6th Circuit Decides 2 Cases Growing Out of Kim Davis' Marriage License Refusals

In Ermold v. Davis, (6th Cir., Aug. 23, 2019), the U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals held that sovereign immunity protects former Rowan County, Kentucky Clerk Kim Davis, and her successor in office, from suit for damages in their official capacity. However, the court went on, Davis may still be sued in her individual capacity, and she is not entitled to qualified immunity in that suit. The case grew out of the widely-publicized refusal of Davis to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples, even after the U.S. Supreme Court's Obergefell decision. (See prior posting.) Two same-sex couples who were denied marriage licenses sued.

The 3-judge panel split 2-1 in their analysis of why Davis was not entitled to qualified immunity.  Judge Griffin, joined by Judge White, held that Obergefell clearly established a right for same-sex marriage and eliminated the need to use a tiers-of-scrutiny analysis in cases such as this.  Judge Bush held that a tiers-of-scrutiny analysis should be used, but that Davis' conduct does not survive even rational basis review.

In a related case, Miller v. Caudill, (6th Cir., Aug. 23, 2019), the U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the award of $222,695 in attorneys' fees to several same-sex couples who had obtained a preliminary injunction against Davis' policy, but litigated no further after Davis' deputy clerks agreed to issue the licenses.  The 6th Circuit concluded that plaintiffs qualified as a "prevailing party" entitled to attorneys' fees under 42 USC §1988, and that these fees should be paid by the state of Kentucky rather than Rowan County.  The Court said in part:

A win is a win—regardless of whether the winner runs up the score. To prevail, then, plaintiffs didn’t need to obtain duplicative relief in every form that they originally sought it. They wanted the opportunity to obtain marriage licenses in Rowan County, and the preliminary injunction gave them exactly that.

Louisville Courier Journal reports on this decision. [Thanks to Tom Rutledge for the lead.]

Recent Articles of Interest

From SSRN:

• Micah Schwartzman, Must Laws Be Motivated by Public Reason? (Public Reason and Courts (Silje Langvatn, et al. eds., Cambridge University Press, Forthcoming).
• Oana Horhogea, Law and Religion. The Mystical Link, (June 30, 2019).
• Cecile Laborde, Abortion, Marriage and Cognate Problems, (American Journal of Jurisprudence (July 2018)).
• Matthew Segal, America’s Conscience: The Rise of Civil Society Groups Under President Trump, (UCLA Law Review, Vol. 65, No. 6, 2018).
• Charles A. Sullivan, Making Too Much of Too Little?: Why 'Motivating Factor' Liability Did Not Revolutionize Title VII, (August 2, 2019).
• Eric Steven Smith, Exploiting the Charitable Contribution Deduction's Hypersalience, (Utah Law Review, Forthcoming).

From SSRN (Non-US Law):

• Leah Bornstein-Makovetsky, The Welfare of the Minor As a Fundamental Principle Guiding Guardianship and Custody Issues in Ottoman Jewish Society, (Forthcoming, International Journal of the Jurisprudence of the Family).
• Harlan Grant Cohen, The Primitive Lawyer Speaks!: Thoughts on the Concepts of International and Rabbinic Laws, (Villanova Law Review, Forthcoming).
• Avishalom Westreich, Surrogacy and Egg Donation in Israel: Legal Arrangements, Difficulties, and Challenges, (Fundamental Legal Problems of Surrogate Motherhood - Global Perspective (Piotr Mostowik, ed., Warsaw, 2019)).
• Sujit Choudhry, Postcolonial Proportionality: Johar, Transformative Constitutionalism and Same Sex Rights in India, (Philipp Dann, ed., The Global South and Comparative Constitutional Law (Oxford University Press, Forthcoming)).
• Ayesha Umar, Assessing Social Inclusion through Transgender Legal Reforms in Pakistan, (October 7, 2018).
• Erum Sattar, Property Rights for Landless Agricultural Workers and the Flexibility of Hanafi Land Law Jurisprudence: A Solution for Rural Displacement?, (August 1, 2019).

From SmartCILP:

• Michael Arthur Vacca, Education and Religious Freedom in the Toledo Guiding Principles: A Comparative Analysis Between the Holy See and the United States, 36 Arizona Journal of International & Comparative Law 111-132 (2019).
• Daniel Altaras, Separation of Synagogue and State in Israel, 36 Arizona Journal of International & Comparative Law 133-163 (2019).
• James D. Nelson, Corporate Disestablishment, 105 Virginia Law Review 595-654 (2019).
• Samuel W. Calhoun, Inappropriate for Establishment Clause Scrutiny: Reflections on Mary Nobles Hancock's Note. God Save the United States and this Honorable County Board of Commissioners: Lund, Bormuth, and the Fight Over Legislative Prayer, 76 Washington & Lee Law Review 485-508 (2019).

Teacher Sues Archdiocese For Directing Catholic High School To Fire Him Over Same-Sex Marriage

Catholic Herald reported yesterday on a lawsuit filed against the Archdiocese of Indianapolis by Joshua Payne-Elliott, a former teacher at Cathedral High School. The suit charges interference with the teacher's professional relationship with the school. The Archdiocese directed the high school to terminate Payne-Elliott's contract after he entered a same-sex marriage. The school made it clear it was following the directive in order to avoid the Archdiocese withdrawing recognition of the school as Catholic. One day before filing his lawsuit against the Archdiocese, the teacher reached what was apparently a friendly settlement with Cathedral High School. The school is helping him find a new teaching position. In response to the lawsuit, the Archdiocese issued this statement:

In the Archdiocese of Indianapolis’ Catholic schools, all teachers, school leaders and guidance counselors are ministers and witnesses of the faith, who are expected to uphold the teachings of the Church in their daily lives, both in and out of school. Religious liberty, which is a hallmark of the U.S. Constitution and has been tested in the U.S. Supreme Court, acknowledges that religious organizations may define what conduct is not acceptable and contrary to the teachings of its religion, for its school leaders, guidance counselors, teachers and other ministers of the faith.

Britain's Appeals Court: Christian Social Work Student Improperly Suspended For Anti-Gay Facebook Postings

In Ngole v. University of Sheffield, (EWCA, July 3, 2019), England's Court of Appeal held that the University of Sheffield had unfairly removed a Christian student from its Master of Social Work program after the student posted his views on Facebook that homosexuality and same-sex marriage are sins.  The postings, in response to the jailing in 2015 of Kentucky court clerk Kim Davis for refusing to issue same-sex marriage licenses, appeared on MSNBC's Facebook page. The Court, ordering a new disciplinary hearing by the University, summarized its conclusions in part as follows:

(10) The University wrongly confused the expression of religious views with the notion of discrimination. The mere expression of views on theological grounds (e.g. that ‘homosexuality is a sin’) does not necessarily connote that the person expressing such views will discriminate on such grounds. In the present case, there was positive evidence to suggest that the Appellant had never discriminated on such grounds in the past and was not likely to do so in the future (because, as he explained, the Bible prohibited him from discriminating against anybody).

(11) The University gave different and confusing reasons for suspending the Appellant. Initially, it was said (by the Fitness to Practice Committee) that he lacked “insight” into how his NBC postings might affect his ability to carry out “his role as a social worker”; and subsequently it was said (by the Appeals Committee) that he lacked “insight” into how his NBC postings “may negatively affect the public’s view of the social work profession”. Further, at no stage during the process or the hearings did the University properly put either concern as to perception to the Appellant during the hearings.

(12) The University’s approach to sanction was, in any event, disproportionate: instead of exploring and imposing a lesser penalty, such as a warning, the University imposed the extreme penalty of dismissing the Appellant from his course, which was inappropriate in all the circumstances.

The Guardian reports on the decision.

Recent Articles of Interest

From SSRN:

• Susanna Mancini, European Law and the Veil. Muslim Women from Victims to Emblems of the Enemy, (A. Melloni, F. Cadeddu (eds.) Religious Literacy, Law and History, Routledge, 2019).
• Michael Quinlan, Christianity And The Law: Trial Separation Or Acrimonious Divorce?, (2018).
• Michael Quinlan, Law And Religion In Western Australia: Cooperation or Conflict?, (June 17, 2019).
• Elizabeth Sepper, Religious Exemptions, Harm to Others, and the Indeterminacy of a Common Law Baseline, (Kentucky Law Journal, Vol. 106, 2018).
• Nathan B. Oman, Temple, Talmud, and Sacrament: Some Christian Thoughts on Halakhah, (Villanova Law Review, Forthcoming 2019).
• Peter J. Oliver & Philippa Watson, Is the Court of Justice of the European Union Finding its Religion?, (Fordham International Law Journal, Vol. 42, No. 3, 2019).
• Matteo Winkler, Same-Sex Marriage and Italian Exceptionalism, (ICL Journal 2018; 12(4); 431–456).
• Hannah Haksgaard, Blending Surnames at Marriage, (30 Stanford Law & Policy Review __ (2019) (Forthcoming)).
• Shazny Ramlan, Religious Law for the Environment: Comparative Islamic Environmental Law in Singapore, Malaysia, and Indonesia, (NUS Centre for Asian Legal Studies Working Paper 19/03 (2019).

From SmartCILP:

• Derrick Bell, Law As a Religion, 69 Case Western Reserve Law Review 265-274 (2018).
• Jean Stefancic, Law, Religion, and Racial Justice: A Comment on Derrick Bell's Last Article, 69 Case Western Reserve Law Review 341-354 (2018).
• Mark L. Rienzi, Administrative Power and Religious Liberty at the Supreme Court, 69 Case Western Reserve Law Review 355-394 (2018).
• Twentieth Annual Review of Gender and the Law, 20 Georgetown Journal of Gender & Law 265-540 (2019).

Christian School Sues Over Exclusion From State Funding Programs

Suit was filed on Monday in a Maryland federal district court by a preschool- 8 Christian school that was excluded from Maryland's scholarship program for low-income students, as well as the state's textbook and technology and its aging schools programs.  The complaint (full text) in Bethel Ministries, Inc. v. Salmon, (D MD, filed 6/24/2019), alleges that the school does not discriminate in admissions on the basis of sexual orientation, but that it was nevertheless disqualified because of its policy on transgender students and on same-sex marriage.  According to the complaint:

50. Faculty, staff, and students are expected to align their conduct with Bethel’s belief that marriage is the union of one man and one woman. 

51. Faculty, staff, and students are expected to align their conduct with Bethel’s belief that biological sex as either male or female is an immutable gift from God, and therefore identify with, dress in accordance with, conduct themselves in keeping with, use the pronouns associated with, and use the facilities provided for, their biological sex....

53. Bethel’s conduct policy prohibits any communication of a sexual nature, such as identifying as the opposite sex, or expressing romantic attraction towards another student.

The school alleges that disqualifying it on this basis violates its 1st and 14th Amendment rights. ADF issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit.

Another Suit Filed Against Masterpiece Cakeshop For Refusal To Create Cakes For LGBT Events

Another lawsuit has been filed against Masterpiece Cakeshop owner Jack Phillips, this time over his refusal on religious grounds to create a pink birthday cake with blue icing for a transgender female customer.  The complaint (full text) in Scardina v. Masterpiece Cakeshop, Inc., (CO dist. Ct., June 5, 2019), contends that the refusal violates Colorado's anti-discrimination and deceptive practices acts. This suit was filed by the aggrieved customer after litigation over the same issue between Phillips and the Colorado Civil Rights Commission was dropped. (See prior posting.)  Last year the U.S. Supreme Court on narrow grounds ruled against the Colorado Civil Rights Commission in its attempt to issue a cease and desist order against Masterpiece Cakeshop for its refusal to provide a wedding cake for a same-sex marriage. (See prior posting.) Christian Post reports on the most recent lawsuit.

Washington Supreme Court OK's Anti-Discrimination Law Enforcement Against Florist Opposed To Gay Marriage

In an important and wide-ranging 76-page opinion yesterday, the Washington state Supreme Court held that a florist shop's refusal to provide flowers for a same-sex wedding constitutes sexual orientation discrimination under the Washington Law Against Discrimination, and that enforcement of the law does not violate the constitutional rights of the floral shop owner.  This is the second time the case has been before the Washington Supreme Court.  After the first decision, the U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari, vacated the state court's judgment and  remanded for further consideration in light of the U.S. Supreme Court's Masterpiece Cakeshop decision. (See prior posting.) Yesterday in State of Washington v. Arlene's Flowers , Inc., (WA Sup. Ct., June 6, 2019), in a unanimous decision, the court concluded that the state adjudicatory bodies involved acted with religious neutrality. It refused to allow the challengers to expand their claims to allege selective enforcement based on religion by the Washington attorney general.

The Washington Supreme Court went on to hold that challengers cited no authority to support their argument that the state's public accommodation law protects proprietors of public accommodations to the same extent as it protects their patrons, and that a balancing test should be used. The court then rejected the florist's free speech claims, saying:

The decision to either provide or refuse to provide flowers for a wedding does not inherently express a message about that wedding. 

The Court also rejected challengers' religious free exercise claims under the U.S. and Washington state constitutions. It concluded that even if the state constitution requires strict scrutiny, that test is met:

[P]ublic accommodations laws do not simply guarantee access to goods or services. Instead, they serve a broader societal purpose: eradicating barriers to the equal treatment of all citizens in the commercial marketplace. Were we to carve out a patchwork of exceptions for ostensibly justified discrimination, that purpose would be fatally undermined.

Seattle Times reports on the decision. A press release by ADF says the floral shop owners will again ask for review by the U.S. Supreme Court. [Thanks to Tom Rutledge for the lead.]

Recent Articles of Interest

From SSRN:

• Noa Ben-Asher & Margot J. Pollans, The Right Family, (Columbia Journal of Gender and Law, Forthcoming).
• Cathi Choi, Protection Against Good Intentions: The Catholic Role in the Campaign to Ban Proxy Adoption, 1956–1961, (Journal of Policy History, 31(2), 242-272 (2019).
• James J. Friedberg, Yitz and Ishmael: A Drama in One Very Long Act, (Minnesota Journal of International Law, Vol. 28, 2019).
• Khaled A. Beydoun & Cyra Akila Choudhury, Islamophobia and the Law: Introduction, (Cyra Akila Choudhury & Khaled A. Beydoun, Islamophobia and the Law (Cambridge University Press 2019), Forthcoming).
• Zehra Valencia, Breyon Williams & Robert Pettis, Pride and Prejudice: Same-Sex Marriage Legalization Announcements and LGBT Hate-Crimes, (March 26, 2019).
• Katherine Macfarlane, Procedural Animus, (Alabama Law Review, Vol. 71, Forthcoming).
• Siti Ibrahim, et. al., Commitment in Waqf Development Through Cross-Sector Collaboration between Islamic Financial Institutions and State Islamic Religious Councils: Innovative Strategy of Value-Based Intermediation for Sustainability, (J. Fin. Bank. Review 4 (1) 29–35 (2019)).

From SmartCILP:

• Wedding Cakes, Religion, and Sexual Orientation Discrimination. Foreword by Paul M. Secunda; contributions by William D. Araiza, Scott R. Bauries, Richard Carlson, Marcia L. McCormick, Elizabeth Sepper, Jessica L. Roberts, Kerri Lynn Stone. 19 Marquette Benefits & Social Welfare Law Review 109-264 (2018).

Catholic Agency Challenges Michigan's Child-Placement Anti-Discrimination Policy

Last week, a second lawsuit was filed challenging a settlement entered into by Michigan's Attorney General in which she agreed to enforce anti-discrimination provisions against adoption and foster care agencies contracting with the state which refuse to place children with same-sex couples or LGBTQ individuals who are otherwise qualified as foster care or adoptive parents. The first challenge was filed earlier this month in federal court. In last week's lawsuit, Catholic Charities West Michigan v. Michigan Department of Health and Human Services, (MI Ct. Claims, filed 4/25/2019), filed in state court, the complaint (full text) cites protections for faith-based child placement agencies found in Michigan statutes such as MCL §722.124e and §722.124f, and alleges in part:

[T]he Michigan Legislature intended to-- and did-- protect the religious exercise of faith-based providers like Catholic Charities.... Defendants have adopted a new policy that forces Catholic charities to choose between violating its religious beliefs about same-sex marriage and shutting down its foster care and adoption ministry.  Defendants' new policy misinterprets state law, violates Catholic Charities' rights under the U.S. and Michigan Constitutions, and adopts the anti-religious views and policy preferences of Defendant Attorney General Dana Nessel-- who has previously criticized Michigan's statutory protections for faith-based foster care and adoption providers as "a victory for the hate mongers."

ADF issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit.

How Did Government Action On Gay Marriage Affect Attitudes?

Courthouse News Service reports on interesting research posted yesterday at the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS):

Researchers compared trends before and after state-level legalization of gay marriage in each state.

The study found the local legislation reduced antigay bias, even though biases against lesbian and gay people were already decreasing. States which legalized same-sex marriage experienced decreases in homophobia at a sharper rate – declining at roughly double the previous rate – after legalization, according to the study.

For the 15 states that didn’t pass laws legalizing same-sex marriage before it became federal law, Hehman and his research team found a “backlash effect” where homophobia increased in those states in the immediate aftermath after the Supreme Court ruling – despite a decreasing trend in anti-gay bias prior to Obergefell.

PNAS, in assessing the significance of the research, says in part that it indicates "government legislation can inform attitudes even on religiously and politically entrenched positions."

Same-Sex Marriage Legalized In Cayman Islands

A decision handed down last Friday by the Cayman Islands Grand Court has legalized same-sex marriage in the Caribbean nation that is a British Overseas Territory.  Cayman Compass reports:

The decision, which was met by applause from around 80 people who packed into Courtroom 5, follows a petition by Day and her partner Vickie Bodden Bush.

The couple, who have been in a committed relationship for seven years and have an adopted daughter together, brought a joint judicial review and constitutional challenge after government refused their application to marry in April last year.

Chief Justice Anthony Smellie ruled on Friday that the decision was discriminatory. He said preventing same-sex couples from accessing marriage, and the suite of rights that come with it, was a clear violation of freedoms guaranteed in Cayman’s constitution, including the right to a private and family life.

Chief Justice Smellie used his powers under the Constitution to rewrite the Marriage Law. He ordered that the clause in the law, specifying that marriage is reserved for heterosexual couples, be altered to state, “‘Marriage’ means the union between two people as one another’s spouses.”

United Methodist Church Risks Split Over Position On LBTQ Ordination and Marriage

HuffPost reports that the United Methodist Church will likely break apart after a close vote yesterday at its 2019 General Conference on LGBTQ roles in the Church. As reported by United Methodist News Service, the delegates adopted the so-called "Traditional Plan" by a vote of 438 to 384.  This plan continues the Church's ban on ordaining LGBTQ clergy and the prohibition on officiating at or hosting same-sex weddings. The opposing "One Church Plan" was defeated by a vote of  449 to 374.  It would have allowed ordination LGBTQ pastors, and allowed, but not required, churches to host and pastors to officiate at same-sex marriages.  Later, by a vote of 405 to 395, the Conference asked the Church's Judicial Council to rule on the constitutionality of the Traditional Plan at its scheduled April meeting.

Tax Preparer Refuses To Prepare Joint Return For Same-Sex Couple

Washington Post reports on the latest clash between religious liberty assertions and non-discrimination principles:

For four years, Bailey Brazzel says, she had employed the same tax preparer, Nancy Fivecoate of Carter Tax Service in Russiaville, Ind. Fivecoate prepared the taxes without issue each time — until this year, when Brazzel brought her new wife, Samantha.

Fivecoate declined to serve the couple, citing her religious beliefs.

This was the first year the Brazzels, who wed in July, were filing jointly as a married couple. According to Samantha, Fivecoate explained that she believed marriage was between a man and a woman and that she would therefore not be able to prepare their taxes.

Indiana does not have a statewide law barring discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. (See prior related posting.) [Thanks to Nathan Walker for the lead.]

Senate Resolution Says "No Religious Test" Clause Bars Disqualification For K of C Membership

On Wednesday, the U.S. Senate passed Senate Resolution 19 by unanimous consent.  The Resolution was introduced by Nebraska Sen. Ben Sasse in response to questions raised in connection with last month's Judiciary Committee hearing on the nomination of Brian C. Buescher for a seat on the United States District Court for the District of Nebraska. At that hearing, Senators Mazie Hirono (D-HI) and Kamala Harris (D-CA) questioned whether Buescher's membership in the Knights of Columbus would bias his consideration on issues such as abortion rights and same-sex marriage. (Background). Resolution 19 after a lengthy Preamble, provides:

That it is the sense of the Senate that disqualifying a nominee to Federal office on the basis of membership in the Knights of Columbus violates clause 3 of article VI of the Constitution of the United States, which establishes that Senators ‘‘shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support th[e] Constitution’’ and ‘‘no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States’’.

National Catholic Register reports on the Resolution.

Albany Episcopal Bishop Defies Parent Body On Same-Sex Marriage Rites

In July, the General Convention of the Episcopal Church passed Resolution B012 Marriage Rites for the Whole Church, which was designed to give local congregational access to all couples wishing to have a same-sex marriage ceremony.  The Resolution stated in part:

[I]n dioceses where the bishop exercising ecclesiastical authority ... holds a theological position that does not embrace marriage for same-sex couples, and there is a desire to use such rites by same-sex couples in a congregation or worshipping community, the bishop exercising ecclesiastical authority ... shall invite, as necessary, another bishop of this Church to provide pastoral support to the couple...

Last week, in response to Resolution B012 that is to become effective on Dec. 3, the Bishop of Albany, William Love, who has been an opponent of same-sex marriage, issued a Pastoral Letter (full text) that reads in part as follows:

I cannot in good conscience as a bishop in God’s holy Church agree to what is being asked for in B012. While I respect the authority of General Convention as an institutional body, my ultimate loyalty as a bishop in God’s holy Church is to God....

Until further notice, the trial rites authorized by Resolution B012 of the 79th General Convention of the Episcopal Church shall not be used anywhere in the Diocese of Albany by diocesan clergy (canonically resident or licensed)....

Albany Times-Union reports on the Bishop's action.

Kim Davis Loses Re-election Bid

According to the Lexington Herald-Leader, in Rowan County, Kentucky on Tuesday, county clerk Kim Davis lost her re-election bid by some 650 votes. Davis garnered national attention in 2015 by her adamant refusal to sign marriage licenses for same-sex couples. (See prior posting).

EEOC Sued Over Enforcement of LGBT Protections Without Religious Exemption

A class action lawsuit was filed last week in a Texas federal district court against the EEOC on behalf of all churches that oppose homosexual or transgender behavior for sincere religious reasons and on behalf of all businesses with similar beliefs.  The complaint (full text) in U.S. Pastor Council v. EEOC, (ND TX, filed 10/6/2018), says that the EEOC interprets Title VII as covering employment discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity, without a religious exemption. It contends that this violates RFRA and the First Amendment.  the suit seeks to enjoin the federal government from interpreting or enforcing Title VII in a manner that requires churches or businesses with religious objections to recognize same-sex marriage or extend spousal benefits to same-sex partners, or to require objecting businesses to allow employees to use rest rooms reserved for persons of the opposite biological sex.  It also asks the court to require that any future EEOC guidance on Title VII's application to gay or transgender individuals include a religious exemption. The lawsuit was filed by the same law firm that has recently filed two challenges to Austin, Texas' anti-discrimination ordinances. (See prior posting.) [Thanks to Jeff Pasek for the lead.]

Second Broad Challenge To Austin's Anti- Discrimination Ordinances Filed

Following a federal court lawsuit filed last week by churches challenging Austin, Texas' ban on employment discrimination (see prior posting), a broader lawsuit has been filed in state court challenging the application of Austin's public accommodation, housing and employment discrimination ordinances to any individual or business that has religious objections to homosexual or transgender behavior.  The complaint (full text) in Texas Values v. City of Austin, (TX Dist. Ct., filed 10/8/2018) asks the court to declare that the ordinances violate Texas Religious Freedom Restoration Act and the Texas Constitution

to the extent that they: (a) prohibit individuals and entities from refusing to hire or retain practicing homosexuals or transgendered people as employees for reasons based in sincere religious belief; (b) prohibit individuals and entities from refusing to rent their property to tenants who are engaged in non-marital sex of any sort, including homosexual behavior, for reasons based in sincere religious belief; (c) prohibit individuals and entities from declining to participate in or lend support to homosexual marriage or commitment ceremonies, for reasons based in sincere religious belief; and (d) prohibit individuals and entities from declining to provide spousal employment benefits to the same-sex partners or spouses of employees, for reasons based in sincere religious belief; (e) prohibit individuals and entities from establishing sex-specific restrooms and limiting them to members of the appropriate biological sex, for reasons based in sincere religious belief.

Austin Statesman reports on the lawsuit.

Anti-Gay Marriage Amendment to Romanian Constitution Fails

In Romania, voters have failed to approve a proposed constitutional amendment that would have enshrined a ban on same-sex marriage into the constitution.  As reported by the Washington Post and Reuters, the two-day referendum failed to generate the 30% turnout needed for passage of the measure.  Only 20.4% of the voters cast ballots for the measure that was backed by the Social Democrat Party and the Orthodox church. According to the Post:

The referendum itself did not give voters a choice to vote in favor of allowing same-sex marriage, but only whether the constitutional definition of a “family” should continue to be gender-neutral. Either way, the result would not have had an immediate legal impact, but may have prevented possible future court rulings in favor of same-sex marriage or same-sex civil union.

But as a growing number of government critics urged Romanians to boycott the vote, the same-sex marriage referendum also became a de facto confidence vote over the Social Democratic government. The ruling party has repeatedly shocked domestic and international observers with corruption scandals and attempts to disrupt the rule of law that triggered large protests across the country.