Showing posts sorted by relevance for query same-sex marriage. Sort by date Show all posts
Showing posts sorted by relevance for query same-sex marriage. Sort by date Show all posts

Wednesday, May 06, 2015

A Bit of Humor On A Serious Topic...

For those who have been promising themselves that they will listen to the full Supreme Court oral arguments in Obergefell v. Hodges, the same-sex marriage cases argued last week, but have not gotten around to it, the task has now perhaps become more inviting with the posting on YouTube of the arguments synchronized with John Oliver dog clips:



Monday, July 12, 2021

7th Circuit En Banc: Ministerial Exception Applies To Hostile Work Environment Claims

In Demkovich v. St. Andrew the Apostle Parish, Calumet City, (7th Cir., July 9, 2021), the U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, sitting en banc, held by a vote of 7-3 that the ministerial exception doctrine applies to protect religious organizations from  hostile work environment claims alleging minister-on-minister harassment. A 3-judge panel had reach the opposite conclusion. At issue is derogatory and demeaning comments made to the church's gay music director by the church's pastor. The majority opinion, written by Judge Brennan, said in part:

This case concerns what one minister, Reverend Dada, said to another, Demkovich. Adjudicating Demkovich’s allegations of minister-on-minister harassment would not only undercut a religious organization’s constitutionally protected relationship with its ministers, but also cause civil intrusion into, and excessive entanglement with, the religious sphere.

Judge Hamilton filed a dissenting opinion, joined by Judges Rovner and Wood, saying in part: 

[P]laintiff is not asking the court to pass on the substance of the Catholic Church’s religious doctrines or practices. Civil courts have nothing to say about whether the Church should permit same-sex marriage, for example, or whether the Church should have a hierarchical supervisory structure. The Church was free to decide whether to retain plaintiff or fire him. But plaintiff’s hostile work environment claims allege conduct that constituted abuse under neutral, generally applicable standards that would be enforceable on behalf of a non-ministerial employee. That conduct is, by definition, not necessary to control or supervise any employee.

Bloomberg Law reports on the decision.

Sunday, June 30, 2013

Cert. Denied In Other DOMA Cases

Last Thursday, a day after issuing its same-sex marriage decisions, the U.S. Supreme Court cleaned up its docket by denying certiorari in several other cases challenging the constitutionality of DOMA.  The Court denied review in Windsor v. United States (Docket No. 12-63) and Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group v. Windsor, (Docket No. 12-785). It also denied review in Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group v. Gill (Docket No. 12-13), Department of Health & Human Services v. Massachusetts, (Docket No. 12-15), and Massachusetts v. Department of Health & Human Services, (Docket No. 12-97). (See prior related posting.) (June 27 Order List.)

Friday, February 24, 2023

Christian Teacher Did Not Show That Her Removal Was Retaliation for Protected Speech or Beliefs

In Barr v. Tucker (SD GA, Feb. 21, 2023), a Georgia federal district court denied a preliminary injunction to plaintiff whose position as a substitute elementary school teacher was terminated after she complained to her own children's teachers and to the principal about the school librarian's reading aloud to classes a book that contains illustrations of same-sex couples with school-age children. The court explained:

Plaintiff told Defendant Tucker [the school principal] that she believed the book was '"inappropriate for young children, conflicted with her Christian faith, and appeared to bean effort to indoctrinate young children into a progressive ideological agenda[]" and asked that her children be excused from the read-aloud program.

Plaintiff contended that the school had retaliated against her for her exercising her free speech and free exercise rights. The court disagreed, saying in part:

... Plaintiff's inquiries principally addressed her personal concerns about exempting her children from the read-aloud program, and the context of her speech suggests she spoke on a matter of private or personal interest.

Accordingly ... Plaintiff has failed to establish a substantial likelihood of success in showing she spoke on a matter of public concern .... As a result. Plaintiff has also failed to establish a substantial likelihood of success on the merits of her First Amendment [free speech] retaliation claim....

The Court accepts, as Plaintiff alleges, that her sincerely held religious beliefs include ''that God created marriage to be between one man and one woman, and that family formation should occur within the confines of heterosexual marriage."... However, at this stage. Plaintiff has not established that she is substantially likely to succeed on showing that Defendants substantially burdened her religious beliefs by terminating her.

It is not clear that Defendants called for Plaintiff's removal due to her religious beliefs....

Defendants maintain they removed Plaintiff due to her inappropriately timed interactions with her children's teachers and concern about how she would support students or parents that identify as gay, not because of her beliefs about marriage and family formation.

Monday, October 08, 2007

Recent Scholarly Articles of Interest

From SSRN:
From SmartCILP and elsewhere:

Tuesday, June 04, 2024

Alabama Supreme Court Refuses to Order United Methodist Conference to Allow Church Disaffiliations

In Aldersgate United Methodist Church of Montgomery v. Alabama- West Florida Conference of the United Methodist Church, Inc., (AL Sup. Ct., May 31, 2024), the Alabama Supreme Court, in a per curiam opinion, applied the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine and dismissed a challenge by 44 Methodist congregations to a refusal by their parent Conference to allow the congregations to disaffiliate and retain their property. A few months before the congregations sought to disaffiliate, the Conference had changed its rules to provide that a member church could disaffiliate only after the Conference approved an eligibility statement that set out the reasons of conscience that led to the congregation's request. Prior to that, under a policy that was to expire at the end of 2023, congregations could disaffiliate and retain their property merely if they disagreed with the Chruch's policy on same-sex marriage and homosexuality. In affirming the dismissal of the case, the court said in part:

In order to grant the churches the relief they seek -- the right to vote on disaffiliation -- the trial court would have to survey the Judicial Council's ecclesiastical decisions, interpret the doctrinal scope of ¶ 2553 of the Book of Discipline, and review Conference determinations about the religious adequacy of the churches' eligibility statements.  That is, to decide any property questions, the trial court would have to adjudicate whether each of the churches had adequate "reasons of conscience...."  Resolving those issues would "inherently entail inquiry … into the substantive criteria by which [courts] are supposedly to decide the ecclesiastical question" -- whether the churches' reasons of conscience were sufficient for disaffiliation under ¶ 2553....   "But [that] is exactly the inquiry that the First Amendment prohibits."

Justice Bryan filed an opinion concurring specially which Justice Mitchell joined. Justice Cook filed an opinion concurring specially which Chief Justice Parker joined. Both opinions expressed sympathy with the churches' claim that the last-minute change in rules was engineered to prevent them from disaffiliating. Justice Mundheim filed an opinion concurring in the result, but not in the reasoning of the main opinion. Justice Sellers concurred in the result without filing a separate opinion. Justices Shaw, White and Stewart recused themselves.

Monday, June 17, 2013

Recent Articles of Interest and Call For Papers

From SSRN:
From SmartCILP amd elsewhere:
Call For Papers:

Monday, November 24, 2008

Recent Articles and Books of Interest

SSRN:
SmartCILP and Other:
New Books:

Friday, September 04, 2015

Constable Applicant Can Sue Over Religious and Ideological Questions In Job Interview

In Texas, County Constable is an elected position, but where a sitting Constable resigns more than a year before the next scheduled election county commissioners may appoint a new constable to serve until the next election.  In Lloyd v. Birkman, (WD TX, Sept. 2, 2015), a Texas federal district court in a 106-page opinion held that one of the unsuccessful candidates for appointment as County Constable in Williamson County, Texas could pursue various claims against the county and individual commissioners because of the questions asked during the interview process for the position. According to the court:
During the interviews, the candidates received questions on their positions on abortion and same-sex marriage, their political affiliations, the churches that they attended, and their political ideology.
While dismissing some of plaintiff's claims, the court permitted plaintiff to move ahead with his claim that the County committed an unlawful employment practice under Title VII and Texas Commission on Human Rights Act by refusing to hire him because of his religious association, moral views, and ethical beliefs. The court held that the "elected official" exemption does not apply. The court also permitted plaintiff to move ahead against the county and individual defendants on his First Amendment retaliation, freedom of expression and association claims; his 14th Amendment Equal Protection claims; and Texas Constitutional claims. The court rejected plaintiff's violation of privacy claims.

Monday, March 16, 2015

Recent Articles and Book of Interest

From SSRN:
From SSRN (Non-U.S. Law):
From SmartCILP:
Recent Book:

Thursday, February 14, 2008

Canada's Human Rights Commission Investigating Catholic Magazine

According to a release by Zenit on Tuesday, the Canadian Human Rights Commission is investigating the Canadian magazine, Catholic Insight, for publishing articles seen as offensive to gays and lesbians. A complaint filed by Rob Wells, a member of the Gay, Lesbian and Transgendered Pride Center of Edmonton, accuses the magazine of promoting "extreme hatred and contempt" against homosexuals. Catholic Insight editor Father Alphonse de Valk said some of the challenged statemets were from recent Vatican pronouncements. Others were political statements, medical studies, and news reports, a number of which focused on the campaign in Canada to legalize same-sex marriage.

Monday, September 07, 2015

Recent Articles of Interest

From SSRN:
From SSRN (Non-U.S. law):
  • Symposium: From the Magna Carta to the Montgomery March: The Career of Rights in the Anglo-American Legal Tradition. Articles by Winston P. Nagan, Bradley W. Miller, James R. Stoner, Jr., Adam J. MacLeod, Dwight G. Duncan, David VanDrunen and Michael J. DeBoer. 6 Faulkner Law Review 1-196 (2014).
  • Symposium: Pursuit of Happiness in Interreligious Perspective. Articles by His Holiness the 14th Dalai Lama, Matthieu Ricard, Ch-Rab Jonathan Sacks, Michael J. Broyde, The Most Rev. Katharine Jefferts Schori, Luke Timothy Johnson, Seyyed Hossein Nasr and Khaled Abou El Fadl; response by Vincent J. Cornell. 29 Journal of Law & Religion 5-123 (2014).

Tuesday, November 18, 2008

Religious Groups Ask California Supreme Court To Void Proposition 8

Yesterday the California Council of Churches along with a number of liberal Protestant and Jewish groups filed a "Petition for Writ of Mandate or Prohibition" (full text) with the California Supreme Court seeking to prevent enforcement of Proposition 8 that was approved by voters earlier this month. (Press release). The petition alleges that the state constitutional amendment barring same-sex marriage was adopted using improper procedures. California's constitution (Art. XVIII) has stricter requirements for constitutional "revisions" than it does for "amendments." Only amendments can be adopted through the initiative process-- the route used for Proposition 8. Revisions require a two-thirds vote of the legislature before being submitted to voters. The Petition filed with the Supreme Court reads in part:
The religious institutions that file this petition ... count on article XVIII to ensure that the California Constitution's guarantee of equal protection for religious minorities cannot be taken away without a deliberative process of the utmost care possible in a representative democracy. If Proposition 8 is upheld, however, the assurance will disappear-- for, just as surely as gay men and lesbians could be deprived of equal protection by a simple majority vote, so too could religious minorities be deprived of equal protection-- a terrible irony in a nation founded by people who emigrated to escape religious persecution.
Six separate legal challenges to Proposition 8 have been filed with the California Supreme Court. (San Jose Mercury News, Nov. 17). [Thanks to Don Clark for the lead.]

Monday, March 25, 2013

Religion Clause Will Be On A 2-Day Publication Break

Religion Clause will be on a two-day publication break tomorrow and Wednesday. Look for new posts early on Thursday. These will include reporting on the oral arguments in the  Supreme Court that will be held on Tuesday and Wednesday in two important same-sex marriage cases. For those who want to read more on the oral arguments before Thursday, SCOTUSBlog will have its usual excellent coverage of the arguments. The Supreme Court's own website will link to transcripts and audio recordings of the arguments when they become available.      

Monday, July 06, 2015

Recent Articles and Books of Interest

From SSRN:
From SSRN (Same-sex marriage):
New Books:

Tuesday, August 04, 2015

Sportscaster Sues Fox Sports Claiming Religious Discrimination

Yesterday former NFL player and sportscaster Craig James filed suit in a Texas state court against Fox Sports and various of its affiliates claiming religious discrimination in violation of the Texas Commission on Human Rights Act and breach of contract.  The complaint (redacted full text) in James v. Fox Sports, Inc., (TX Dist. Ct., filed 8/3/2015), claims that James' firing in September 2013, just days after he was hired by Fox, was "due to a short Christianity-focused statement" opposing same-sex marriage on Biblical grounds that he made during a political debate when he ran unsuccessfully for United States Senate some 18 months earlier. Liberty Institute has more information on the case along with links to depositions, the demand letter and media coverage.  According to The Wrap yesterday, Fox Sports issued a statement saying in part:
... Craig James is a polarizing figure in the college sports community and the decision not to use him in our college football coverage was based on the perception that he abused a previous on-air position to further a personal agenda.  The decision had nothing to do with Mr. James’ religious beliefs and we did not discriminate against Mr. James in any way.
James, in 2009 while at ESPN, was involved in a controversy stemming from his comments about the Texas Tech coach Mike Leach's treatment of James' son. (Background.) James resigned from ESPN in Dec. 2011 to run for the U.S. Senate. [This paragraph has been corrected. An earlier more cryptic version gave an incorrect impression.]

Thursday, April 21, 2011

New Arizona Law Exempts Churches From Political Committee Registration

On Monday, Arizona Governor Jan Brewer signed S.B. 1282 that provides no religious assembly or institution will be required to register as a political committee, so long as it does not spend a substantial amount of time or assets influencing legislation, or any referendum, initiative or constitutional amendment. The American Independent reported Monday that the new law is aimed at assuring-- as required by 9th Circuit precedent-- that campaign finance laws do not apply to speech by churches on issues of public importance that appear on the election ballot. A 2009 case decided by the 9th Circuit invalidated application of Montana's campaign finance laws to a Church that engaged in limited activities in support of a constitutional initiative banning same-sex marriage. (See prior posting.)

Thursday, December 02, 2010

Supporters of Prop 8 Seek Recusal of 9th Circuit Judge

As the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals moves to hear arguments next week in the lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of Proposition 8, California's ban on same-sex marriage, supporters of Prop 8 have filed papers seeking to have one of the judges on the appellate panel disqualify himself.  AP reports that in a filing with the court, appellants say that Judge Stephen Reinhardt's impartiality is open to question. The judge's wife, Ramona Ripston, is head of the Southern California chapter of the ACLU and in that role has been an outspoken opponent of Prop 8.  Also the ACLU has filed an amicus brief in the case on behalf of plaintiffs who are challenging the law. Reinhardt has recused himself in past cases involving the Southern California ACLU.  In August a federal district court held Prop 8 to be unconstitutional. (See prior posting.)

UPDATE: The Silicon Valley Mercury News reports that on Thursday, Judge Reinhardt refused to disqualify himself from hearing the case, saying: "I will be able to rule impartially in this appeal, and I will do so." Backers of Prop 8 will not challenge that ruling. [Thanks to Alliance Alert for the lead.]

Monday, September 02, 2013

Recent Articles of Interest

From SSRN:
From SmartCILP:

Monday, April 17, 2023

Recent Articles of Interest

From SSRN:

From SmartCILP: