Religion and Same-Sex Marriage Archives

Posted on October 6, 2023October 9, 2023 by L&R Forum

Around the Web

Here are some important law-and-religion news stories from around the web:

In Thai Meditation Association of Alabama, Inc. v. City of Mobile, Alabama, the Eleventh Circuit U.S. partly reversed summary judgments entered in favor of the city of Mobile after Mobile denied zoning approval for a Buddhist organization to use a house in a residential district for religious purposes. The court found that neither party was entitled to summary judgment under RLUIPA; the district court correctly dismissed plaintiff’s Free Exercise claim because the zoning approval process is neutral and generally applicable; and the Buddhist organization was entitled to an injunction under the Alabama Religious Freedom Amendment to the state constitution.
A federal district court in South Carolina rejected two Establishment Clause challenges regarding waivers from federal anti-discrimination requirements that were granted to faith-based child placement agencies in Rogers v. U.S. Department of Health & Human Services and Madonna v. U.S. Department of Health & Human Services. The plaintiffs in those cases, a same-sex couple and a woman who did not share the foster agency’s evangelical beliefs, applied to be foster parents, but were denied because the child placement agencies worked only with clients who shared their religious beliefs.
in Johnson v. Cody-Kilgore Unified School District, a federal district court in Nebraska entered a consent decree in a case between Native American parents, who practice the Lakota religion, and a school district, after the student’s hair was cut as part of a lice check. The consent decree stated that the school district will not cut any student’s hair for any reason without prior consent from the parent or guardian.
In Tosone v. Way, plaintiff, who wishes to run for public office, filed suit in federal district court New Jersey alleging that he is unable as a matter of conscience to sign an oath that all candidates are required to sign. The oath ends with “so help me God,” which plaintiff argues violates the Free Speech, Free Exercise and Establishment Clauses.
The Colorado Supreme Court agreed to hear the case of Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Scardina after the Colorado Court of Appeals decided that Jack Phillips, the owner of Masterpiece Cakeshop, would have to create cakes even though he did not believe with the message portrayed by the cakes. After the United States Supreme Court announced it would hear Phillips’ first case, in 2018, an activist lawyer called Phillips and requested that he make two cakes: one depicting Satan smoking marijuana and another celebrating a gender transition, and after Phillips refused, the lawyer filed the current suit.
The EEOC announced that it filed a Title VII suit against the restaurant chain Chipotle, arguing that a manager at a Kansas location harassed a teenage employee for wearing a hijab. The EEOC further alleges that although the teen continuously complained, Chipotle failure to take action, which led to the manager “forcibly removing part of the teen’s hijab.”

Posted on June 19, 2023June 16, 2023 by L&R Forum

Around the Web

Here are some important law-and-religion news stories from around the web:

The U.S. Supreme Court denied certiorari in two cases (Faith Bible Chapel International v. Tucker and Synod of Bishops v. Belya) holding that interlocutory appeals from denials of a ministerial exception defense are not allowed.
In Donovan v. Vance, the 9th Circuit held that Department of Energy employees who objected to the government’s Covid vaccine mandate on religious grounds could not seek damages because the Executive Orders at issue had been revoked. Plaintiffs had sued federal officials in their official capacity, but the court held further that the United States has not waived sovereign immunity for damages under RFRA.
In United States v. Grenon, the Southern District of Florida ruled that the government could not preclude defendants from offering evidence of free exercise and RFRA defenses in their trial for manufacturing, marketing and distributing an unlicensed drug. The defendants are members of a church called Genesis II Church of Health and Healing, and they “promoted MMS [the drug] as a miracle cure to various illnesses and ailments,” which, when ingested, becomes chlorine dioxide.
In McMahon v. World Vision Inc., the Western District of Washington dismissed a Title VII sex discrimination suit as barred by the Church Autonomy Doctrine. A Christian ministry offered a job to the plaintiff, but rescinded the offer when the defendant learned that plaintiff was in a same-sex marriage. The court concluded that the Church Autonomy Doctrine may be invoked when a non-ministerial employee brings a Title VII action.
In Micah’s Way v. City of Santa Ana, the Central District of California refused to dismiss a suit by a center that aids impoverished and disabled individuals in which it claimed that the city had violated its rights under RLUIPA and the First Amendment by refusing to issue it a Certificate of Occupancy unless it agrees to stop providing food and beverages to its clients. The court held that Micah’s Way plausibly alleged that its food distribution activities are a “religious exercise” and that the city substantially burdened that religious exercise.
In The Catholic Bookstore, Inc. v. City of Jacksonville, the Middle District of Florida found that a Catholic bookstore has standing to challenge Jacksonville’s Human Rights Ordinance, which provides that it is unlawful to publish, circulate or display any communication indicating that service will be denied, or that patronage is unwelcome from a person, because of sexual orientation or gender identity. The bookstore wants to publicize its policy requiring its staff to address co-workers and customers only by “pronouns and titles that align with the biologically originating sex of the person being referenced . . . .”

Posted on June 5, 2023June 5, 2023 by L&R Forum

Around the Web

Here are some important law-and-religion news stories from around the web:

In Lowe v. Mills, the 1st Circuit reversed in part a Maine district court’s dismissal of a suit byhealth care facility workers who were denied religious exemptions from the state’s COVID vaccine mandate. The court affirmed dismissal of the Title VII claims, but allowed plaintiffs’ Free Exercise and Equal Protection claims to go forward.
In Ratlliff v. Wycliffe Associates, Inc., the Middle District of Florida refused to dismiss a Title VII employment discrimination suit brought by a software developer who was fired from a Bible translation company after the company learned that he had entered a same-sex marriage. The court rejected the company’s RFRA and ministerial exception defenses.
In Tatel v. Mt. Lebanon School District (II), the Western District of Pennsylvania held that parents of first-grade students asserted plausible claims that their due process and free exercise rights were violated by a teacher who discussed gender identity with young students. The court found that the teacher’s discussion “conflicts with [the Plaintiffs’] sincerely held religious and moral beliefs.”
In Rolovich v. Washington State University, the Eastern District of Washington refused to dismiss a Title VII failure-to-accommodate claim by the head football coach of Washington State University. The coach was terminated after he refused to comply with the state’s Covid vaccine mandate on religious grounds, and the court found that he had done enough at the pleading stage to show a sincerely held religious belief.
The EEOC announced that it has filed a Title VII suit against Triple Canopy, Inc., for failing to reasonably accommodate an employee’s religious beliefs. The employee maintained that he “did not belong to a formal religious denomination but nonetheless held a Christian belief that men must wear beards.” The employer discharged him because he could not obtain a supporting statement from a religious leader.
The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty filed suit in the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota challenging a Minnesota law that excludes religious universities from a program that allows high school students to obtain no-cost college credit.