Trump Keeps Special Envoy For LGBTI Rights At State Department

Foreign Policy this week reports that  the Trump Administration has decided to keep Obama-appointee Randy Berry in his State Department position of Special Envoy for the Human Rights of LGBTI Persons. According to Foreign Policy:

The special envoy position was created during the Obama years to fight back against the discrimination of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people around the globe. Conservative groups have called the office an attempt to “entrench the LGBTI agenda” into the United States government, and accuse it of browbeating countries opposed to gay-friendly school textbooks and same-sex marriage.

Berry repeatedly stressed that his goal was to convince foreign governments to stop violence against gays and lesbians rather than pressure every nation to allow same-sex marriage. 

Berry, who is an openly gay career Foreign Service officer, will also stay on as deputy assistant secretary to the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor, a position to which he was appointed in the last hours of the Obama administration. Christian evangelical groups had called for Trump to dismiss Berry.

Recent Articles of Interest

From SSRN:

• Andrew Koppelman, If Liberals Knew Themselves Better, Conservatives Might Like Them Better, (20 Lewis & Clark L. Rev. 1201 (2017))
• Graham Polando, Restraining Free Exercise: Protection Orders and Church Attendance, (February 5, 2017).
• B. Jessie Hill, Kingdom Without End? The Inevitable Expansion of Religious Sovereignty Claims, (Lewis & Clark Law Review, Vol. 20, 2017).
• Robin Fretwell Wilson, Unpacking the Relationship between Conscience and Access, (Forthcoming, Law, Religion, and Health in the United States, Holly Fernandez Lynch, I. Glenn Cohen, Elizabeth Sepper, eds. Cambridge U. Press 2017).
• Sahar F. Aziz, Losing the 'War of Ideas': A Critique of Countering Violent Extremism Programs, (Texas International Law Journal, Forthcoming).
• Christian Turner, Submarine Statutes, (February 8, 2017).
• Mary Anne Case, Forms of Patriarchy in Amoris Laetitia and in the Papacy of Francis, (U of Chicago, Public Law Working Paper No. 613 (2017)).
• Claudia E. Haupt, Antidiscrimination in the Legal Profession and the First Amendment: A Partial Defense of Model Rule 8.4(g), (19 University of Pennsylvania Journal of Constitutional Law Online (2017 Forthcoming)).
• Gertrude N. Levine & Samuel J. Levine, Internet Ethics, American Law, and Jewish Law: A Comparative Overview (21 J. Tech. L. & Pol’y 37 (2016)).

From SSRN (Focus on individuals):

• Andrew Koppelman, Kent Greenawalt, Defender of the Faith, (Texas Law Review, Forthcoming).
• Michael John DeBoer, Justice Brent E. Dickson, State Constitutional Interpretation, and the Religion Provisions of the Indiana Constitution, (Indiana Law Review, Vol. 50, No. 1, 2016).

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

• Shital Prakash Kharat, Effect of the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act 2005 – Judicial Response, (February 6, 2017).
• Grant Robert Hooper, From the Magna Carta to Bentham to Modern Australian Judicial Review: Themes of Practicality and Spirituality, (Australian Institute of Administrative Law (AIAL) Forum, Vol. 84, pp. 22-44, 2016).

From SSRN (LGBT Rights):

• Reva Siegel, Same-Sex Marriage and Backlash: Consensus, Conflict, and Constitutional Culture, (February 9, 2017).
• Susan Frelich Appleton, Obergefell's Liberties: All in the Family, (Ohio State Law Journal, Vol. 77, No. 5, 2016).
• Malcolm Langford, Revisiting Joslin v. New Zealand: Same-Sex Marriage in Polarised Times, (E. Brems and E. Desmet, Integrated Human Rights in Practice: Rewriting Human Rights Decisions (Edward Elgar, 2017)).
• Katherine Pratt, The Tax Definition of 'Medical Care': A Critique of the Startling IRS Arguments in O'Donnabhain v. Commissioner, (23 Michigan Journal of Gender & Law 313 (2016)).
• Robin Fretwell Wilson, Squaring Faith and Sexuality: Religious Institutions and the Unique Challenge of Sports, (Law and Inequality: A Journal of Theory and Practice, Vol. 34, No. 385, 2016).
• Robin Fretwell Wilson, The Nonsense About Bathrooms: How Purported Concerns over Safety Block LGBT Nondiscrimination Laws and Obscure Real Religious Liberty Concerns, (Lewis & Clark Law Review, Vol. 20, No. 4, 2017).

From SmartCILP and elsewhere:

• Michael J. Churgin, Is Religion Different? Is There a Thumb on the Scale in Refugee Convention Appellate Court Adjudication in the United States? Some Preliminary Thoughts, [Abstract], 51 Texas International Law Journal 213-228 (2016).
• David L. Hudson, Jr. & Emily H. Harvey, Dissecting The Hybrid Rights Exception: Should It Be Expanded or Rejected?, [Abstract], 38 University of Arkansas Little Rock Law Review 449-475 (2016).
• Hon. Gail T. Kulick, Tadd M. Johnson, Rebecca St. George, & Emily Segar-Johnson, From Dysfunction and Polarization to Legislation: Native American Religious Freedom Rights and Minnesota Autopsy Law, 42 Mitchell Hamline Law Reveiw 1699-1721 (2016).
• Law, Religion and the Family Unit After Hobby Lobby: A Tribute to Professor Harry Krause, 2016 University of Illinois Law Review 1227-1808.
• Symposium: Law and Religion In an Increasingly Polarized America,(Lewis & Clark Law Review, Vo. 20, No. 4, 2017).
• Symposium on Religious Liberty and Christian Higher Education, (Two Kingdoms Network, Concordia University, 2017). The Symposium, among others, includes Howard M. Friedman, The Future of Religious Liberty.

Draft Executive Order Would Expand Free Exercise Protections

The Nation reported yesterday on a leaked copy of a draft Executive Order on Religious Freedom which is currently being circulated by the White House, saying:

The draft order seeks to create wholesale exemptions for people and organizations who claim religious or moral objections to same-sex marriage, premarital sex, abortion, and trans identity, and it seeks to curtail women’s access to contraception and abortion through the Affordable Care Act. 

The draft titled Establishing a Government-Wide Initiative to Respect Religious Freedom is set out in full in The Nation report.  The Order provides in part:

“Religious organization” shall be construed broadly to encompass any organization, including closely held for-profit corporations, operated for a religious purpose, even if its purpose is not exclusively religious, and is not limited to houses of worship or tax-exempt organizations, or organizations controlled by or associated with a house of worship or a convention or association of churches.

Sec. 3 Religious Freedom Principles and Policymaking Criteria. All executive branch departments and agencies (“agencies”) shall, to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law, adhere to the following principles and criteria when formulating and implementing regulations, actions, or policies:

(a) Religious freedom is not confined to religious organizations or limited to religious exercise that takes place in houses of worship or the home. It is guaranteed to persons of all faiths and extends to all activities of life.

(b) Persons and organizations do not forfeit their religious freedom when providing social services, education, or healthcare; earning a living, seeking a job, or employing others; receiving government grants or contracts: or otherwise participating in the marketplace, the public square, or interfacing with Federal, State or local governments....

Prosperity Gospel Pastor, Bishop Eddie Long, Dies

As reported by CNN and AP, controversial Atlanta area mega-church pastor, Bishop Eddie Long, died Sunday morning of cancer at age 63. At its height, his New Birth Missionary Baptist Church where he preached a "prosperity gospel" had 25,000 members.  CNN summarizes his career:

Long was a national figure and one of the most innovative and polarizing pastors in the contemporary church. He was also a paradox.

He was a preacher who led an infamous march against same-sex marriage and denounced homosexuality, but he also settled a lawsuit by four young men who said he pressured them into sexual relationships....

He was a man who gave away cars and paid the college tuition of needy people, but he also was investigated by Congress after a charity he created had provided him with a million-dollar home and a Bentley luxury car.

"When he spoke, black people all over the country listened to him," said Shayne Lee, a sociologist who studies the black Pentecostal church. "He was part of the repackaging of Christianity for post-civil rights African-Americans."

Top Ten Religious Liberty and Church-State Developments of 2016

Each year in December, I attempt to pick the most important church-state and religious liberty developments of the past year.  This was a busy year, and a number of the important developments amounted to themes that spanned many months.  So here are my Top Ten picks for the rather chaotic year that is currently coming to an end. I welcome e-mail comment from those who disagree with my choices.

1. The unexpected death of Justice Scalia leaves the Supreme Court split on important issues, including the challenges to the Obamacare contraceptive coverage mandate.

2. Religion plays unusual roles in the Presidential election contest.  Donald Trump raises issues of Muslim immigration, repeal of the Johnson amendment, draws support from Evangelicals despite a personal history that might raise questions with religious conservatives, and receives support from the alt-Right which includes anti-Semitic elements.  Hillary Clinton who has deep personal religious roots does not emphasize these in her campaign.

3. Transgender rights-- particularly access to bathrooms-- become a religious as well as political issue as the Obama administration asserts that existing anti-discrimination provisions in federal law cover discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity.

4. Supreme Court grants review in ERISA "church plan" exemption cases.  Billions of dollars in potential underfunding of retirement plans by religiously-affiliated health care systems around the country are at issue.

5. Fallout from the legalization of same-sex marriage continues as various wedding service providers assert the right to refuse to serve same-sex couples, Mississippi's Conscience Protection Act is struck down, and Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore appeals his suspension growing of his resistance to accepting the Supreme Court's marriage equality ruling.

6. Latin crosses as part of veterans' memorials, in parks, and on county seals and the like become the latest focus of the battle over religious displays on public property.

7. State "Blaine Amendments" again become the focus of attention as the Supreme Court grants review in the Trinity Lutheran Church case and Oklahoma voters defeat a proposal to eliminate Blaine Amendments from the state constitution.

8. Federal and state RFRA's continue to be asserted, often but not always unsuccessfully, in unusual contexts-- e.g. challenging "In God We Trust" on currency, as a defense to tax evasion charges, as a defense to food stamp fraud, in connection with bankruptcy discharges, and in treatment of transgender employees.

9. Congress expands the U.S. role in protecting international religious freedom by passing the Frank R. Wolf International Religious Freedom Act.

10.  Justice Department sues cities under Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act for placing zoning impediments in the way of mosque construction.

For an alternative view of the Top Ten Religious Liberty Stories of 2016, see this post by Baptist Joint Committee blogger Don Byrd.

Recent Articles of Interest

From SSRN:

• Belinda Carpenter, Gordon Tait, Carol Quadrelli & Ian Thompson, Investigating Death: The Emotional and Cultural Challenges for Police, (Policing and Society, 26(6), pp. 698-712 (2015)).
• Neil James Foster, Churches and the Law of Sanctuary in Australia, (March 4, 2016).
• Neil James Foster, How Should Religious Marriage Celebrants Respond If Same Sex Marriage Is Introduced in Australia?, (September 25, 2015).
• Fabienne Bretscher, The Swiss Judiciary and International Human Rights Bodies: A Closer Look at Muslim Religious Practices in Public Schools, (June 14, 2016).
• Joel Nolette, Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt: Judicial Review When the Court Wants To, (Georgetown Journal of Law & Public Policy, Vol. 14, No. 2, 2016).
• Susan A. Bandes, Compassion and the Rule of Law, (International Journal of Law in Context vol. 13 issue 2 (2017 Forthcoming)).
• Eric Franklin, A More Charitable Charity: Administrative Necessity Provides an Opportunity to Promote Altruism in Charities, (December 14, 2016).

From SSRN (Islamic Law);

• Ibrahim Nuruddeen Muhammad, Waqf Based Philanthropy: A Definition and Obstacles to Waqf Knowledge Acquisition in North-Western Nigeria, (1st Kano Waqf International Conference (KWIC) (Dec. 2016).
• Sakirman MSI, Indonesia Islamic Law Study on Children Nasab,  (December 21, 2016).
• Avner M. Emon, Fiqh (A Historiography), (Fiqh: The Oxford Handbook of Islamic Law, Edited by Anver M. Emon and Rumee Ahmed (2016)).
• Avner M. Emon, Ijtihad, (Ijtihad: The Oxford Handbook of Islamic Law Edited by Anver M. Emon and Rumee Ahmed (2015).

From SmartCILP:

• Reza Afshari, LGBTs in the Islamic Republic of Iran. (Reviewing Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Rights in Iran: Analysis from Religious, Social, Legal and Cultural Perspectives, by the International Gay and Lesbian Human Rights Commission), 38 Human Rights Quarterly 814-834 (2016).
• Nehaluddin Ahmad, Ahmad Masum & Abdul Mohaimin Ayus, Freedom of Religion and Apostasy: The Malaysian Experience, 38 Human Rights Quarterly 736-753 (2016).
• Jeffrey A. Herman, Resolving ERISA's "Church Plan" Problem, 31 A.B.A. Journal of Labor & Employment Law 231-256 (2016).
• B. Jessie Hill, The First Amendment and the Politics of Reproductive Health Care, 50 Washington University Journal of Law & Policy 103-122 (2016).

Firing Clerk Who Refused To Process Same-Sex Marriage Licenses Did Not Violate Title VII

In Summers v. Whitis, (SD IN, Dec. 15, 2016), an Indiana federal district court held that an Indiana County Clerk did not violate Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act when she fired a deputy clerk who refused, on religious grounds, to process marriage licenses for same-sex couples. The court held:

Here, the court finds no objective conflict between Summers’ duties as a deputy clerk and her religious opposition to same-sex marriage. When it came to marriage licenses, Summers’ job merely required her to process the licenses by entering data and handing out information. Specifically, she had to pull up the application, verify that certain information was correct, collect a statutory fee, print a form, and record the license in a book for public record. At bottom, she was simply tasked with certifying–on  behalf of the state of Indiana, not on her own behalf– that the couple was qualified to marry under Indiana law. The duties were purely administrative.

To be clear, Summers did not perform marriage ceremonies or personally sign marriage licenses or certificates. She was not required to attend ceremonies, say congratulations, offer a blessing, or pray with couples. Her employer did not make her express religious approval or condone any particular marriage. Summers remained free to practice her Christian faith and attend church services. She was even free to maintain her belief that marriage is a union between one man and one woman. Thus, she was not forced to “choose between [her] religious convictions and [her] job.”...

... [T]he court does not question the sincerity of Summers’ beliefs. She maintains that “it’s not God’s law to have [same-sex couples] marry,” ... and has pointed to select verses from the Bible in support. That is fine; she has every right to believe that. However, that belief, no matter how sincerely espoused, does not objectively conflict with the purely administrative duty to process marriage licenses. Summers’ desire to avoid handling forms related to activities of which she personally disapproves is not protected by federal law. Title VII is not a license for employees to  perform only those duties that meet their private approval.

The court held, alternatively, that any religious conflict was with federal law, not with an employment requirement.

Alabama's CJ Roy Moore Files Brief In Appeal of His Suspension

As previously reported, in September Alabama's 9-member Court of the Judiciary (COJ) concluded that Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice Roy Moore violated various Canons of Judicial Ethics in issuing an order to state probate judges telling them they had a duty under Alabama law to refuse to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples. The COJ suspended Moore from office for the remaining two years of his term.  This decision is now on appeal to a specially constituted bench of the Alabama Supreme Court, the regular Justices having recused themselves. Yesterday, Moore filed a 95-page brief setting out his arguments. The brief summarizes them in part as follows:

The JIC [Judicial Inquiry Commission and the COJ did not have the jurisdiction or authority to review the Administrative Orders of the Chief Justice, as such authority is placed solely in this Court.

The COJ violated Rule 16 by imposing a de facto removal (i.e., permanent suspension without pay) upon Chief Justice Moore without the unanimous concurrence of all sitting members....

All charges against Chief Justice Moore must be dismissed because they have no legal basis and are not supported by clear and convincing evidence.... 

Section 159 of the Alabama Constitution, which imposes an automatic suspension upon the mere filing of a complaint with the COJ, represents a gross violation of due process in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment....

The JIC violated the confidentiality mandated by the Alabama Constitution and Rule 5 by disclosing information about Chief Justice Moore’s matter prior to filing charges and the penalty should be dismissal of all charges.

Liberty Counsel issued a press release announcing the filing of the brief.

Congress Gives Final Passage To Defense Authorization Act-- Some Sections Impact Religion

Yesterday the Senate gave final approval to S.2943 as amended by Conference Report 114-840, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017. (Full text). The 975-page bill, which now goes to the President for his signature, contains the following provisions of interest to those who follow church-state and religious liberty developments:

• Sec. 549 which calls for data collection on hazing notes that victims are often members of protected classes such as race and religion.
• Sec. 585 authorizes award of the distinguished service cross posthumously to Chaplain Joseph Verbis LaFleur for acts of valor while a Japanese prisoner of war during World War II.
• Sec. 591. Repeals the requirement for a chaplain at the United States Air Force Academy appointed by the President.
• Sec. 1085. A sense of Congress resolution that there should be within the National Security Council a Special Adviser to the President on International Religious Freedom who should serve as liaison with the Ambassador at Large for International Religious Freedom, the United States Commission on  International Religious Freedom, Congress and religious nongovernmental organizations.
• Sec. 1263 (Part of the ‘Global Magnitsky Human Rights Accountability Act). Authorizes the President to impose sanctions on any foreign person who is responsible for extrajudicial killings, torture or other gross human rights violations against individuals in a foreign country who, among other things, exercise, defend or promote freedoms of religion, expression, association, and assembly, and the rights to a fair trial and democratic elections.
• Section 2829F provides for return of certain lands at Fort Wingate, New Mexico to the Zuni Tribe and Navajo Nation. Certain of the land is to be held in trust with shared cultural and religious access by the Zuni and Navajos.

The final bill did not include the controversial Russell Amendment which would have allowed religious organizations that enter government contracts to require that their employees adhere to the organization's religious tenets. This would have permitted religious organizations that oppose same-sex marriage to refuse to hire those in same-sex relationships. (Background).

Wedding Videographers Sue To Refuse Same-Sex Couples

The owners of a St. Cloud, Minnesota film and media production company filed suit yesterday in federal district court claiming that the Minnesota Human Rights Act violates their rights under the 1st and 14th Amendments by requiring them "to produce videos promoting a conception of marriage that directly contradicts their religious beliefs if they produce videos promoting marriages between one man and one woman."  The complaint (full text) in Telescope Media Group v. Lindsey, (D MN, filed 12/6/2016), alleges that Carl Larsen and Angel Larsen "desire to counteract the current powerful cultural narrative undermining the historic, biblically-orthodox definition of marriage as between one man and one woman by magnifying God’s beautiful design and purpose for marriage through their creative storytelling and promotional talents." Plaintiffs argue:

The First Amendment prevents the government from compelling people to create, express, support, or promote a message not of their own choosing or to speak when they would rather remain silent.

KSTP-TV News reports on the lawsuit.

Questions On Abortion and Gay Marriage Violated Rights of Constable Candidate

In Lloyd v. Birkman, (WD TX, Dec. 2, 2016), a Texas federal district court held that members of the Williamson County (TX) Commissioners' Court violated the equal protection rights of plaintiff when, in an interview for appointment as interim County Constable, they asked him his views on same-sex marriage, abortion and religious affiliation.  The Commissioners had argued that the purpose of their questions was to determine whether the appointee was likely to be electable for a full term to the position in the next popular election. KXAN News reports on the decision.

Suit Challenging Indiana Anti-Discrimination Laws Moves Ahead

As reported by the Indianapolis Star, an Indiana state trial court judge is allowing a lawsuit filed by three conservative advocacy organizations to move ahead.  The suit challenges laws barring discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.  The organizations assert that the laws infringe on their free exercise rights. The suit challenges the ordinances of four Indiana cities as well as the so-called "fix" to Indiana's Religious Freedom Restoration Act that prevents using RFRA to discriminate. The order (full text) in Indiana Family Institute, Inc. v. City of Carmel, Indiana, (IN Super. Ct., Nov. 16, 2016), however, requires plaintiffs to file an amended complaint adding the state of Indiana as a party. In a statement (press release), plaintiffs' counsel said:

Plaintiffs currently stand stripped of the heightened legal protection provided under RFRA and must host speakers and hire employees who advocate for same-sex marriage contrary to their religious beliefs. We believe in the constitutionally protected free-exercise of religion that affects people who advocate for traditional marriage, just as it protects all other religious beliefs.

More On Presidential Voting By Religious Groupings

Earlier this week, the Pew Research Center, using exit polls, published How the faithful voted: A preliminary 2016 analysis.  It breaks down the vote in last Tuesday's Presidential election by faith group.  The group giving Donald Trump the largest percentage-- 81%-- of their vote were described in the survey as "White born-again/ evangelical Christians". The category overlaps some of the other categories reported: Protestant/ other Christian- 58%; White Catholic- 60%. Groups giving Trump the lowest percentage of their votes were: Jewish- 24%; Hispanic Catholic- 26%; Religiously unaffiliated- 26%.

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.

Trinity Western Law School Wins Appeal In British Columbia

In Trinity Western University v. Law Society of British Columbia, (BC Ct. App., Nov. 1, 2016), the Court of Appeal for the Canadian province of British Columbia held that the province's Law Society acted unreasonably when it denied approval to a proposed new law school at the Christian-affiliated Trinity Western University. The Law Society's vote was a reaction to a requirement at the University that students sign a Community Covenant that, among other things, does not recognize same-sex marriage. The court summarized its decision in part as follows:

The issue on appeal is whether the Law Society met its statutory duty to reasonably balance the conflicting Charter rights engaged by its decision: the sexual orientation equality rights of LGBTQ persons and the religious freedom and rights of association of evangelical Christians. The Benchers initially voted to approve TWU’s law school. That decision was met with a backlash from members of the Law Society who viewed it as endorsement of discrimination against LGBTQ persons. The Benchers decided to hold a referendum and to be bound by the outcome. A majority of lawyers voted against approval. The Benchers then reversed their earlier position and passed a resolution not to approve TWU’s law school.

In doing so, the Benchers abdicated their responsibility to make the decision entrusted to them by the Legislature. They also failed to weigh the impact of the decision on the rights engaged. It was not open to the Benchers to simply adopt the decision preferred by the majority. The impact on Charter rights must be assessed concretely, based on evidence and not perception.

... [D]enying approval would not enhance access to law school for LGBTQ students. In contrast, a decision not to approve TWU’s law school would have a severe impact on TWU’s rights.... 

In a diverse and pluralistic society, government regulatory approval of entities with differing beliefs is a reflection of state neutrality. It is not an endorsement of a group’s beliefs.

CBC News reports on the decision. [Thanks to David Fernandes for the lead.]

Northern Ireland Appeals Court Upholds Anti-Gay Discrimination Finding Against Bakery

In a widely watched case, the Court of Appeal in Northern Ireland yesterday upheld the finding of a trial judge that a bakery had illegally discriminated on the basis of sexual orientation in the  provision of goods and services to the public when it refused an order for a cake for a private event marking the end of 'Northern Ireland Anti-homophobic Week' and the political momentum towards same-sex marriage legislation.  The cake was to feature a picture of 'Bert and Ernie' (the logo for QueerSpace) with the caption, "Support Gay Marriage."  In Lee v. McArthur, (NI CA, Oct. 24, 2016), the 3-judge panel rejected the religious freedom and compelled speech defenses advanced by Ashers Bakery.  The court rejected the notion that the cake forced the bakery to express approval for same-sex marriage, saying in part:

The fact that a baker provides a cake for a particular team or portrays witches on a Halloween cake does not indicate any support for either.

The court rejected broadly defendants' religious discrimination arguments, saying:

Anyone who applies a religious aspect or a political aspect to the provision of services may be caught by equality legislation, not because the legislation treats their religious belief or political opinion less favourably but because that person seeks to distinguish, on a basis that is prohibited, between those who will receive their service and those who will not....  In the present case the appellants might elect not to provide a service that involves any religious or political message. What they may not do is provide a service that only reflects their own political or religious belief in relation to sexual orientation.

The Guardian, reporting on the decision, says that the decision will be appealed to the UK's Supreme Court.

Alabama Chief Justice Appeals Suspension With Cryptic Motion For Recusals

As previously reported, two weeks ago Alabama's Court of the Judiciary suspended Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice Roy Moore for the remaining two years of his term on charges stemming primarily from his order to state probate judges telling them they had a duty under Alabama law to refuse to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples despite controlling U.S. Supreme Court precedent to the contrary.  The decision has been followed by a series of appellate moves by Moore.  On Sept. 30, Moore filed a Notice of Appeal with the Alabama Supreme Court. Then on Oct. 10, Moore filed a Motion (full text) to recuse four current and three former Alabama Supreme Court Justices from hearing the appeal.  The grounds for seeking recusal of 6 of the 7 were filed only in a sealed affidavit with the following cryptic explanation:

Because Case No. 1150818 has been maintained under seal by the present and former justices who sat on that case, the argument for this section is not presented in this public filing. However, the facts presented in the attached Sealed Affidavit of Chief Justice Roy S. Moore amply demonstrate that the Justices, present and former, who sat on Case No. 1150818, have disqualified themselves by their biased and unconscionable actions in that case not only from participating in this case but also from playing any role in selecting a substitute Court.... Media organizations and members of the public, if they so choose, may intervene in Case No. 1150818 to demand that the records of that case be made public.

The motion also argued:

The selection of replacement Justices should be made by a random drawing from a pool of names consisting of all sitting circuit judges.

In an October 12 public statement, Moore urged the unsealing of the referenced case, saying in part:

I call upon the press to demand that the Alabama Supreme Court unseal Case No. 1150818 and, if necessary, to intervene in that case. The public has a right to know why I have requested that the justices, who participated in that case, be disqualified from playing any role in my appeal. The Court has refused my requests to unseal Case No. 1150818. I ask the Supreme Court and the media to act...

Recent Articles of Interest

From SSRN:

• Christopher C. Lund, RFRA, State RFRAs, and Religious Minorities, (San Diego Law Review, Vol. 53, p. 163, 2016 (symposium)).
• Pranoto Iskandar, The Human Right to Non-Religious Beliefs: A Prospectus, (September 23, 2016).
• Christopher C. Lund, Keeping Hobby Lobby in Perspective, (in The Rise of Corporate Religious Liberty (Micah Schwartzman, Chad Flanders, and Zoë Robinson eds., Oxford University Press, 2016)).
• Joel A. Nichols & John Witte, Religious Law and Religious Courts as a Challenge to the State (National Report for United States of America), (Religious Law and Religious Courts as a Challenge to the State: Legal Pluralism from a Comparative Perspective, Ed. Uwe Kischel (Verlag Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen, 2016), 83-111).
• Nelson Lund, Rousseau's Rejuvenation of Political Philosophy: A New Introduction, (Rousseau’s Rejuvenation of Political Philosophy, N. Lund, Palgrave, 2016).
• Michele Goodwin & Allison M. Whelan, Constitutional Exceptionalism, University of Illinois Law Review, 2016, (Forthcoming).
• Paul J. Heald, Christian Libertarianism and the Curious Lack of Religious Objections to the Patenting of Life Forms in the United States, (September 29, 2016).
• Engy Abdelkader, A Comparative Analysis of European Islamophobia: France, UK, Germany, Netherlands and Sweden, (UCLA Journal of Islamic and Near Eastern Law, Vol. 16, 2016).
• G. Michael Fenner, Same-Sex Marriage, Conscientious Objection and an Ambushed Pope, (Creighton Lawyer, Fall 2016).
• Katayoun Alidadi, The Limits of State Law in the Case of an Organized Secular-Humanist Community in the Southern Bible Belt: Model Behaviour Shaping Self-Restrained Law Use, (Rechtsphilosophie: Zeitschrift Fur Grundlagen Des Rechts, Forthcoming 2016).
• Jason N. E. Varuhas, Damages and Human Rights: Introduction, (Chapter 1 of JNE Varuhas, Damages and Human Rights (Hart Publishing, 2016)).
• Jeremy Waldron, What a Dissenting Opinion Should Have Said in Obergefell v. Hodges, (September 28, 2016).
• Iain T. Benson, Undazzling Equality, (September 24, 2016).
• Brian D. Galle, Valuing the Right to Sue: An Empirical Examination of Nonprofit Agency Costs, (September 28, 2016).

From SmartCILP:

• Rowan W. Dorin, "Once the Jews Have Been Expelled": Intent and Interpretation in Late Medieval Canon Law, 34 Law & History Review 335-362 (2016).
• Mohammad Rasekh, Sharia and Law in the Age of Constitutionalism, [Abstract], 2 Journal of Global Justice & Public Policy 259-276 (2016).

Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore Suspended From Office Over Same-Sex Marriage Order

Alabama's 9-member Court of the Judiciary today unanimously concluded that Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice Roy Moore violated various Canons of Judicial Ethics in issuing an order to state probate judges telling them they had a duty under Alabama law to refuse to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples despite the U.S. Supreme Court's decision finding that denial of marriage licences to same-sex couples is unconstitutional. The Court of the Judiciary also found that Moore should have recused himself in a subsequent case involving same-sex marriage.  The Court suspended Moore from office for the remaining two years of his term.  As reported by NPR, Moore's age will disqualify him from again running for the state Supreme Court in 2018.  A majority of the court voted to completely remove Moore from office, but removal rather than suspension requires a unanimous vote.  In the 50-page opinion in In re Roy S. Moore, (AL Ct. Jud., Sept. 30, 2016), the Court of the Judiciary also took into account the fact that Moore had in 2003 been the subject of proceedings that removed him from office after his resistance to court orders relating to a Ten Commandments monument.

Suit By Web Designer Challenges LGBT Anti-Discrimination Law

Last week, Lorie Smith, the owner of a Colorado graphic and web design company, filed suit in federal district court challenging the constitutionality of Colorado's public accommodation anti-discrimination law.  The complaint (full text) in 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis, (D CO, filed 9/20/2016) alleges that the anti-discrimination provisions as they apply to plaintiffs violate various provisions of the 1st and 14th Amendments, including the free exercise clause.  The complaint alleges:

7. Colorado law makes it unlawful for Lorie and 303 Creative to publish, display, or mail any communication stating that they will not design, create, or publish websites celebrating same-sex marriages. See Colo. Rev. Stat. § 24-34-601(2)(a).

8. Colorado law also makes it unlawful for Lorie and 303 Creative to publish, display, or mail any communication indicating that a person’s patronage at 303 Creative is “unwelcome, objectionable, unacceptable, or undesirable” because of sexual orientation. See Colo. Rev. Stat. § 24-34-601(2)(a).

9. Therefore, Lorie and 303 Creative cannot explain on 303 Creative’s website their religious belief that God designed marriage as an institution between one man and one woman and why they cannot create wedding websites promoting and celebrating any other conception of marriage.

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

Court Employee Sues Under Title VII When Fired For Refusing To Process Same-Sex Marriage Licences

A Title VII lawsuit was filed earlier this month in a Florida federal district court by an employee of the Broward County, Florida clerk's office who was fired because she refused to process marriage license applications for same-sex couples. The complaint (full text) in Parker v. Forman, (SD FL, filed 9/9/2016), contends that plaintiff Yanicka Parker, as a Christian, has a sincere religious belief "that persons of the same sex cannot and should not be morally or legally recognized as husband and wife, and that God will judge individual Christians, as well as the society of which they are a part, who condone or institute same sex marriages."  The complaint asserts:

There were many other clerks available, willing and able to perform same sex marriages.

... Given that issuing marriage licenses to same sex couples was a miniscule part of the clerk’s job and overall responsibilities, and Ms. Parker was willing and able to perform all other aspects of her job, Defendant ... could have easily accommodated her religious beliefs.

Plaintiff seeks an injunction and damages for defendants' refusal to accommodate her religious beliefs. Christian Post yesterday reported on the lawsuit.