protect St. Vincent’s practice was indefensible and had discriminatory animus as its sole purpose. After her election, she ... put St. Vincent in the position of either giving up its belief or giving up its contract with the State. That kind of targeted attack on a sincerely held religious belief is what calls for strict scrutiny in this case and supports entry of a preliminary injunction preserving the status quo while the case is fully litigated.Detroit News reports on the decision.
Garrick’s disagreement with Moody’s beliefs on the role of women in the ministry underlies the majority of Garrick’s allegations..... Under these circumstances, if the Court were to delve into the disputes posed by Garrick, it would impermissibly inject the auspices of government into religious doctrine and governance.However the court said plaintiff could refile Title VII claims if they are untethered from her disagreements with Moody’s religious views.
Importantly, “a government decision influenced by community members’ religious bias is unlawful, even if the government decision makers display no bias themselves....
Here, Plaintiffs contend that the sequence of events leading up to the County’s decision, departures from the County’s normal procedures, and contemporary statements by County decision-makers demonstrate that County Defendants’ actions were motived by the community’s anti-Muslim beliefs....
Conversely, County Defendants maintain that their decisions here were motivated by their desire to conform to existing practices and the County Code....
[T]he Court concludes that there is a genuine dispute of material fact as to the intent of the County Defendants....The court similarly concluded that there was a genuine dispute of fact on whether the delay imposed a substantial burden on plaintiffs' right of religious exercise.
The lawsuit is based largely on Coral Ridge’s allegations that, because of its religious opposition to homosexual conduct, SPLC has designated it as a “hate group” and that, because of this designation, Amazon and AmazonSmile have excluded it from receiving donations through the AmazonSmile charitable-giving program.
Coral Ridge has three claims against SPLC: a state claim that its “hate group” designation is defamatory and federal claims for false association and false advertising under the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125. Coral Ridge has a single claim against the Amazon defendants: a federal claim that they excluded it from the AmazonSmile charitable-giving program based on religion, in violation of Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000a et seq.The ministry conceded that it was a "public figure" for purposes of its defamation claim Engaging in a lengthy discussion of the meaning of "hate group", the court rejected the ministry's claim because "An alleged defamatory statement is generally not provable as false when it labels the plaintiff with a term that has an imprecise and debatable meaning." The court went on to say that even if there were a commonly understood definition of "hate group", the defamation claim should still be dismissed:
To find actual malice just because SPLC publicized a meaning of “hate group” that conflicted with the common understanding of the term would severely undermine debate and free speech about a matter of public concern. This is because, even if the term had achieved a commonly understood meaning, that meaning would not be fixed forever, but rather could evolve through public debate. To sanction a speaker for promoting a genuinely held dissenting view of the meaning of “hate group” would be akin to punishing a speaker for advocating new conceptions of terms like “terrorist,” “extremist,” “sexist,” “racist,” “radicalThe court rejected the ministry's Lanham Act claims, finding that they are subject to the same heightened First Amendment standards, not the lower commercial speech standards.
Even if it were assumed that the Amazon defendants are places of public accommodation subject to Title II, seeking to receive donations through the AmazonSmile program does not qualify as a service, privilege, or advantage, etc. protected by the statute’s anti-discrimination prohibition. This is because the Amazon defendants limit the ability to receive such donations exclusively to 26 U.S.C. § 501(c)(3) organizations and therefore do not make that ability open to the public. Moreover, an alternative ground for dismissing the claim is that Coral Ridge has not plausibly alleged that the Amazon defendants discriminated against it based on religion.The court concluded its opinion:
The court should not be understood as even suggesting that Coral Ridge is or is not a “hate group.” It has merely held that SPLC’s labeling of the group as such is protected by the First Amendment....SPLC issued a press release announcing the decision.
A US judge has ordered a former South Carolina diocese of the Episcopal Church to change its name, after concluding the breakaway group was infringing the Episcopal Church’s trademark-protected diocesan shield.
On Thursday, September 19, District Judge Richard Gergel issued an injunction against the breakaway diocese, ordering the group not to use nine trademarks associated with the Episcopal Church and ... The Episcopal Church in South Carolina, an affiliate of the national church.
As we speak, Jews, Christians, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, Sikhs, Yazidis, and many other people of faith are being jailed, sanctioned, tortured, and even murdered, often at the hands of their own government, simply for expressing their deeply held religious beliefs. So hard to believe.
Today, with one clear voice, the United States of America calls upon the nations of the world to end religious persecution.Trump also announced that the U.S. is creating a coalition of U.S. businesses that will encourage the private sector to protect people of all faiths in the workplace. Others speakers at the forum included U.N. Secretary General António Guterres and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo (video of their remarks).
The Special Rapporteur is alarmed by the increase in antisemitism in many countries driven by sources including individuals motivated by white supremacist and radical Islamist ideologies.... He is also concerned at the apparent increase in expressions of antisemitism emanating from sources on the political left as well as with discriminatory laws, regulations and policies of States.Jerusalem Post covers the recently released report.
The United States joins consensus on today’s political declaration, in recognition of the importance of better health for all, but we wish to state clearly that we disassociate from paragraph 68 of the Declaration.
We do not accept the terms “sexual and reproductive health” and “sexual and reproductive health and reproductive rights” in this Declaration....
These terms must always include language, which some countries blocked, to remind U.N. agencies that each nation has the sovereign right to implement related programs and activities consistent with their laws and policies, and that these terms in no way imply that there is an international right to abortion.CNN reports on Azar's remarks.
Although § 1-212.1 regulates speech by prohibiting the use of language employed in the process of conducting conversion therapy on minor clients, it “does not prevent licensed therapists from expressing their views about conversion therapy to the public and to their [clients].” ... Most importantly, § 1-212.1 does not prohibit practitioners from engaging in any form of personal expression; they remain free to discuss, endorse, criticize, or recommend conversion therapy to their minor clients....The Baltimore Sun, reporting on the decision, says the decision will be appealed.
Merely developing a plan to train RVCA staff in issues relating to the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender communities does not invade the First Amendment rights of RVCA parents....
Similarly, preventing a community care facility from attempting to change the sexual orientation of its students is not an invasion of the parents’ First Amendment rights. The First Amendment gives Williams the right to believe and profess whatever religion he desires. If sending his child to an exclusively faith-based educational institution is an important part of Williams’ faith, there is nothing in the CCFA that prevents him from doing so.... Williams is free to enroll his child at a CCFA-exempt religious boarding school....
[T]he only injuries alleged here were suffered by Teen Rescue, not the parents. Williams failed to identify a concrete and particularized injury in fact under the Free Exercise Clause. Thus, Williams and the other RVCA parents lack standing to bring a claim under the First Amendment.
[I]nsofar as religious organizations have a clear constitutional right to choose their own ministers without interference from the government, it is far from implausible that they may affirmatively assert a violation of such right in a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. Similarly, InterVarsity’s claim based on its right to internal autonomy in religious affairs may state a claim. The court will not dismiss the claims offered (novel though they may be) in Counts 1 and 2.
Counts 3 and 4 allege Free Exercise violations based on targeting of InterVarsity’s religious beliefs and Wayne State applying its policy in a way that it is not generally applicable.... There are more than enough factual allegations to cross the basic threshold of a valid claim.Detroit Free Press reports on the decision.
Troy specifically violated RLUIPA by: (a) imposing an unjustified substantial burden on Adam’s exercise of religion when it denied Adam’s variance requests, 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc(a)(1); and (b) requiring places of worship to abide by more onerous setback and parking restrictions than nonreligious places of assembly, id. § 2000cc(b)(1).Detroit Free Press reports on the lawsuit.