[W]hen Congress may regulate an economic or commercial activity, it also may regulate violent conduct that interferes with or affects that activity.Judge Agee dissented, arguing:
To allow Congress to exercise its Commerce Clause power over the noneconomic offense of a bias-motived punch would allow Congress to exercise its Commerce Clause power based on such indirect—and often, as here, non-existent—connection to commerce that it converts the Clause into a federal police power.
The passage of RFRA was meant to re-instate a broader protection of free exercise rights. It was not meant to erode civil rights under the guise of religious freedom. Importantly, it did not change the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause, which ensures that the government cannot elevate certain religious or moral beliefs above the law.
No sooner than RFRA was enacted, the floodgates began to open and RFRA has since been used to: • Legitimize housing discrimination against single mothers and minorities, • Shield church groups from paying child abuse victims, and • Impose extreme emotional harm on schoolchildren based on their gender identity.
Since the beginning of the Trump administration, this troublesome trend has only gotten worse. On May 4th, 2017, the Trump administration issued an Executive Order, undermining RFRA’s original intent and allowing individuals to use 'conscience-based objections' to override civil rights protections....
We must pass legislation that restores RFRA’s original intent. H.R. 1450, the Do No Harm Act, would help ensure that our right to religious liberty does not threaten fundamental civil and legal rights.
Specifically, the bill would prevent RFRA from being used to deny: • Equal opportunity and protection against discriminatory laws; • Workplace protections and protections against child abuse; • Health care access, coverage, and services; and, • Contracted services.
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.
The annual Report to Congress on International Religious Freedom – the International Religious Freedom Report – describes the status of religious freedom in every country. The report covers government policies violating religious belief and practices of groups, religious denominations and individuals, and U.S. policies to promote religious freedom around the world. The U.S. Department of State submits the reports in accordance with the International Religious Freedom Act of 1998.
In the year 1454, Johannes Gutenberg – after years of painstaking work and near financial ruin – changed the world forever when he utilized his brilliant new printing press to successfully print the Bible. This Earth-shattering technological innovation arguably marked one of the first steps in a long chain of events that would bring about the Protestant movement, and for the first time in centuries return the power of religion to common women and men. People were finally free to pray, read, learn, commune, and question in a manner of their choosing – and the world is better off for it.
Much like Johannes Gutenberg, the Universal Life Church Ministries argues that it has always embraced the remarkable power of technology to bring people together in a global spiritual community and to push the conversation forward in pursuit of ever-higher levels of enlightenment.
[T]he PTO refused to register trademarks associating religious references with products (AGNUS DEI for safes and MADONNA for wine) because they would be “offensive to most individuals of the Christian faith” and “shocking to the sense of propriety.” ... But once again, the PTO approved marks—PRAISE THE LORD for a game and JESUS DIED FOR YOU on clothing—whose message suggested religious faith rather than blasphemy or irreverence.Justice Alito also filed a concurring opinion, stating in part:
Our decision does not prevent Congress from adopting a more carefully focused statute that precludes the registration of marks containing vulgar terms that play no real part in the expression of ideas. The particular mark in question in this case could be denied registration under such a statute. The term suggested by that mark is not needed to express any idea and, in fact, as commonly used today, generally signifies nothing except emotion and a severely limited vocabulary.Three separate opinions dissenting in part were filed-- one by Chief Justice Roberts, one by Justice Breyer and one by Justice Sotomayor joined by Justice Breyer. They all argued that while the ban on "immoral" trademarks violates the First Amendment, the ban on "scandalous" marks can be given a narrow construction that would save the provision. They contend it should be read to ban only obscene, vulgar or profane marks. CNN reports on the decision.
Whether someone may worship at a church is plainly a matter of ecclesiastical cognizance.The court also dismissed complaints about the way dues money is spent, saying in part:
How a church spends worshippers’ contributions is, like the question of who may worship there, central to the exercise of religion. And placing its assets in trust for the Parishioners at the expense of the Current Leaders would constitute an impermissible judicial interference with the Church’s ability to make governance and spending decisions. Indeed, evaluating the Parishioners’ claims would require the Court to decide who is rightfully empowered to make financial decisions for the Church. The Free Exercise Clause requires that the Court to decline to do so.The court held that while the 1st Amendment does not deprive it of jurisdiction over claims of fraud and breach of fiduciary duty, it held that plaintiffs had not adequately pleaded these claims.
Under the Final Rule, Title X grantees are prohibited from providing referrals for, and from engaging in activities that otherwise encourage or promote, abortion as a method of family planning.... Providers are required to refer pregnant women to a non-abortion prenatal care provider, and may also provide women with a list of other providers (which may not be composed of more abortion providers than non-abortion providers).Relying on a 1991 Supreme Court decision the 9th Circuit concluded that the Final Rule is a reasonable interpretation of Title X, and that two intervening laws did not change that conclusion. CBS News, reporting on the decision, points out that the new regulations also ban clinics that receive federal funds from sharing office space with abortion providers-- a provision apparently aimed at Planned Parenthood which says it will seek reconsideration of the decision by the 9th Circuit.
Lawrence ... told Cody that Jimmy Treybig, Cody’s father, was a high-level member of an evil society called the Illuminati; that Cody’s school, his hometown of Austin, and colleges in general were full of evil Illuminati members; that the rapture was imminent; that Cody’s parents intended to have an RFID5 chip implanted into Cody’s body, which would damn him to hell; that the RFID chip would control Cody’s mind and would contain cyanide that could be used to kill him if he resisted; and that Cody’s parents and brother hated him and were evil.In the suit against Lawrence for intentional infliction of emotional distress, the court rejected Lawrence's free exercise defense:
Lawrence argues that the jury could not determine whether his conduct was extreme and outrageous without weighing the veracity of his religious beliefs and that the trial court therefore should have dismissed Cody’s claims. However, whether Lawrence’s views are sincerely held or whether he believed that he was helping to save Cody from damnation is irrelevant under the facts of this case, in which Lawrence’s conduct, no matter its motivation, was extreme and outrageous.The court affirmed the award of damages of $4 and an injunction barring Lawrence from coming within 1,000 feet of Cody or contacting Cody or his family.
Moore has long been a controversial figure in the state. He was twice elected as Alabama chief justice but was removed both times, for installing a giant statue of the Ten Commandments in the state judicial building and for ordering lower court judges to refuse to marry same-sex couples.
"We have every right to recognize God," Moore said. "That'll be a main factor in my race."Senate Republicans generally hope that Moore will be defeated in the Republican primary.
At least four considerations show that retaining established, religiously expressive monuments, symbols, and practices is quite different from erecting or adopting new ones. First, these cases often concern monuments, symbols, or practices that were first established long ago, and thus, identifying their original purpose or purposes may be especially difficult.... Second, as time goes by, the purposes associated with an established monument, symbol, or practice often multiply.... Even if the monument’s original purpose was infused with religion, the passage of time may obscure that sentiment and the monument may be retained for the sake of its historical significance or its place in a common cultural heritage. Third, the message of a monument, symbol, or practice may evolve.... Familiarity itself can become a reason for preservation. Fourth, when time’s passage imbues a religiously expressive monument, symbol, or practice with this kind of familiarity and historical significance, removing it may no longer appear neutral, especially to the local community. The passage of time thus gives rise to a strong presumption of constitutionality.Another portion of Justice Alito's opinion was joined only by Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Breyer and Kavanaugh. They explicitly rejected the notion that the Lemon test should be applied to all Establishment Clause challenges, saying that instead the Court has sometimes used other approaches.
The case would be different, in my view, if there were evidence that the organizers had “deliberately disrespected” members of minority faiths or if the Cross had been erected only recently, rather than in the aftermath of World War I.... Nor do I understand the Court’s opinion today to adopt a “history and tradition test” that would permit any newly constructed religious memorial on public land.Justice Kavanaugh wrote a concurring opinion in which he said that the majority was applying a "history and tradition" test.
As I see it, when a cross is displayed on public property, the government may be presumed to endorse its religious content....
The Commission urges in defense of its monument that the Latin cross “is not merely a reaffirmation of Christian beliefs”; rather, “when used in the context of a war memorial,” the cross becomes “a universal symbol of the sacrifices of those who fought and died.”... The Commission’s “[a]ttempts to secularize what is unquestionably a sacred [symbol] defy credibility and disserve people of faith.”AP reports on the decision. SCOTUSblog has further analysis of the decision.
Kacsmaryk has since 2014 served as deputy general counsel at the First Liberty Institute, a legal group that offers free representation to people raising religious liberty claims in court....
His time at the group has put him at the center of several high-profile clashes between gay rights and religious liberty, which has become an increasing flashpoint in federal courts in recent years.
This includes work on the case of a couple that owns a bakery in Oregon and refused to make a custom cake for a same-sex wedding.
The Church of Scientology presents a façade to the outside world to disguise what in reality is nothing more than a cult built on mind control and destruction of the independence and self-control of those drawn into its sphere. Scientology and its leaders use religious rhetoric to lure trusting and unsuspecting individuals seeking to better themselves into its corporations. Once in CSI, members are isolated from the outside world, their access to information is heavily monitored and controlled, and they are subject to physical, verbal, psychological, emotional and/or sexual abuse and/or assault. Their assets are also targeted by CSI, which calibrates its member services according to the wealth of each member.NBC News reports on the lawsuit.