This week on Faith On Trial

View best with full screen

Listen to the program at 10 a.m. Central on
IowaCatholicRadio.com

Texas City Quickly Alters Stay-At-Home Order to Respect Religious Liberty, Allow Churches to Follow CDC Guidelines

McKinney, Texas responded to letter from First Liberty Institute within hours 

McKinney, TX—City officials in McKinney, Texas today altered its mandatory stay-at-home order to allow religious services that are consistent with the CDC’s 15-day guidelines.  The change was made just hours after First Liberty Institute sent the city a letter explaining how its previous stay-at-home order was inconsistent with the Constitution, federal, and state law.

“We are grateful to McKinney city officials who responded quickly and appropriately to ensure their policies are both consistent with the Constitution and the CDC’s guidelines,” said Mike Berry, General Counsel for First Liberty.  “During this challenging time, we need to see more of this kind of cooperation between government officials and the religious community.  We continue to advise religious institutions to follow the CDC’s 15-day guidelines, but we all look forward to the day the faith community can again meet together, in person.” 

City officials amended their policy to allow religious services by video or teleconference, or by other means that comply with the CDC’s guidelines for social distancing. 

ARE BANS ON CHURCH GATHERINGS KOSHER?

Catholic League president Bill Donohue comments on the religious liberty issues involved in coronavirus restrictions:

In Michigan, New York, and Ohio, churches are exempt from bans on large gatherings at this time due to the coronavirus. Indiana, Louisiana, and Virginia have decided to extend the ban to churches. This is definitely a state issue: the Trump administration has wisely stayed out of it.

At the state level, this is a difficult issue. Our first impulse is to defend religious liberty, but like any freedom, it is not absolute. For example, in New York, it was reasonably decided, after much discussion, not to exempt religious bodies from mandated vaccinations.

Whenever religious liberty collides with public health, the government is obliged to put the least restrictive measures on religion. If that is done, and the motive is purely to protect the public, then in a crisis situation, temporary bans may be legitimate.

Motive counts. Why? Because we must always consider the source of an objection to religious exemptions. If the source is the medical community, and reasonable temporary restrictions are called for in a crisis situation, that is one thing; if the source is a hostile force, that is another. Unfortunately, there are plenty of examples of the latter.

Freedom From Religion Foundation (FFRF), Americans United for Separation of Church and State, and the Center for Inquiry have all issued statements against allowing religious exemptions for bans on large gatherings at this time. Their motives are not benign.

For example, FFRF opposes the decision by the West Virginia Governor to designate a “day for prayer” at this time of crisis. Americans United opposes a similar measure in Pennsylvania. The Center for Inquiry, an atheist organization, has not weighed in on this issue, but it is so extreme that it forced its founder, Paul Kurtz, off its board of directors because he was deemed too moderate.

We also have the likes of the religion haters at American Atheists blasting Senator Marco Rubio for seeking to allow financial assistance to churches so they can meet payroll and rent bills. But why not? If the Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts is considered worthy of stimulus funds, why should monies be denied churches to pay their bills (the funds are not for proselytizing campaigns)? American Atheists surely had no problem supporting efforts to provide funding to Planned Parenthood.

The best way to proceed with this issue is for religious leaders to work with state officials in coming up with a compromise during these difficult times. What we don’t need is the advice of those who are anything but religion-friendly.

FAITH ON TRIAL RETURNS THURSDAY

This Thursday (3-26) Iowa Catholic Radio will air the return of Faith On Trial, where we

examine the influence of law and society on people of faith.

Thursday’s program will feature guests from The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty giving us an update on the Little Sisters of the Poor. If you thought their legal worries were over after their victory at the Supreme Court, think again. First up Thursday is Becket Attorney Diana Verm to bring us up to date.

 Also on the program will be Luke Berg, Deputy Council from the Wisconsin Institute for Law and Liberty. Luke is the lead attorney in a suit against the Madison School District over the district’s policy to allow children to “transgender” during school hours … and oh, don’t tell your parents.

Finally we have Arthur Schapper, director of communications for MassResistance on – and you’ll need antacids for this one – Drag Queen Story Hour, for the entertainment (or indoctrination) of your children.  

Join Deacon Mike Manno and Gina Noll as Faith On Trial returns to the air on Thursday at 10 a.m. (Central) on Iowa Catholic Radio, 1150 AM; 88.5 & 94.5 FM; at IowaCatholicRadio.com or download our free app. The program will re-air at 10 PM.

Washington State passes controversial sex-ed bill; faces backlash from parents

Despite considerable public pushback, Washington state lawmakers have approved a comprehensive sex education curriculum in legislation for public school students some parents say is tantamount to grooming.

According to MyNorthwest, Republicans in the Evergreen state strongly resisted the measure, at one point even attempting to add more than 200 amendments to impede the bill from advancing. Conservative legislators contended that the material was not age-appropriate and that it usurps the parent-child relationship.

"I'm not sure why we're rushing to remove the innocence of our youth," Rep. Mike Steele, R-Clehan, said in a house floor speech last week.

"We put so much on them. I don't know why we think it's appropriate to put more, to put such weight upon their backs at such young ages. This is heavy, heavy material."

Democratic defenders of the legislation maintained that the bill is vital for children.

“The hard work that we put into this bill — in both the House and Senate — is well worth it because it will improve safety for children statewide,” said the bill’s sponsor, Democratic Sen. Claire Wilson.

“We must ensure that our kids have the tools and knowledge they need to recognize and resist inappropriate behavior."

Around the country, particularly in politically liberal states, sex-ed curriculum and recommended resources that feature explicit descriptions of various sexual acts and cartoon images that appear pornographic have been contested by parents who do not want their children exposed to it, prompting activism, including sit-outs where children are withdrawn from school in protest of graphic sex ed. Also included in the controversial lessons is the promotion of the idea that some people might be born in the wrong body and that biological sex exists on a spectrum.

Beth Daranciang, a Seattle resident who was a Republican candidate for state senator and an activist for the protection of children and women, commented in an email to The Christian Post Monday that influential interest groups appear to be calling the shots.

"The Democrats in Washington are heavily funded by Planned Parenthood and their allies. Planned Parenthood helped develop the curriculum and is frequently mentioned in the curriculum as a resource," Daranciang said.

"Planned Parenthood benefits when teens and young adults get contraceptives, STI testing and abortions from them. A new program of PP provides hormone therapy for transgender patients. Those hormones are expensive and life-long, which is a huge benefit to Planned Parenthood's business model," she added.

Kim Wendt, a Tacoma-area mom and co-founder of Informed Parents of Washington, told The Christian Post in a phone interview Monday that the curriculum is being presented as necessary and full of vital tools for children.

Her parent group believes, however, that this is all part a larger more nefarious agenda to sexualize children.

"Backed by Planned Parenthood and my guess would be the porn industry," she mused, noting that this is a worldwide movement being fought at the smallest, most rural school districts in the United States all the way to the United Nations.

"It's well-funded and it's meant to sexualize our children all the way down to kindergarten."

Wendt recounted that Seattle-area police officers have gone on local radio stations and, having viewed some of the content in the CSE lessons, said that with their work in the human trafficking division, the material mirrors how traffickers groom their child victims to enter the sex trade.

Wendt and Daranciang were both present in the room until approximately 2 a.m. early Thursday morning when the bill was finally voted on.

"To me, it was just obvious that it was an agenda. There were very reasonable amendments put forth and every one of them was shot down and it was on party-line and there was no negotiation."

"So it was obvious that there was something pushing the Democrats to push this through," she reiterated. "So there's a lot of power behind it and money. They didn't get it through last year, they took a lot of flack so they made sure it went through this year."

She urged parents to get involved at the school board level.

While a provision exists that teachers do not have to teach every lesson specifically set forth in the curricula, parents need to be engaged locally because truth and transparency coming from the state as to what is being taught is scarce, particularly given how sex-ed lessons are being integrated with other subjects where students cannot opt out, she noted.

"Parents really need to wake up and pay attention to what is being put in their schools," she stressed. "They need to engage at the school board level to make sure they know fully what is being taught."

When the bill was being considered, members of the local Satanic Temple, dressed in head-to-toe black, rallied at the state capitol to support the bill.

Gov. Jay Inslee, a liberal Democrat, is expected to sign the legislation.

Washington House Republican leader J.T. Wilcox and Senate Republican leader Mark Schoesler announced in a Sunday joint press release obtained by CP that they were forming a committee called Parents for Safe Schools, which is committed to having the governor veto the bill and should he refuse, rally Washington parents to overturn it through a referendum at the ballot box.

Rep. Wilcox said: “I am a father and a grandfather. These are young children. The youngest are still learning to tie their shoes. The state is going to take away parental rights and force a curriculum that is not age appropriate. That is outrageous. Nothing we do in Olympia is more important than protecting our kids. We will fight this with every tool at our disposal.”

For a referendum to appear on the November ballot, 129,811 signatures will have to be gathered by June 10.

Professor appeals decision that lets Shawnee State force him to speak contrary to his beliefs

CINCINNATI – Alliance Defending Freedom attorneys representing a Shawnee State University professor filed an appeal Thursday of a federal judge’s decision to dismiss his lawsuit against the school. The university punished philosophy professor Nicholas Meriwether because he declined a male student’s demand to be referred to as a woman, with feminine titles and pronouns (“Miss,” “she,” etc.).

Although the philosophy professor offered to use any name the student requested, the university rejected that compromise, choosing instead to force the professor to speak and act contrary to his own Christian convictions and philosophical beliefs.

“Professors don’t give up their First Amendment freedoms simply by choosing to teach,” said ADF Senior Counsel Travis Barham. “Public universities have no business trying to force people to express ideological beliefs that they do not hold. Dr. Meriwether remains committed to serving all students with respect, but he cannot express all messages or endorse all ideologies. When the university tried to force him to do this and then punished him for exercising his rights, it violated the First Amendment.”

“The magistrate judge misinterpreted and misapplied the law. The district court should not have adopted her recommendations and dismissed the case,” Barham explained. “That’s why we’re asking the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit to reverse both rulings and allow Dr. Meriwether to continue pursuing justice.”

In January 2018, during a political philosophy class Meriwether was teaching, he responded to a male student’s question by saying, “Yes, sir.” After the class, the student approached Meriwether, stated that he was transgender, and demanded that the professor refer to him as a woman, with feminine titles and pronouns. When Meriwether did not instantly agree, the student became belligerent and promised to get Meriwether fired.

The student then filed a complaint with the university, which launched a formal investigation. Meriwether offered to call the student by any name the student requested, but university officials rejected this and anything else that would allow him to speak according to his conscience and sincerely held religious beliefs. Instead, they formally charged him, saying “he effectively created a hostile environment” for the student. Later, they placed a written warning in his personnel file and threatened “further corrective actions” unless he articulates the university’s ideological message.

“This isn’t just about a pronoun; this is about endorsing an ideology,” said ADF Senior Counsel Tyson Langhofer, director of the ADF Center for Academic Freedom. “The university favors certain beliefs, and it wants to force Dr. Meriwether to cry uncle and endorse them as well. That’s neither legal nor constitutional, and neither was the process the university has used to get to this point.”

New Jersey Homeowner Fined for Having Virgin Mary Statue on Porch

Thomas More Society Intervenes in Religious Discrimination by Condo Association

 Fairfield, New Jersey -- Two New Jersey homeowners are being fined by their condominium association for placing an 18-inch-tall figurine of the Virgin Mary on their porch. Thomas More Society Special Counsel Christopher Ferrara is representing Mary Jeanne Vassallo and her co-owner in what he describes as a “clear cut case of religious discrimination in housing.” On March 7, 2020, the not-for-profit, national public interest law firm sent a demand letter to the managing agent of the condominium association and the association’s board members seeking appropriate resolution on the owners’ behalf.

The figurine of the Virgin Mary belonged to Vassallo’s deceased son, who received it as a gift during a church renovation while he was a second-grader in the parish Catholic school and has been in the family for some twenty years. The condominium association board has declared display of the figurine is forbidden and subject to fines. “Additionally,” shared Ferrara, “the owners received an email from a representative of the condo management company describing the statue as an ‘idol’ that ‘should be smashed’.”

At the same time, other condominium residents in Vassallo’s complex are allowed to affix Jewish mezuzahs to their front doors. A mezuzah, whose display Ms. Vassallo fully supports, is a religious icon in the form of a decorative case containing Hebrew Scriptures. “Ms. Vassallo seeks only similar accommodation of her own Catholic religion,” said Mr. Ferrara. “This selective enforcement of a condominium regulation is a violation of their rights under the Federal Fair Housing Act, New Jersey’s Law Against Discrimination (LAD) and the New Jersey state constitution,” explained Ferrara. “Ms. Vassallo has been given no credible explanation as to why mezuzahs, to which she has no objection, are permitted but a figurine of the Blessed Virgin is not.”

Ferrara advised that if the matter cannot be resolved quickly and equitably, a complaint will be filed in New Jersey Superior Court. The action will seek justice under the Federal Fair Housing Act, New Jersey’s Law Against Discrimination, and the New Jersey Constitution.  “New Jersey courts have already recognized a state constitutional right to freedom of speech when condo associations have previously attempted to regulate expressive conduct, as is happening in this situation,” noted Ferrara. “I am confident that we can prevail on the claims in this case, which is only part of a national trend of such abuses by condo 

associations.”

+++

The Thomas More Society is a national not-for-profit law firm dedicated to restoring respect in law for life, family, and religious liberty. Headquartered in Chicago, Omaha, and Fairfield, NJ, the Thomas More Society fosters support for these causes by providing high quality pro bono legal services from local trial courts all the way up to the United States Supreme Court. For more information, visit thomasmoresociety.org.

States, scholars, members of Congress and diverse religious groups defend Little Sisters of the Poor at High Court

Religious exemptions on the line in high stakes Supreme Court case

WASHINGTON – Twenty states, leading scholars, 161 members of Congress and several diverse faith groups including Muslims, Jews and Christians filed briefs to the U.S. Supreme Court yesterday supporting the Little Sisters of the Poor in their legal battle against the HHS contraceptive mandate. In Little Sisters of the Poor v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, the Little Sisters are defending their hard-won religious exemption from a lawsuit by the Pennsylvania Attorney General that threatens their ministry of serving the elderly poor. On April 29, the Little Sisters of the Poor will once again stand before the U.S. Supreme Court to defend their religious liberty and try to end this legal battle once and for all.

The HHS contraceptive mandate required the Little Sisters to provide services such as the week-after pill in their health care plans or pay millions of dollars in fines. Since their legal battle began seven years ago, the Little Sisters have been protected twice at the Supreme Court, and a new federal rule issued in 2018 secured a religious exemption for all religious non-profits when the government admitted it has many other less-burdensome ways to distribute contraceptives. Yet several states, including Pennsylvania and California, have sued the federal government to take that protection away, forcing the Little Sisters back to the Supreme Court. Several diverse groups filed friend-of-the-court briefs to the High Court yesterday in support of the Little Sisters and to defend the religious exemptions at stake.

“Nothing in our Nation’s tradition of religious exemptions, in RFRA, in the APA, or in the ACA suggests that the agency lacked authority to grant the religious exemption here,” stated Doug Laycock, the Robert E. Scott Distinguished Professor of Law and Professor of Religious Studies at the University of Virginia, in his friend-of-the-court brief filed in support of the Little Sisters. “To the contrary, any reasonable effort to comply with RFRA requires the agency to grant religious exemptions, and those exemptions need not precisely match ultimate judicial interpretation of RFRA’s minimum requirements.”

A brief from the Independent Women’s Law Center urged the Court to bring these cases to a complete end by holding “that RFRA mandated the final rule’s exemption” and explained that doing so would help both the Supreme Court and the lower federal courts “avoid rendering unnecessary opinions on a host of related but more complicated issues.”

In 2016, the government admitted before the Supreme Court that it has ways to get contraceptives to women without forcing the Little Sisters of the Poor to participate. California and Pennsylvania each have programs for providing free contraceptives to women who want them. Yet, both states are suing to force the federal government to enforce the federal mandate against the Little Sisters, even after the federal government granted them an exemption.

“The broad support for the Little Sisters shows that, even in a divided country, people of good will can agree that no one needs to punish Catholic nuns for not giving out contraception.” said Mark Rienzi, president of Becket. “Pennsylvania’s effort to punish the Little Sisters and their elderly residents is petty and unconstitutional. The Supreme Court should end this needless culture war fight once and for all.”

The U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral argument in Little Sisters of the Poor v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania on April 29.

Deacon Mike on "Straight Talk" with Jeanne Wells

Deacon Mike Manno on “Straight Talk” with Jeanne Wells on Iowa Catholic Radio this morning. Mike spoke about some of the legal and secular intrusions on people of faith and their ability to practice their religion without interference. Mike’s program, “Faith On Trial,” will be back on the air Thursday March 26 on Iowa Catholic Radio at 10 a.m. (central) and repeated every Thursday at 10 p.m. You can listen at 1150 AM or 88.5 & 94.5 FM, or on the station’s website, iowacatholicradio.com, or by downloading our free app.

CA MassResistance stops anti-therapy bill from being filed

By California MassResidtance

Across the country, horrible anti-therapy laws are being passed that would keep children and others from getting critical help they need for sexual-orientation or gender-identity problems. But not in California, where MassRssistance has drawn a line in the sand!

For the third year in a row, a bill in the California legislature has been stopped by California MassResistance’s aggressive lobbying efforts. If it had passed, it would have been the most oppressive anti-therapy law in America. This is an unprecedented victory because after halting it the first time, we’ve kept it from even being filed again, despite the sponsor’s promises to the LGBT community!

This fight goes back to 2018. Here’s what happened.

Possibly the worst such bill in America

Bill AB 2943 was introduced in the California legislature in 2018 by Evan Low, an openly homosexual Assembly member from the San Francisco area. It would have banned all therapy or counseling for sexual orientation or “gender identity” issues, and even the promotion or descriptions of such guidance (including statements, teachings, and recordings). Legal groups said the wording would include Bible verses.

It was the crown jewel of the powerful LGBT lobby. Democrats supported it and Republicans were afraid to touch it.

It easily passed the State Assembly and State Senate. Then, because of last-minute amendments to ease its passage, the bill needed another vote in the State Assembly to go to the Governor’s desk.

Sadly, at that point of the California pro-family movement basically gave up fighting it in the Assembly, and admitted it was sure to pass the second vote. Instead, they focused on lobbying the Governor not to sign it when it got to him (a hopeless strategy).

First: Stopping it cold in 2018

That’s when MassResistance ramped up our efforts in a huge way. Earlier, California MassResistance had been confronting State legislators in the greater LA area.  But now, we quickly organized people across the state and worked with even greater intensity. We targeted legislators in swing districts or who were running for higher office. We visited their offices or held conference calls with them. And the outrage continued to focus on Evan Low’s office.

The pressure worked. Enough legislators withdrew their support that on the last day of the legislative session, Low announced he was withdrawing the bill.

But he promised the LGBT lobby he would file it again in the next session, in 2019.

Second: We stopped it from being re-introduced in 2019

Throughout the rest of 2018, our local activists continued to confront Evan Low at numerous public events in his district, regarding his promise to re-file this horrible bill. And our people across the state continued to contact his office. It seemed he could hardly go anywhere without having to answer to a constituent about this bill.

On February 22, 2019, the final day for filing bills for the next session, Low’s office announced that they were not going to re-file the legislation that year. Another victory!

Not surprisingly, the LGBT lobby was livid! So on March 15, 2019, Low spoke before a meeting of LGBT activists. He told them that he instead planned to file a “non-binding resolution” in the legislature this year condemning reparative therapy. He said he hoped that the resolution would create enough momentum to make it possible to file the bill in the next session and get it passed. (He filed ACR 99, which basically blamed churches and Christian conservatives for the pain and suffering which LGBT people have endured, etc.)

Third: We stopped it from being re-introduced in 2020

In the months preceding the February 21, 2020 deadline for submitting new legislation, California MassResistance again ramped up their fight, but this time took a slightly different approach.

We confronted Low’s office and also the California Assembly leadership with recent legal developments that clearly signal that reparative therapy bans will not likely survive court challenges – even in California – and will likely ultimately be struck down by the U.S. Supreme Court.

There are four recent rulings in particular:

1. NIFLA v. Becerra: In this 2018 ruling, the U.S. Supreme Court said that the government cannot create a “professional speech” category that has less protection under the First Amendment. The writer of the majority opinion, Justice Clarence Thomas, made it clear that reparative therapy bans fall into this category of unconstitutional limitations on professional speech.
2. Vazzo v. Tampa: Relying on the legal opinion in NIFLA, a judge in the U.S. District Court, Middle District of Florida, struck down the reparative therapy ban for minors issued by Tampa, Florida. The judge cited Justice Clarence Thomas’s opinion in his ruling.
3. Schwartz v. City of New York: In early 2017, the City of New York passed the most comprehensive reparative therapy ban in the country. The city’s ban criminalized the practice for adults as well as for minors. (Most bans which had been enacted, including the first one in California, targeted the practice only for minors.) A year later, an Orthodox Jewish Rabbi and counselor, David Schwartz, sued the city with the help of the Alliance Defending Freedom. He contended (correctly) that the ban was a violation of the First Amendment on numerous grounds, including freedom of speech and freedom of religion.
   
   Initially, the NYC City Council, headed by openly homosexual speaker Corey Johnson, planned to fight the lawsuit. But he then consulted with LGBT activists in the city. They worried that since the federal judiciary (both the District Courts and the Courts of Appeal) were becoming more conservative and constitutionalist with Trump’s new confirmations, they would be taking a risk fighting the legal challenge. They could see what would happen if the Second Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against New York City, and struck down the ban. Such a loss would imperil other reparative therapy bans throughout New England and across the country.
   
   Grudgingly, the City Council felt forced to repeal their all-encompassing reparative therapy ban, recognizing that they would probably lose in federal court.
4. Trump’s judicial nominations flip the liberal Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals (which includes California) to a conservative working majority of judges: In the last week of February 2020, the Ninth Circuit panel upheld President Trump’s pro-life directives, which forbid pregnancy clinics from advising patients to seek abortions. If the clinics did, they would lose federal funding.
   
   While this ruling does not bear on LGBT issues directly, this transformation of the Ninth Circuit does show that the one-time extremely liberal court has now taken a conservative bent. (Nineteen of their last 26 major decisions had been overturned by the U.S.  Supreme Court, before this recent transformation.) Very likely, should the CA Legislature introduce and ultimately pass a ban on reparative therapy for adults (similar to what New York City had done), the law would certainly get struck down at the Appellate level, or face certain defeat before the U.S. Supreme Court.

Using these legal precedents, our MassResistance activists across the state continued contacting Assemblyman Evan Low’s office, as well as the Assembly leadership, strongly urging them to abandon any plans to introduce a ban on separative therapy for adults.

Not mincing words: This was the message given to Low and his staff. We made it clear that he would lose in court if he tried to push this legislation.

The Feb. 21, 2020 deadline for filing the bill came and went. Despite Low’s promises to the LGBT lobby, California MassResistance prevailed – and no bill was filed!

It was a great victory for all the people of California! And it should help get the message out to other states and locales.

Indianapolis Archdiocese seeks to protect Catholic education

Court to decide if Archdiocese of Indianapolis can choose teachers who uphold Catholic teaching.

WASHINGTON – The Archdiocese of Indianapolis will be in court next Tuesday defending its right to provide students and families with an authentic Catholic education. In Payne-Elliott v. Archdiocese of Indianapolis, a former teacher at a Catholic high school has sued the Archdiocese, claiming that it is illegal for the Archdiocese to require Catholic schools to hire teachers who will uphold the Catholic faith in word and deed.

In 2017, Joshua Payne-Elliott, a teacher at Cathedral Catholic High School in Indianapolis, violated his employment agreement and centuries of Church teaching by entering a same-sex marriage. After two years of discussion and deliberation, the Archdiocese informed Cathedral that if it wanted to remain affiliated with the Catholic Church, it could not continue employing teachers who lived in defiance of Church teaching. When Cathedral separated from Mr. Payne-Elliott, he sued the Archdiocese, seeking money damages and arguing that its religious directive to Cathedral was unlawful.

Becket is defending the Archdiocese, pointing out that the government cannot punish the Archdiocese for telling a Catholic school what rules it needs to follow in order to remain a Catholic school.

Virginia becomes 20th state to ban conversion therapy

Virginia Governor Ralph Northam this week signed into law House Bill 386 which bans licensed health professionals from engaging in conversion therapy with anyone under 18 years of age. New York Times reports that this makes Virginia the twentieth state to ban these attempts to change sexual orientation of gender identity. It is the first southern state to do so.

School officials stifle students' resistance to LGBTQ flag

A law firm is investigating a Minnesota school for displaying a rainbow flag and, according to one attorney, squelching opposition to the flag.

The flag fallout happened at Marshall Middle School in Marshall, Minnesota. Thomas More Society attorney Erick Kaardal represents a group of Marshall residents who say the flag was displayed by the principal in the cafeteria without any explanation or school board policy.

"When students and parents started criticizing the unilateral placement of that flag there without a policy or process, they were described as bullies," Kaardal tells OneNewsNow. "There was a petition led by students to take down the flag – and [the petition] was confiscated by the principal and then there was discipline."

The U.S. flag and flags from many countries are displayed in the cafeteria, but Kaardal points out the rainbow flag is not a national flag but rather a flag of protest.

"The LGBTQ movement has won several battles democratically in the United States, including the U.S. Supreme Court decision Obergefell regarding so-called marriage equality, so this is a political flag that the LGBTQ movement uses," the attorney continues.

"It appears that there were outside groups working with the principal and the principal's daughter, who is on the faculty," he continues, "and they all seemed to be working together to get not only the rainbow flag posted but also in suppressing criticism."

Kaardal contends the incident will lead to a federal lawsuit with two types of claims, one being that the display of flags other than the national flag needs to be viewpoint neutral. "They're only putting up one flag, the rainbow flag, to the exclusion of others," the attorney explains.

And the second claim? "… You can't suppress student petitions regarding school district policy, because the students can certainly, in between classes and so forth, circulate a petition as they did here," Kaardal emphasizes.

Currently, Thomas More Society is asking for emails between the principal and teachers and outside groups that involve the flag and how it got to be in the cafeteria. "We'll find out how this all came about and it'll shed some light on what actually happened," says Kaardal. "The school board hasn't been helpful at all."

OneNewsNow emailed all of Thomas More Society's claims to Marshall Middle School's principal, assistant principal, and superintendent. OneNewsNow did not receive a response.