Ruling for Christian School Stands

The California Supreme Court let stand a lower court ruling rejecting a "sexual orientation" discrimination claim against a Christian high school.

Consistent with its code of conduct, California Lutheran High School expelled two students it believed were in a lesbian relationship. The students' parents sued, claiming that the school committed discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, something that the state Unruh Act forbids in "business establishments." The trial court and intermediate appellate court held that the school was not a business establishment and thus not subject to the act.

The plaintiffs asked the California Supreme Court to review that judgment. They also asked the state high court to depublish the Court of Appeal's opinion. On April 29, the court rejected both requests.

The CLS Center represented the Association of Faith-Based Organizations in the case. AFBO sought to intervene. Throughout the case, the Center argued on behalf of AFBO that application of the Unruh Act to Cal Lutheran in this case would violate the school's religious liberty.

"Gay Rights" v. Religious Liberty

Commentary by Nathan Diament, Keith Pavlischek, and the Washington Post.

Casey Mattox discusses religious student groups and nondiscrimination rules on Freedom's Ring Radio

The Center's Casey Mattox discusses religious student groups and nondiscrimination rules at public universities with attorney Alan J. Reinach on Freedom's Ring Radio. Download the fourteen minute interview podcast here. Note: this show was recorded prior to the Ninth Circuit's ruling in CLS v. Kane (UC Hastings).

David French comments on CLS v. Kane at Phi Beta Cons

David French, ADF Senior Legal Counsel and Director of ADF’s Center For Academic Freedom, comments on Christian Legal Society v. Kane at Phi Beta Cons on National Review Online:

From a common-sense standpoint, this is absurd. Imagine telling a Baptist church that its search for a new pastor had to include equal consideration of Buddhist or Hindu candidates. Imagine telling a synagogue that they were engaged in unlawful "discrimination" if they categorically refused to permit imams from
functioning as rabbis. How can student guarantee that they can maintain their distinctive voice if each group essentially has to be open to all students, regardless of those students' beliefs or intentions?

Listen to the Christian Legal Society v. Kane oral argument

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has posted the audio recording of the CLS v. Kane (Newton/UC Hastings) (# 06-15956) oral argument before Chief Judge Alex Kozinski, Judge Proctor Hug, Jr., and Judge Carlos T. Bea.

Timothy J. Tracey of the Center for Law & Religious Freedom presented the argument for CLS and Ethan P. Schulman of Folger Levin & Kahn, LLP presented the argument for UC Hastings.

The audio file can be streamed or downloaded (Windows Media Player required).

RE: Oral Argument Tomorrow in CLS Chapter Nondiscrimination Case

To follow up on Greg's post, please see the CLS webpage on Christian Legal Society v. Kane (aka Christian Legal Society v. Newton) for a summary of the case, a copy of the opinion below, and the parties' briefs, as well as other documents.

The Seventh Circuit's opinion in Christian Legal Society v. Walker, 453 F.3d 853 (7th Cir. 2006) (Southern Illinois University) may be downloaded here.

Also of interest: a recent law review article by Joan Howarth, Dean of the Michigan State University College of Law, Teaching Freedom: Exclusionary Rights of Student Groups, 42 U.C. Davis L. Rev. 889 (2009), which discusses CLS v. Walker and CLS v. Kane, as well as related cases. From the abstract:

Progressive, antisubordination values support robust First Amendment protection for high school and university students, including strong rights of expressive association, even when those rights clash with educational institutions’ nondiscrimination policies.

NPR Story on Faith-Based Initiative

NPR did a story this morning about the future of the faith-based initiative under the Obama Administration. The story featured a CLS Center case, Pedreira v. Kentucky Baptist Homes for Children (KBHC). In that case, the ACLU and homosexual rights activists are attempting to exclude KBHC (now called Sunrise Children's Homes) from state partnerships with nongovernmental organizations serving abused and neglected children because KBHC draws its leadership and employees from among those who share its religious commitments. The federal district court adjudicating the case ruled in Sunrise's favor and the ACLU appealed. Briefing in the Sixth Circuit is complete and oral argument will occur on March 11.

California Appellate Court Rules in Christian School's Favor

On January 26, the California Court of Appeal ruled in favor of a Christian school sued for "sexual orientation" discrimination.

The dispute arose when California Lutheran High School expelled two students for violating its code of conduct by engaging in a same-sex intimate relationship. The students' parents sued the school, claiming that it had committed discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation in violation of California's Unruh Act, which forbids discrimination on the basis of a variety of protected characteristics in "business establishments" (among other things).

California Lutheran argued that it, as a private religious school, was not a "business establishment." The trial court agreed, and the students' parents appealed. In its January 26 decision, the appellate court agreed that the school is not a business establishment. Because of this ruling, the court did not reach the religious liberty issues in the case.

The CLS Center attempted to intervene on behalf of the Association of Faith-Based Organizations (AFBO). The joint ADF-CLS press release is here.

More information about the case, including a link to the decision, is found on the relevant page of the CLS website. Congrats to my colleague Tim Tracey, who serves as lead counsel for AFBO in this case.

Presentation at CCCU Presidents Conference

I participated in a panel discussion this morning at the Council for Christian Colleges & Universities Presidents Conference in Washington, DC. The topic was "Legal and Public Policy Issues." I talked about religious staffing freedom -- recent events and imminent threats.

I asserted the threat that religion and sexual orientation nondiscrimination rules pose stems from a more foundational problem: the growing cultural acceptance of same-sex sexual conduct and the corresponding cultural condemnation of those who hold the traditional position on marriage and human sexuality.

I then ran through some developments in this area over the last twelve months: the passage of Prop 8 in California; the discovery of a right to same-sex "marriage" in the Connecticut constitution by the state's supreme court; Congress's failure to enact ENDA; DOJ's publication of the OLC opinion regarding RFRA, federal money, and religious staffing freedoms; the bad decisions in Truth v. Kent and North Coast Women's Health v. Superior Court; and the good outcomes in AFBO v. Iowa and Doe v. California Lutheran.

With regard to what the near future holds, I pointed to the emphasis on "LGBT concerns" on the White House website's "civil rights agenda" page; the likely introduction of ENDA; continuing litigation [much of which the CLS Center is involved in]; and the Obama Administration's approach to religious staffing freedoms in the faith-based initiative.

Faith-Based Hiring and the Obama Administration

The Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life has posted the transcript of a Q&A with GWU law professor Chip Lupu regarding faith-based hiring and the Obama Administration.

Professor Lupu predicts that the new president's Office of Legal Counsel will disagree with its predecessor's conclusion that the Religious Freedom Restoration forbids the federal government from imposing religion nondiscrimination strings on religious recipients of federal money.

Professor Lupu also observes that the new administration might seek to add new nondiscrimination strings to specific program funding and/or take away existing protections for religious staffing freedom in certain other programs (e.g., Temporary Assistance to Needy Families).

Richard John Neuhaus and religious liberty

Mark Steyn reminds us of Richard John Neuhaus (1936-2009) constant defense of religious liberty as an important part of his voluminous writings on the pages of First Things, quoting this entry from Neuhaus' feature On the Square from October 2006, in which he responds to a New York Times editorial on the subject of religious exemptions:

The editors are also exercised that religious institutions are exempt from regulations having to do with religious and gender discrimination in hiring and promotion. But the key point, invoked over the years by opponents of free exercise, is that tax exemption is actually a government subsidy.

The underlying, and nascently totalitarian, assumption is that everything in the society belongs to the state and should be under state control. Government exemptions from tax and control are a privilege granted, not a right respected. From which it follows that an exemption is, in fact, a subsidy. This is a long way from the Founders’ understanding of the independent sovereignty of religion that the government is bound to respect.

Neuhaus, of course, wrote the following in 1984 in the prologue to The Naked Public Square: Religion and Democracy in America:

What is relatively new is the naked public square. The naked public square is the result of political doctrine and practice that would exclude religion and religiously grounded values from the conduct of public business. The doctrine is that America is a secular society. It finds dogmatic expression in the ideology of secularism. I will argue that the doctrine is demonstrably false and the dogma exceedingly dangerous.

Christian Science Monitor on the Faith-Based Initiative

The Christian Science Monitor has published an article regarding the faith-based initiative under the Obama Administration. Our friend Stanley Carlson-Thies of the newly launched Institutional Religious Freedom Alliance is quoted extensively.

Although the article is generally good and informative, it does incorrectly suggest that the Administration encouraged faith-based grant recipients to use funds in unconstitutional ways. This is incorrect.

The article invokes "critics" of the freedom of religious organizations to staff on a religious basis. Those critics essentially argue that anyone who pays taxes should be eligible for every job at every employer that receives some sort of government support. This argument is hard to take seriously. President Obama is not required to ignore a person's political affiliation in selecting his nominees and appointees. The CIA is not required to ignore an applicant's relationships with al Qaeda in choosing its spies. Even moreso, private entities that merely receive some government benefit -- but are not the government -- have the freedom to take lawful factors into account in their personnel decisions.

The article quotes Melissa Rogers of Wake Forest Divinity School, who asserts that "government only funds tasks that are nonreligious in nature" and therefore, that recipients of government funds shouldn't be allowed to exercise the freedom they possess under Title VII and the First Amendment to staff on a religious basis. The problem with this argument is that it presupposes a particular and tendentious definition of "nonreligious." To illustrate, how would you characterize meeting the material needs of the homeless? One could plausibly characterize this as "nonreligious"; but one could just as easily characterize it as religious, particularly if the entity providing the services does so based on its religious commitments. In short, religious groups legitimately fill jobs with those who share their views even if those jobs are not limited to preaching sermons and administering sacraments.

Let us continue to hope and pray that the Obama Administration, for the sake of those served by faith-based social service providers, will preserve the freedom of these groups to maintain their unique religious identity.

Victory in Iowa State Employee Charitable Campaign Case

In response to a lawsuit filed by CLS's Center for Law & Religious Freedom on behalf of the Association of Faith-Based Organizations, the State of Iowa has repealed unconstitutional rules governing access to its state employee charitable campaign.

The rules excluded any charitable organization that “engages in any way in sectarian activities,” advocates “religious viewpoints,” or “discriminates” on the basis of religion in employment.

See the joint CLS-Alliance Defense Fund press release or the CLS Center website for more information.

Oral Argument in Christian Fraternity Case

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit heard oral argument yesterday in Beta Upsilon Chi v. Machen, a case in which the freedom of religious organizations to use religious criteria in personnel decisions is at stake. Christian Legal Society's Center for Law & Religious Freedom represents the fraternity in its civil rights lawsuit against University of Florida officials.

The dispute arose when UF withheld "registered student organization" status from Beta Upsilon Chi (also known as "Brothers Under Christ" and BYX). BYX draws its members and leaders from among those students who profess faith in Jesus Christ; the university deemed this a violation of its policy banning religious discrimination by student organizations.

UF's treatment of BYX violates the First Amendment. It infringes the right of expressive association and constitutes viewpoint discrimination. Rejecting BYX's motion for preliminary injunction, the district court disagreed. BYX appealed, and my colleague Tim Tracey presented an excellent oral argument yesterday.

The three judges on the Eleventh Circuit panel (Chief Judge Edmondson, Judge Tjoflat, and Senior Judge Hill) all expressed a large measure of skepticism towards the university's arguments. Judge Edmondson revealed his view that the university's denial of recognition undoubtedly disadvantaged BYX. The court questioned the magnitude of the university's interest in pressuring a Christian group dedicated to the inculcation of Christian principles to admit non-Christian members.

Of course, the tenor of an oral arguments does not always predict the outcome of a case. Nonetheless, most observers (including me) of yesterday's argument would not be surprised if the appellate panel ruled in BYX's favor.

Heritage on Same-Sex Marriage and Religious Liberty

Thomas Messner has prepared a Heritage Foundation "Backgrounder" entitled "Same-Sex Marriage and the Threat to Religious Liberty."

The paper is thorough and well-done. Recommended reading.

University of Iowa Restores Funding of CLS Chapter

On October 22, the University of Iowa rescinded its earlier decision to revoke the funding of the law school's Christian Legal Society chapter.

On or about September 25, 2008, the CLS chapter submitted a request for funding to the Student Assembly Budgeting & Allocating Committee. The Committee rejected the chapter's funding request based on the notion that the chapter commits "religious discrimination" by drawing its leaders and voting members from among those who voluntarily embrace the CLS Statement of Faith.

On October 20, Center Litigation Counsel Casey Mattox sent a letter to the university's general counsel. On October 22, the Committee informed chapter representatives that the general counsel had instructed them not to deny the chapter funding based upon the Statement of Faith requirement.

Iowa attorney L. Craig Nierman assisted the Center.

NY Times Article on Religious Staffing Freedom and Government Funds

The New York Times has published an article regarding the Department of Justice's opinion about religious staffing freedom and government funds.

Former Center Director and University of Missouri law professor Carl Esbeck is quoted in the article, defending the DOJ opinion.

ACLU rep Christopher Anders calls the memo “the church-state equivalent of the torture memos,” referring to the Department's conclusion that the government does not have a compelling interest in forcing religious employers to hire people who reject the organization's religious beliefs.

This is incredible. Since when is it so awful for religious employers to consider religion in personnel decisions? Should the government intervene when a synagogue declines to hire a Muslim as a rabbi? Should a Unitarian congregation face liability if it won't choose a "fundamentalist" Christian to serve as its pastor? Adding government money to the mix doesn't change the analysis -- it is still not wrong for religious groups to draw their personnel from among those who voluntarily embrace the group's beliefs.

The fact of the matter is that both the Constitution and RFRA forbid the federal government from forcing religious groups to give up the exercise of a constitutional right in exchange for social service and education money.

Senator Obama has suggested that religious groups should not be allowed to preserve their religious character through staffing policies if they want to participate in government-funded programs. If Mr. Obama is elected president, it is conceivable that he will repudiate the Department's opinion and apply religion nondiscrimination rules to religious groups, thereby undermining genuine religious freedom.

Justice Department Posts Opinion on Religious Staffing and RFRA

The U.S. Department of Justice has finally put online its June 29, 2007, opinion stating that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) permits the government to exempt a federal grant recipient from a religion nondiscrimination attached to the money. The Department's Office of Legal Counsel issued the opinion.

The Department's Office of Justice Programs had awarded World Vision, a religious organization, a $1.5 million grant under the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act of 1974. As a condition of receiving grants under the Act, recipients may not discriminate on the basis of religion in "employment in connection with any programs or activity." World Vision takes religion into account in its personnel decisions.

The Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 forbids the federal government from substantially burdening a person's exercise of religion, unless the imposition of that burden is the least restrictive means of furthering a compelling government interest.

OLC explained first that World Vision's operation of its government-funded program constituted the "exercise of religion" within the meaning of RFRA. It then stated that the government would "substantially burden" World Vision's religious exercise if it required World Vision to comply with the religion nondiscrimination rule. Finally, OLC concluded that applying the religion nondiscrimination rule to World Vision would not further a compelling governmental interest.

Same-Sex "Marriage" in Connecticut

The Connecticut Supreme Court today held that a state statute defining marriage as "the union of one man and one woman" violated the equal protection provisions of the state constitution.

The court observes that "[m]uch of the condemnation of homosexuality derives from firmly held religious beliefs and moral convictions." To the extent the word "homosexuality" refers to homosexual conduct, the court's observation is undoubtedly correct. The court claims not to "equate religious beliefs with prejudice," but its rhetoric belies this assertion:

• "the history of pernicious discrimination faced by gay men and lesbians"
• "a group that historically has been the object of scorn, intolerance, ridicule or worse"
• referring to the "illegitimate reasons that gave rise to the past discrimination"
• "Gay persons have been subjected to and stigmatized by a long history of purposeful and invidious discrimination that continues to manifest itself in society"
• "gay persons have been subjected to such severe and sustained discrimination because of our culture’s long-standing intolerance of intimate homosexual conduct"

The Connecticut Supreme Court plainly has nothing but disgust for traditional sexual ethics, even those rooted in religious commitment. Such rhetoric hardly bodes well for theologically orthodox religious groups who seek constitutional protection from the growing movement to marginalize and punish them.

Important New Book on the Threat to Religious Freedom Posed by Same-Sex Marriage

Rowman and Littlefield has published Same-Sex Marriage and Religious Liberty: Emerging Conflicts, edited by Professor Douglas Laycock, Anthony Picarello, and Robin Fretwell Wilson. With an introduction by Picarello (General Counsel for the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops) and an an afterward by Laycock (Professor of Law at the University of Michigan Law School), the book contains six essays on the subject.

The book arises out of a conference organized by the Becket Fund in 2005. Chapter authors include Marc Stern of the American Jewish Congress, Professor Jonathan Turley of the George Washington University Law School, and Professor Chai Feldblum of Georgetown.

Much of the CLS Center's advocacy is predicated on our view that the "homosexual rights" movement poses the greatest current threat to religious freedom in the United States. This volume should help to illuminate the contours of the threat.