Religion Clause: Search results for same-sex marriage

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

Monday, April 11, 2022

Saturday, March 19, 2022

Court Clerk Violated Rights Of Same-Sex Couples

In Ermold v. Davis, (ED KY, March 18, 2022), a high-profile case that has been pending since 2015, a Kentucky federal district court held that Rowan County Clerk Kim Davis violated the constitutional rights of two same-sex couples when she refused, on religious grounds, to issue them marriage licenses. Rejecting Davis' claim of qualified immunity, the court said: "Davis did not make a mistake. Rather, she knowingly violated the law." Allowing plaintiffs to move ahead with their civil rights claim, the court said in part:

Ultimately, this Court’s determination is simple—Davis cannot use her own constitutional rights as a shield to violate the constitutional rights of others while performing her duties as an elected official.

The court said that a jury should decide whether plaintiffs are entitled to compensatory and punitive damages. AP reports on the decision. [Thanks to Scott Mange for the lead.] [UPDATED]

Thursday, March 03, 2022

3rd Circuit: Foster Parents Have Religious Discrimination Claim For License Suspension Over Their Anti-LGBT Views

In Lasche v. State of New Jersey, (3rd Cir, March 1, 2022), the U.S. 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals reversed a district court's dismissal of a suit by former foster parents who alleged that their free exercise rights were infringed when their foster care license was suspended because of their religious opposition to same-sex marriage and their religious belief that homosexual conduct is sinful. The court remanded for further proceedings plaintiffs' claims under 42 USC §1983 and §1985(3). It also remanded for further proceedings their claim that defendants' action violated New Jersey's Law Against Discrimination, finding that the state's Division of Child Protection and Permanency is a "place of public accommodation" under that law.

Thursday, January 27, 2022

Oregon Court Rejects Part Of Its Earlier Decision In Wedding-Cake Dispute

In Klein v. Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries, (OR App., Jan. 26, 2022), the Oregon Court of Appeals, in a case on remand from the U.S. Supreme Court, reaffirmed its prior decision in part in a challenge to the religious refusal by a bakery (Sweetcakes by Melissa) to provide a wedding cake for a same-sex marriage. The court reaffirmed its conclusion that the refusal violates the anti-discrimination provisions of the state's public accommodation law that prohibits discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. It held that the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Fulton v. City of Philadelphia does not change its earlier conclusion, saying in part:

the Kleins have not demonstrated that Fulton alters our prior conclusion that ORS 659A.403 is a “generally applicable” law for purposes of Smith, nor our related conclusion that, under Smith, the application of the law to Aaron’s conduct of denying cake-making services based on sexual orientation does not violate the Kleins’ rights under the Free Exercise Clause.

The court however did set aside the damage order entered by the Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries, finding that, in light of the U.S. Supreme Court's Masterpiece Cakeshop decision, BOLI’s decision on damages violates the Free Exercise Clause. The court said in part:

[T]he prosecutor’s closing argument apparently equating the Kleins’ religious beliefs with “prejudice,” together with the agency’s reasoning for imposing damages in connection with Aaron’s quotation of Leviticus, reflect that the agency acted in a way that passed judgment on the Kleins’ religious beliefs, something that is impermissible under Masterpiece Cakeshop.

The Oregonian reports on the decision.

Thursday, January 06, 2022

European Court Dismisses Challenge To Baker's Refusal To Supply Cake With Pro-Gay Marriage Inscription

In a much-awaited decision, the European Court of Human Rights managed to avoid dealing directly with the central question in a case pitting LGBTQ rights against religious freedom rights of owners of commercial establishments. In Lee v. United Kingdom, (ECHR, Jan. 6, 2022), Gareth Lee, a gay man, ordered a cake from a bakery in Belfast. He asked for the cake to be decorated with the slogan "Support Gay Marriage." He planned to take it to a private event being held to mark the end of Northern Ireland Anti-Homophobia and Transphobia Week and being held to gather political support for pending legislation to legalize same-sex marriage. The bakery, Ashers Baking Company, rejected the order because the company owners' Christian religious beliefs were opposed to same-sex marriage.

Lee filed suit in a county court in Northern Ireland claiming a violation of Northern Ireland's Equality Act and its Fair Employment and Treatment Order, which, among other things, bar sexual orientation discrimination in the provision of goods or services and discrimination on the basis of religious belief or political opinion. The case wound its way up to the U.K.'s Supreme Court which concluded that there was no sexual orientation discrimination because the bakery would have refused to supply the cake with that inscription to anyone. It also rejected the political opinion discrimination claim.

Lee appealed to the European Court of Human Rights. In yesterday's decision, the court dismissed the appeal, finding that Lee "did not invoke his Convention rights expressly at any point in the domestic proceedings. Instead he formulated his claim by reference to [Northern Ireland's domestic law]." By failing to assert his rights under the European Convention in the courts of Northern Ireland, Lee failed to exhaust his domestic remedies. The court said in part:

75. ... As the Supreme Court of the United States pointed out in Masterpiece Cakeshop Ltd, these disputes must be resolved with tolerance, without undue disrespect to sincere religious beliefs, and without subjecting gay persons to indignities when they seek goods and services in an open market.... This is particularly so in Northern Ireland, where there is a large and strong faith community, where the LGBTIQ community has endured a history of considerable discrimination and intimidation, and where conflict between the rights of these two communities has long been a feature of public debate....

Reuters reports on the decision. [Thanks to several readers for alerting me to the decision.]

Friday, December 03, 2021

Religious Child Placement Agency Challenges HHS Non-Discrimination Regulations

Suit was filed yesterday against the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services in a Tennessee federal district court by a religious child welfare agency that offers residential and foster care services for abused and neglected children. The suit challenges an HHS regulation that prohibits foster care and adoption programs receiving federal funds from discriminating on the basis of religion, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or same-sex marriage status. The regulation expands upon the statutory prohibition on discrimination in such programs on the basis of race, color or national origin. The complaint (full text) in Holston United Methodist Home for Children v. Becerra,(ED TN. filed 12/2/2021), alleges that the regulation exceeds the federal agency's authority and that it violates RFRA and various 1st Amendment rights. The complaint alleges in part:

28. It would substantially burden Holston Home’s exercise of its religious beliefs to knowingly engage in child placing activities in connection with persons that do not agree with its Christian statement of faith and beliefs....

30. It would substantially burden Holston Home’s exercise of its religious beliefs to knowingly engage in child placing activities in connection with couples who may be romantically cohabitating but not married, or who are couples of the same biological sex.

The Trump Administration had issued waivers of the rule for faith-based agencies, but those waivers were rescinded by the Biden Administration last month. (See prior posting). ADF issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit.

Monday, November 22, 2021

Monday, November 15, 2021

Friday, October 15, 2021

Supreme Court Denies Cert. In Case Alleging Religious Belief Discrimination

The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday denied review in Pasadena Republican Club v. Western Justice Center, (Docket No. 20-1773, certiorari denied 10/12/2021). (Order List). In the case, the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed a suit claiming viewpoint discrimination and religious belief discrimination by the Western Justice Center (WJC) that was leasing the historic Maxwell House from the city of Pasedena. WJC refused to rent space to the Republican Club for a speech by the president of the National Organization for Marriage because NOM's position on same-sex marriage, gay adoption, and transgender rights are antithetical to the values of WJC. The 9th Circuit (full text of opinion) held that WJC was not a state actor for purposes of the Republican Club’s constitutional claims, and that the the government did not become vicariously liable for the discretionary decisions of its lessee. (See prior related posting.) Pasedena Now reports on the Court's action.

Monday, October 04, 2021

Monday, September 27, 2021

Britain's Court of Appeal Rejects Christian Agency's Ban On Same-Sex Couples Becoming Foster Parents

In The Queen (On the Application of Cornerstone (Northeast) Adoption and Fostering Services, Ltd. v. Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Education, Children's Services and Skills (OFSTED), (EWCA, Sept. 24, 2021), England's Court of Appeal held that Cornerstone, a Christian foster care agency, violated the Equality Act 2010 and the Human Rights Act 1998 when it required clients with which it placed children to:

Set a high standard in personal morality which recognises that God's gift of sexual intercourse is to be enjoyed exclusively within Christian marriage; abstain from all sexual sins including immodesty, the viewing of pornography, fornication, adultery, cohabitation, homosexual behaviour and wilful violation of your birth sex.

The court said in part:

The detrimental impact on society and on individuals of discrimination on the ground of sexual orientation has led the law to set a demanding standard of justification.... [W]e should be slow to accept that prohibiting fostering agencies from discriminating against homosexuals is a disproportionate limitation on their right to manifest their religion....

... [T]here can be no doubting the value of its work or the sincerity of [Cornerstone's] motives. However, in order to justify a policy of this nature, it needed to provide credible evidence that there would otherwise be a seriously detrimental impact on carers and children. The evidence it actually advanced did not go beyond the level of general assertion.... [W]hile I would not rule out the possibility of an organisation in this position putting up a substantial evidence-based case on justification, Cornerstone simply did not do that....

[Thanks to Law & Religion UK for the lead.]

Thursday, August 12, 2021

Ministerial Exception Requires Dismissal Of Title VII Claims By Catholic School Guidance Counselor

In Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Indianapolis, Indiana v. Roncalli High School, Inc., (SD IN, Aug. 11, 2021), an Indiana federal district court held that the ministerial exception doctrine bars Title VII retaliation, discrimination and hostile work environment claims as well as state law claims of interference with contractual and employment relationships in a suit brought by the former Co-Director of Guidance at a private Catholic high school. The school refused to renew its contract with Lynn Starkey, who had been employed by the school for nearly forty years, after the school learned of Starkey's same-sex marriage. The court said in part:

To be sure, the court does not mean to say that divergent understandings of the religious nature of an employee's role should always be resolved in the religious employer's favor. For example, it would be difficult to credit a religious employer's claim that a custodian or school bus driver qualifies as a minister simply because the employer said so.... But this case concerns the Co-Director of Guidance ... [who] performed "vital religious duties" at Roncalli.... Employees in that position met with every student throughout the year and discussed some of the most sensitive issues in a young person's life.... Roncalli expressly entrusted Starkey with the responsibility of communicating the Catholic faith to students and fostering spiritual growth.

Becket issued a press release announcing the decision.

Thursday, July 15, 2021

European Court Says Russia Violated Convention In Refusing To Register Same-Sex Unions

In Fedotova and Others v. Russia, (ECHR, July 13, 2021), the European Court of Human Rights in a Chamber Judgment held that Russia violated Article 8 (Respect For Private and Family Life) of the European Convention on Human Rights when it refused to register the marriage of same-sex couples. The Court said in part:

49. ... Article 8 ... does not explicitly impose ... an obligation to formally acknowledge same-sex unions. However, it implies the need for striking a fair balance between the competing interests of same-sex couples and of the community as a whole....

54. The Court notes that the protection of “traditional marriage” stipulated by the amendments to the Russian Constitution in 2020 ... is in principle weighty and legitimate interest, which may have positive effect in strengthening family unions. The Court, however, cannot discern any risks for traditional marriage which the formal acknowledgment of same-sex unions may involve, since it does not prevent different-sex couples from entering marriage, or enjoying the benefits which the marriage gives....

56. ... [T]he respondent Government have a margin of appreciation to choose the most appropriate form of registration of same-sex unions taking into account its specific social and cultural context (for example, civil partnership, civil union, or civil solidarity act). In the present case they have overstepped that margin, because no legal framework capable of protecting the applicants’ relationships as same-sex couples has been available under domestic law.

According to Euronews, Russian authorities have rejected the Court's judgment, saying that the Court is meddling in the country's internal affairs.

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.

Monday, May 31, 2021

Sunday, May 09, 2021

Indiana Trial Court Dismisses Catholic School Teacher's Suit Against Archdiocese

As previously reported, in May 2020 in Payne-Elliott v. Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Indianapolis, Inc., an Indiana trial court refused to dismiss a lawsuit against the Catholic Archdiocese brought by a Catholic high school teacher who the Archdiocese ordered fired after he entered a same-sex marriage. In July 2020, the U.S. Supreme Court broadly interpreted the "ministerial exception" doctrine as it applies to teachers in religiously affiliated schools. Subsequently, in State of Indiana ex rel. Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Indianapolis, Inc. v. Marion Superior Court, (IN Sup. Ct., Dec. 10, 2020), the Indiana Supreme Court denied a writ of mandamus and prohibition and remanded the case to a different trial court judge "to consider new and pending issues and reconsider previous orders in the case." Now, in Payne-Elliott v. Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Indianapolis, Inc., (IN Super. Ct., May 7, 2021), the trial court dismissed the case for failure to state a claim on which relief can be granted. Legal Reader reports on the case.

Wednesday, April 07, 2021

British Court Says Removal of Franklin Graham Bus Ads Violated Religion and Speech Rights

In Lancaster Festival of Hope With Franklin Graham v. Blackpool Borough Council, (Manchester Cty. Ct., April 1, 2021), a British trial court held that the Equality Act 2010 and the European Convention on Human Rights were violated when banner ads for the Lancaster Festival of Hope were removed from public buses. According to the court:

Upon the Defendants receiving complaints from members of the public about the advertisements, the advertisements were removed from the buses. The complaints related to Franklin Graham and his association with the Festival, and predominantly referred to his views on homosexuality and same-sex marriage as being offensive.

In finding a violation of the Equality Act, the court said in part:

The complaints arose from the objections of members of the public to the religious beliefs. The removal came about because of those complaints. I find it also came about because the Defendants allied themselves on the issue of the religious beliefs with the complainants, and against the Claimant and others holding them. If there were any doubt about that it is made explicit by the content of the press statement issued on behalf of the Second Defendant when the advertisements were removed....

Finding a violation of the European Convention, and thus of the Human Rights Act 1998, the court said in part:

Yes, the Claimant was still able to advertise its event and yes, it was still a success. But “it turned out all right in the end” cannot be an answer to the question of whether the interference with a fundamental right to freedom of expression can be justified. The Defendants had a wholesale disregard for the right to freedom of expression possessed by the Claimant. It gave a preference to the rights and opinions of one part of the community without having any regard for the rights of the Claimant or those who shared its religious beliefs. It made no effort to consider whether any less intrusive interference than removing the advertisements altogether would meet its legitimate aim.

Christianity Daily reports on the decision.

Monday, March 15, 2021

Tuesday, January 12, 2021

Colorado Supreme Court: Same-Sex Common Law Marriages Before Obergefell Are Valid

In In re Marriage of LaFleur & Pyfer, (CO Sup. Ct., Jan. 11, 2021), the Colorado Supreme Court held that a court may recognize as a common law marriage a relationship entered into by same-sex couples before the U.S. Supreme Court's Obergefell decision that legalized same-sex marriages. Chief Justice Boatright concurred in part. Justice Samour dissented. In In re Marriage of Hogsett & Neale, decided at the same time, the Colorado Supreme Court refined the test for common law marriages in Colorado.

Tuesday, November 03, 2020

New Survey On Attitudes Toward LGBT Rights

The Public Religion Research Institute yesterday released polling results on the extent of support in the U.S. for same-sex marriage and LGBT anti-discrimination laws. The study finds that majorities of Americans favor allowing same-sex marriage, oppose allowing religiously affiliated agencies that receive taxpayer funding to refuse to accept qualified same-sex couples as foster parents, oppose religiously-based refusals to serve gays and lesbians, and favor allowing transgender individuals to serve in the armed forces. When examined by religious preference, only white evangelical Protestants had majorities at odds with the broader results.