Objective coverage of church-state and religious liberty developments, with extensive links to primary sources.
Friday, March 27, 2015
Preliminary Injunction Bars Extension of FMLA To Same-Sex Couples
Wednesday, June 15, 2011
Federal Court Says Judge Did Not Need To Recuse Himself In Proposition 8 Case
The sole fact that a federal judge shares the same circumstances or personal characteristics with other members of the general public, and that the judge could be affected by the outcome of a proceeding in the same way that other members of the general public would be affected, is not a basis for either recusal or disqualification.The New York Times reports on yesterday's decision.
Also yesterday in a separate opinion in the case (full text), Judge Ware found no reason to require the parties in the case to return to the court video copies of the trial proceedings that had been given to them. He also set an August 29 hearing date on a motion to lift the protective order that bars public disclosure of the trial videos.
UPDATE: AP reports that backers of Proposition 8 will appeal Judge Ware's decision that refused to disqualify Judge Walker.
Tuesday, June 21, 2016
Court Denies Preliminary Injunction Against Mississippi's Conscience Protection For County Clerks
Meanwhile, the same judge heard oral arguments yesterday in a separate case that is also challenging HB 1523. AP reports that in this suit, plaintiffs are arguing that provisions allowing clerks to recuse themselves in favor of another employee issuing the license could create public humiliation for a same-sex couple when they apply for a license. "There can't be separate-but-equal marriage. There can't be Jim Crow kind of marriage," the couples' attorney told the court. Four separate cases challenging HB 1523 have been filed, and the judge will hear oral arguments in the remaining two later this week.
Monday, November 25, 2019
Recent Articles of Interest
- Ihsan Yilmaz, Religio-Secular Counter-Hegemonic Legal Knowledge Production and Its Glocal Dissemination, (January 12, 2019).
- Shaun Alberto de Freitas, A Critique of Ronald Dworkin’s Limitation of Passive Forms of Religious Expression in the Public Sphere, (NTKR 2019-1 (2019)).
- Neil Walker, Christianity and the Global Rule of Law, (Edinburgh School of Law Research Paper No. 2019/35 (2019)).
- Chao-Ju Chen, A Same-sex Marriage that is Not the Same: Taiwan’s Legal Recognition of Same-sex Unions and Affirmation of Marriage Normativity, (Australian Journal of Asian Law, Vol. 20, No. 1, Article 5, 2019).
- Wondong Lee, Joe Phillips & Joseph Yi, LGBTQ+ Rights in South Korea – East Asia’s ‘Christian’ Country, (Australian Journal of Asian Law, Vol. 20, No. 1, Article 6, 2019).
- Nasir Qadri, Analysis of Triple Talaq Judgment Passed by Indian Supreme Court,(December 8, 2018).
- Elizabeth Ann Black, Casting the First Stone: The Significance of Brunei Darussalam’s Syariah Penal Code Order for LGBT Bruneians, (Australian Journal of Asian Law, Vol. 20, No. 1, Article 18, 2019).
- Ihsan Yilmaz, Islamist Turn in Turkey, State Transnationalism and Transnational Islamist Unofficial Law, (October 12, 2019).
- Beng Hui Tan, The LGBT Quandary in New Malaysia, (Australian Journal of Asian Law, Vol. 20, No. 1, article 15, 2019).
Sunday, June 13, 2010
Hawaii Governor Talks With Rabbis In Deciding On Civil Union Bill
Thursday, May 09, 2024
4th Circuit: Ministerial Exception Bars Suit by Catholic School Teacher Fired Over Same-Sex Marriage Plans
In Billard v. Charlotte Catholic High School, (4th Cir., May 8, 2024), the U.S. 4th Circuit Court of Appeals held that a Catholic high school teacher's suit alleging sex discrimination in violation of Title VII should be dismissed. The court's majority held that the ministerial exception doctrine defeated the suit by the teacher of English and drama who was not invited back to teach after he announced plans to marry his same-sex partner. The majority, finding that the teacher should be classified as a "minister" for purposes of the ministerial exception, said in part:
[F]aith infused CCHS’s classes – and not only the expressly religious ones. Even as a teacher of English and drama, Billard’s duties included conforming his instruction to Christian thought and providing a classroom environment consistent with Catholicism. Billard may have been teaching Romeo and Juliet, but he was doing so after consultation with religious teachers to ensure that he was teaching through a faith-based lens.... The record makes clear that CCHS considered it “vital” to its religious mission that its teachers bring a Catholic perspective to bear on Shakespeare as well as on the Bible.
Moreover, we note that Billard did – on rare occasions – fill in for teachers of religion classes.... CCHS’s apparent expectation that Billard be ready to instruct in religion as needed is another “relevant circumstance” indicating the importance of Billard’s role to the school’s religious mission.
Our court has recognized before that seemingly secular tasks like the teaching of English and drama may be so imbued with religious significance that they implicate the ministerial exception.
The majority rejected the school's argument for broadening statutory defenses to the Title VII claim.
Judge King filed an opinion concurring in the result but differing as to rationale. He said in part:
... I would neither reach nor resolve the First Amendment ministerial exception issue on which the majority relies. I would decide this appeal solely on Title VII statutory grounds, that is, § 702 of Title VII.... [M]y good friends of the panel majority have unnecessarily resolved the appeal on the First Amendment constitutional issue. In so ruling, they have strayed from settled principles of the constitutional avoidance doctrine and our Court’s precedent.
Wednesday, January 16, 2013
European Court of Human Rights Vindicates Britain In 3 of 4 Cases Denying Accommodation of Christian Beliefs
British law bars employment discrimination unless the employer can show that its requirements constitute "a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim." As to Ms. Eweida, the Court majority said:
[A] fair balance was not struck. On one side of the scales was Ms Eweida’s desire to manifest her religious belief.... [T]his is a fundamental right: because a healthy democratic society needs to tolerate and sustain pluralism and diversity; but also because of the value to an individual who has made religion a central tenet of his or her life to be able to communicate that belief to others. On the other side of the scales was the employer’s wish to project a certain corporate image.... [W]hile this aim was undoubtedly legitimate, the domestic courts accorded it too much weight. Ms Eweida’s cross was discreet and cannot have detracted from her professional appearance. There was no evidence that the wearing of other, previously authorised, items of religious clothing, such as turbans and hijabs, by other employees, had any negative impact on British Airways’ brand or image. Moreover, the fact that the company was able to amend the uniform code to allow for the visible wearing of religious symbolic jewellery demonstrates that the earlier prohibition was not of crucial importance.However in the case of Shirley Chaplain, a geriatric ward nurse at a state hospital, the court held unanimously that the requirement she remove her necklace displaying a cross to prevent injury when handling patients was justified.
The third case involved Lillian Ladele, a local registrar of births, deaths and marriages, who refused on religious grounds to conduct civil partnership ceremonies. In a 5-2 decision, the Court rejected Ladele's claims under Art. 9 and the non-discrimination requirements of Art. 14, holding that local authorities are given "a wide margin of appreciation" in balancing religious freedom rights with the mandate not to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation. Two judges dissented, saying that the issue is primarily one of freedom of conscience. They continued:
Instead of practising the tolerance and the “dignity for all” it preached, the Borough of Islington pursued the doctrinaire line, the road of obsessive political correctness. It effectively sought to force the applicant to act against her conscience or face the extreme penalty of dismissal... Ms Ladele did not fail in her duty of discretion: she did not publicly express her beliefs to service users. Her beliefs had no impact on the content of her job, but only on its extent. She never attempted to impose her beliefs on others, nor was she in any way engaged, openly or surreptitiously, in subverting the rights of others. Thus ... the means used were totally disproportionate.The fourth case involved Gary McFarlane, who was a counselor at an organization that provides sex therapy and relationship counselling. He was dismissed after he expressed concern on grounds of his Christian religious beliefs about providing psycho-sexual therapy to same-sex couples. The court unanimously rejected his claim of discrimination and infringement of religious freedom, saying: "the most important factor to be taken into account is that the employer’s action was intended to secure the implementation of its policy of providing a service without discrimination."
The Chamber judgment can be appealed to the Court's 17-judge Grand Chamber. The Guardian reports on the decision, as does a press release from Alliance Defending Freedom.
Wednesday, September 17, 2008
California Couple Refuses To Sign Gender-Neutral Marriage License
Thursday, June 18, 2009
Religious Conservatives Criticize Obama's Extension of Some Benefits To Gay Couples
Obama indicated that current federal law precludes him from going further by executive action, but announced his support for the Domestic Partners Benefits and Obligations Act that would extend the full range of benefits-- including health care and retirement benefits--to same-sex couples as are enjoyed by married heterosexual couples. Not surprisingly, a number of conservative Christian groups, as in a press release from the Family Research Council, have criticized the President's action. Dan Gilgoff reports that they contend the Memorandum essentially elevates same-sex partnerships to a status that approximates marriage, in violation of at least the spirit of the federal Defense of Marriage Act.
Friday, August 30, 2013
IRS Rules That Legal Same-Sex Marriages Will Be Recognized For Tax Purposes, Regardless Of Couple's Current Domicile
Tuesday, July 19, 2016
2016 Republican Platform on Same-Sex Marriage
Traditional marriage and family, based on marriage between one man and one woman, is the foundation for a free society and has for millennia been entrusted with rearing children and instilling cultural values. We condemn the Supreme Court’s ruling in United States v. Windsor, which wrongly removed the ability of Congress to define marriage policy in federal law. We also condemn the Supreme Court’s lawless ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges, which in the words of the late Justice Antonin Scalia, was a “judicial Putsch” — full of “silly extravagances” — that reduced “the disciplined legal reasoning of John Marshall and Joseph Storey to the mystical aphorisms of a fortune cookie.” In Obergefell, five unelected lawyers robbed 320 million Americans of their legitimate constitutional authority to define marriage as the union of one man and one woman. The Court twisted the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment beyond recognition. To echo Scalia, we dissent. We, therefore, support the appointment of justices and judges who respect the constitutional limits on their power and respect the authority of the states to decide such fundamental social questions.
Wednesday, December 16, 2009
D.C. Council Votes Final Passage of Gay Marriage Bill
Sunday, November 05, 2006
Reconstructionist Rabbis Support NJ Gay Marriage Law
Saturday, November 12, 2016
More On Presidential Voting By Religious Groupings
In the same vein, yesterday the New York Times posted an article titled Religious Right Believes Donald Trump Will Deliver on His Promises, saying in part:
Now that he has won, evangelical leaders say they are confident Mr. Trump will deliver on the political promises he made to them. These include appointing a conservative to the Supreme Court, defunding Planned Parenthood, protecting businesses that refuse to provide services for same-sex weddings and rescinding the mandate in the Affordable Care Act that requires insurance coverage for birth control.
And with Gov. Mike Pence of Indiana, an evangelical with a record of legislating against abortion and same-sex marriage, as vice president, Christian leaders say they feel reassured they will have access to the White House and a seat at the table.
Wednesday, May 11, 2011
Navy Chief Chaplain Reverses Recent Policy On Same-Sex Marriages In Base Chapels
Friday, March 14, 2014
Suit Seeks Florida Recognition of Same-Sex Marriages
Wednesday, July 22, 2020
2nd Circuit: Free Speech and Free Exercise Claims of Christian Adoption Agency Can Move Forward
New Hope Family Services, Inc., is a voluntary, privately funded Christian ministry devoted to providing adoption services and authorized to do so in the State of New York for more than 50 years. New Hope professes that, consistent with its religious beliefs, it cannot recommend adoptions by unmarried or same-sex couples. It does not itself disapprove such couples; rather, it refers them to other adoption agencies. In 2018, the State’s Office of Children and Family Services (“OCFS”) informed New Hope that its policy respecting unmarried and same-sex couples violates the antidiscrimination mandate of N.Y. Comp. Codes R. & Regs. tit. 18, § 421.3(d). OCFS advised New Hope that it either had to change its policy or close its operation.In reversing and remanding the case to the district court, the 2nd Circuit said in part as to plaintiff's free exercise claim:
[W]e conclude that the pleadings give rise to a sufficient “suspicion” of religious animosity to warrant “pause” for discovery before dismissing New Hope’s claim as implausible.In connection with plaintiff's free speech claim, the court said:
New Hope asserts that, based on its religious beliefs about marriage and family, it does not believe and, therefore, cannot state, that adoption by unmarried or same-sex couples would ever be in the best interests of a child. It charges OCFS with requiring it to say just that—or to close down its voluntary, privately funded adoption ministry....AP reports on the decision.
Friday, February 28, 2014
Court Issues Final Order On Recognition of Out-of-State Same-Sex Marriages In Kentucky; Intervenors Pursuing Additional Relief
Meanwhile, the court yesterday also allowed (full text of order) two other couples to intervene in the case to pursue their claims (full text of intervenors' complaint) that Kentucky laws banning the issuance of marriage licenses to same-sex couples are also unconstitutional. [Thanks to Tom Rutledge for the lead.]
Monday, May 09, 2011
Attorney General Tells Immigration Appeals Board To Reconsider Deportation of Partner In Civil Union
determine whether and how the constitutionality of DOMA is presented in this case, including, but not limited to: 1) whether respondent’s same-sex partnership or civil union qualifies him to be considered a “spouse” under New Jersey law; 2) whether, absent the requirements of DOMA, respondent’s same-sex partnership or civil union would qualify him to be considered a “spouse” under the Immigration and Nationality Act....AP reports on the decision. [Thanks to Alliance Alert for the lead.]