First Liberty Scores Two Powerful Victories to Save Drive-In Church Services

by Jorge Gomez

This year’s Easter weekend will surely go down as one of the most historic with regard to the current and future “health and safety” of religious liberty in America.

Last week, one day before Easter Sunday, our legal team scored a very important and powerful victory for On Fire Christian Church in Louisville, KY, one that will help protect religious liberty for ALL houses of worship during this pandemic.

Thanks to the untiring efforts of our attorneys, the U.S. District Court in Louisville, KY, granted a temporary restraining order preventing Louisville Mayor Greg Fischer from blocking On Fire Church from holding its drive-in services on Easter Sunday.

And just this week, First Liberty also won a victory for King James Bible Baptist Church (KJBBC) in Greenville, MS, another house of worship that was prevented by its local city mayor from hosting drive-in services consistent with CDC guidelines.

Setting a Precedent for Houses of Worship Nationwide

Like hundreds of congregations and churches across the country, On Fire Christian Church found an innovative and creative way to keep its members and its community spiritually engaged. They opted to host drive-in church services in the parking lot for several weeks consistent with CDC guidelines.

And because members would be unable to gather as usual for the biggest service of the year, the church planned to host a drive-in church service for Easter Sunday. The church took action to comply with health and safety regulations, ensuring that cars would be parked six feet apart and all congregants would remain in their vehicles with windows no more than half open for the entirety of the service. Additionally, multiple security personnel were present to ensure proper spacing between cars and orderly compliance with all guidelines.

To think that local police officers would potentially stand in church parking lots to record license plate numbers of all Easter weekend churchgoers—even though they were strictly adhering to CDC guidelines—is absurd!

Thankfully, the US District Court Judge wrote an opinion that clearly reaffirmed the First Amendment rights of the church:

“On Holy Thursday, an American mayor criminalized the communal celebration of Easter. That sentence is one that this Court never expected to see outside the pages of a dystopian novel, or perhaps the pages of The Onion. But two days ago, citing the need for social distancing during the current pandemic, Louisville’s Mayor Greg Fischer ordered Christians not to attend Sunday services, even if they remained in their cars to worship—and even though it’s Easter. The Mayor’s decision is stunning. And it is, ‘beyond all reason,’ unconstitutional.”

With all the attacks against churches going on right now during the “new normal,” this was the first legal decision to put a stop to this type of shocking—and ongoing—overreach by government officials. And more importantly, this decision set a crucial precedent that state officials must respect the religious rights of houses of worship even in the midst of a national crisis.

The Fight Never Ceases: Fighting to Reclaim Religious Freedom for Mississippi Church

In addition to our legal victory in Kentucky, First Liberty also successfully represented Pastor Charleston Hamilton and King James Bible Baptist Church (KJBBC) in Greenville, MS, where local officials threatened to clamp down on religious services.

It’s especially shocking that officials in Mississippi went so far as to issue a $500 ticket to everyone who attended a drive-in service. This caused local church leaders and people of faith to fear they’d be fined and criminally prosecuted for attending a religious gathering that falls within CDC guidelines.

That’s why First Liberty filed a federal lawsuit against Greenville, Mississippi Mayor Errick Simmons seeking to reverse his prohibition on churches holding drive-in services during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Like On Fire Church in Kentucky, KJBBC creatively chose to utilize a “drive-in” method of holding church services while still making sure he would strictly follow all CDC guidelines.

Members of KJBBC drive in their cars and park in their parking lot. Pastor Hamilton stands at a distance greater than 6 feet from his parishioners as they remain their cars with the windows up. No one leaves their cars at any time during the service. Rather, they listen to Pastor Hamilton as he, utilizing a bullhorn, preaches to them in the open air.

Nonetheless, during an evening service held in the KJBBC parking lot, Pastor Hamilton and a few of his church members (many of them elderly citizens) found themselves surrounded by police cruisers, and were threatened with criminal citations for attending church in their cars.

One police officer even told Pastor Hamilton that his constitutional rights were “suspended!”

In the videos below, you can watch FLI President, CEO and Chief Counsel Kelly Shackelford and Jeremy Dys, FLI Special Counsel, join Pastor Hamilton in two recent news interviews to discuss why the attacks against drive-in religious services are a blatant violation of the Constitution.

Thankfully, just a few days ago, Mississippi Governor Reeves and Mayor Simmons recognized the importance of protecting religious liberty and clarified that drive-in church services are allowed during this difficult time.

Even though the nation is in the midst of a pandemic, it is essential that we protect religious liberty. And while it’s necessary to comply with temporary state-mandated restrictions for the sake of demonstrating love for our fellow man, we will not—and should not—tolerate churchgoers being ticketed by the police for following CDC guidelines at church.

As evident from the incredible legal victories in Kentucky and Mississippi, First Liberty’s efforts are already making a lasting impact.

What’s more, thanks to your steadfast support, our legal team has identified numerous instances where government ordinances are violating the constitutional rights of people of faith, and gotten these orders rescinded—sometimes in a matter of hours. And we’re receiving more requests for legal assistance from across the nation every day.

MassResistance poses reasonable question to national pro-transgender “education” group – and gets a vile response

They insist that males should compete on female sports teams. Very revealing about their frightening mindset.

By MassResistance

Craig Tefler (center), a male who now "identifies" as a female, won the U.S. national title for the women’s 400 meter hurdles at the NCAA Division II Championships on May 25, 2019. During 2016 and 2017 he had competed on the men’s team for the same event and was not among the top 200 competitors. Radical “education” groups insist that this must be allowed.ption

What’s really going on in the heads of the people running the “education” groups that actively oppose sensible laws protecting people from radical transgender lunacy? MassResistance recently got a taste of it, and it’s not at all pleasant.

In our recent post we listed the major education, medical, and social welfare organizations that had lobbied the Idaho Legislature not to pass two bills protecting the public from the radical transgender agenda. (Luckily, the bills passed anyway.)

We noticed that one of the groups on the list is the “Association of Title IX Administrators.”  This group was particularly opposed to the Idaho bill which says that only females (not males pretending to be females) may compete in girls’ or women’s school and college sports.

Association of Title IX Administrators

We looked a little further into the Association of Title IX Administrators.

Title IX (“Title Nine”) refers to the federal law passed by Congress in 1972 that prohibits any school that gets federal money (basically, all of them) from discriminating on the basis of “sex” in any “education program or activity” – which includes athletics. Furthermore, every school district, college, and university in the US is required to have a Title IX administrator (to ensure compliance with the law).

In 2011 a group of liberals wanted to use the Title IX law to push a radical and aggressive sexual ideology in high schools and colleges. They formed the Association of Title IX Administrators (ATIXA), as a purported “professional association.” Led by radical attorneys, they have been extraordinarily successful in organizing thousands of Title IX administrators across America to push their agenda. Among other things, the group provides “compliance, litigation, and expert witness services” as well as extensive training sessions.

In 2016, the Obama administration decided that the word “sex” in Title IX must now include “gender identity” – i.e., transgenderism. Obama’s Justice Department and Department of Education published a letter to all schools demanding that all athletic teams, locker rooms, restrooms, etc., be open to opposite-sex “transgender” students – under a veiled threat of possible federal litigation. Simultaneously, the Department of Education published a ridiculous booklet for all schools titled, Examples of Policies and Emerging Practices for Supporting Transgender Students.

ATIXA used those government documents to aggressively confront schools and universities across the country to force them to allow males to compete on female sports teams, and vice versa.

 This absurd Obama-era booklet is unfortunately still posted on the DOE website.

Thankfully, in early 2017, the Trump Administration (Dept. of Justice and Dept. of Education) rescinded that nonsense, and published an updated letter to all schools informing them that a federal district court has ruled that “the term ‘sex’ unambiguously refers to biological sex” and issued an injunction against mandating the earlier interpretation.

However, ATIXA decided to ignore the Trump Administration’s 2017 letter and continues to pretend that the Obama mandate is still in place – that “sex” must include “gender identity.” The group explained its reasoning in a Feb. 2017 Position Statement, where they basically said that a current court case (that did not involve sports teams) might rule in their favor. They also cited material from radical LGBT groups such as the Transgender Law Center and Human Rights Campaign.

The Trump DOJ makes its position clear - again

In March 2020, the Trump Department of Justice (DOJ) made its position clear again. Three Connecticut high school girls are suing Connecticut school officials in federal court for allowing boys to compete against them in track. The DOJ filed a strongly-worded amicus brief in their favor – and against the absurd concept that Title IX requires “transgender” participation in school sports.

MassResistance poses the question to ATIXA

On April 7, MassResistance Research Director Amy Contrada emailed a question to the Board Members of ATIXA. She simply asked if they planned to update their 2017 Policy Statement to include the DOJ’s amicus brief in the Connecticut Case.

Here’s what Amy wrote to ATIXA:

From: Amy Contrada
Date: Tuesday, April 7, 2020 at 12:03 PM
To: [Group]
Subject: Question re Your Guidance on Title IX in K-12 schools

Dear ATIXA Board Members & Consultants:

Is ATIXA planning an update on your 2017 policy statement regarding “gender” issues in K-12 schools? There has been an important new development I don’t see addressed on your website.

Earlier this month, the DOJ intervened in the lawsuit brought by high school girl athletes in Connecticut. The plaintiffs are challenging Connecticut Association of Schools, five local school boards, and the Connecticut Interscholastic Athletic Conference (CIAC) over their policies allowing biological boys (who claim to be transgender girls) to compete on girls’ teams.

The DOJ brief (siding with the plaintiffs) explains that the named Connecticut school entities are in error, and that the term “sex” in Title IX should “be interpreted as taking [its] ordinary, contemporary, common meaning.” Excerpts from the brief:

… requiring all students to participate on the athletic team associated with their biological sex cannot be described as sex “discrimination.” … Nothing in Title IX or Supreme Court precedent requires such radical upheaval. To the contrary, the Supreme Court has recognized that sex-based classifications sometimes are permissible because certain “differences between men and women” are “enduring.”

Title IX and its implementing regulations prohibit discrimination solely "on the basis of sex," not on the basis of transgender status, and therefore neither require nor authorize CIAC's transgender policy. To the contrary, CIAC's construction of Title IX as requiring the participation of students on athletic teams that reflect their gender identity would turn the statute on its head. One of Title IX's core purposes is to ensure that women have an "equal athletic opportunity" to participate in school athletic programs. 34 C.F.R. § 106.41(c); see also Cohen v. Brown Univ., 991 F.2d 888, 897 (1st Cir. 1993) ("Equal opportunity to participate lies at the core of Title IX's purpose.").

Schools realize that purpose primarily by establishing separate athletic teams for men and women and by ensuring that those teams are on equal footing. See 34 C.F.R. § 106.41(b)-(c). Because of the physiological differences between men and women, the existence of women's sports teams permits women to participate more fully in athletics than they otherwise could.

Signatories include William P. Barr, Attorney General, and John H. Durham, U.S. Attorney for the District of Connecticut.

Their point on the meaning of "sex" in Title IX has relevance to other school policies relating to gender identity (facilities use, names, pronouns, official student records).

I look forward to your response.

Amy Contrada
MassResistance - Research

A bizarre and vile response

Within hours, Amy received the following reply from Attorney Brett Sokolow, the president of ATIXA. The reply was also cc’d to the ATIXA Board of Directors. The reply did not directly answer Amy’s question about the new DOJ statement, but was an inexplicably hateful, anti-Christian rant:

From: Brett Sokolow <brett.sokolow@tngconsulting.com>
Sent: Tuesday, April 7, 2020 2:29 PM
To: Amy Contrada; Katie Walker;
 Subject: Re: Question re Your Guidance on Title IX in K-12 schools

Dear Ms. Contrada,

I am responding on behalf of the entire ATIXA board, whom you copied. ATIXA will revise its position statements as necessary once the Supreme Court makes its rulings in October. Until then, any changes are premature. Please consider any further communication from you or your organizations to be unwelcome. I hope you will reconsider your bigotry, as I doubt Jesus would have tolerated the kinds of intolerance that you not only accept but embrace. We find your positions and advocacy repugnant. Thank you.

Brett A. Sokolow, Esq.
Chair
brett.sokolow@tngconsulting.com
phone (610) 993.0229 x1011 | fax (610) 993.0228
www.tngconsulting.com  |  www.atixa.org | www.nabita.org | www.viiaa.org
475 Allendale Rd, Suite 200 | King of Prussia, PA 19406

This is a clear window into the mindset of the people in these organizations. We’ve seen it in school officials, politicians, and corporate executives. It’s as if they’re incapable of discussing this issue in any rational way.

Attorney Brett Sokolow, president of ATIXA, responded to Amy "on behalf of the entire ATIXA board."

In many ways it’s similar to a cult belief. Transgenderism, like the rest of the radical LGBT ideology, is basically irrational and cannot be defended in a normal manner. Instead, anyone who disagrees is met with a torrent of hatred and fury. These are the people who are leading (and are a part of) many of the major education and medical institutions.

But we believe that it’s imperative that good people always challenge these people and their dangerous and absurd positions. And we will continue to do so.

Sokolow does not say what “Supreme Court rulings in October” he is referring to. But it would appear to be the case of a Detroit Funeral home being sued for firing a man who insisted on dressing in women’s clothes. It is actually a Title VII case (dealing with employment), not a Title IX case. But the LGBT lobby believes that if the Supreme Court rules their way in this case – that “gender identity” is included in the word “sex” in anti-discrimination law – it would carry over to Title IX.

We will stay on top of this issue.

Faith On Trial this week

Thursday at 10 a.m. Central on Iowa Catholic Radio 

1150 AM; 88.5 or 94.5 FM

Or IowaCatholicRadio.com

Download our free app and you can listen anytime anywhere

New Jersey's Aid in Dying Act Is Upheld

In Petro v. Grewal, (NJ Super., April 1, 2020), a New Jersey state trial court dismissed a suit challenging the constitutionality of New Jersey's Medical Aid in Dying for the Terminally Ill Act.  Plaintiffs challenged the law on numerous grounds, including under the free exercise clause. First the court held that plaintiffs lack standing to challenge the law, saying in part:

"Their deeply felt religious, ethical or professional objections to the Act do not suffice to establish standing, even under New Jersey's liberal standard."

The court however went on to also reject plaintiffs' claims on the merits. In part of its opinion, the court rejected plaintiffs' free exercise objections to the obligation of a doctor who refuses to provide aid in dying to transfer health care records to a patient's new doctor. The court said that the law is a neutral law of general applicability, and that the obligation to transfer records is "minimally burdensome."  

NY Mayor De Blasio Fears "Christian Values" of Samaritan's Purse Medical Assistance to City

Catholic League president Bill Donohue comments on the growing tide of criticism directed at Rev. Franklin Graham's assistance to New Yorkers:

Rev. Franklin Graham could have chosen to simply ask his people to pray for New Yorkers hit hard with coronavirus. But instead he recruited 72 doctors, nurses and other medical personnel from Samaritan's Purse, an evangelical group, to set up a 68-bed facility in Central Park; it is operated in partnership with the Mount Sinai Health System and is equipped with ten ventilators. 

How was he received? Many New Yorkers welcomed Graham's efforts, but some have reviled him. Militant secularists have bombarded him with vitriol, including such notables as New York State Senator Brad Hoylman and playwright Paul Rudnick. Hoylman called Graham a "notorious anti-gay bigot" and Rudnick branded him a "vicious homophobe." 

Hoylman should not throw stones. In 2018, he wrote an insulting anti-Catholic tweet. I slammed him for it and he quickly called me to apologize. I accepted it. But he should know better. As for Rudnick, he is known for his filthy anti-Christian play, "The Most Fabulous Story Ever Told." So he has no leg to stand on—he knows a thing or two about bigotry. 

All of this attack on Graham stems from his belief that the institution of marriage was designed for the only two people who can naturally make a family, namely a man and a woman. Up until about a week ago yesterday, figuratively speaking, every normal person believed the same, all over the world. 

Anyone is free to disagree with Graham, but to portray him as a hater is malicious. Graham explained who his medical staff serves. "We do not make distinctions about an individual's religion, race, sexual orientation, or economic status." More important, there is zero evidence that any of his ministries discriminates against anyone.

No one is to blame for these attacks on Graham more than New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio. When he first learned of the relief efforts of Samaritan's Purse he acted as if New York had been invaded by a hostile force.

"I said immediately to my team that we had to find out exactly what was happening. Was there going to be an approach that was truly consistent with the values and the laws in New York City, that everyone would be served and served equally?" He wasn't done. "We're going to send over people from the Mayor's Office to monitor" the park facility. That is the mindset of an authoritarian.

What makes de Blasio's attack on Graham most despicable is his failure to take coronavirus seriously. His record is an utter disgrace. Consider the following.

• "While de Blasio said he will announce new restrictions on large gatherings in the coming days, leaders in other cities and states across the U.S. have already enacted measures to slow the spread of the infectious disease." [foxnews, 3-12]
• "New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio said Saturday he plans to keep schools in the country's largest school system open as long as possible, standing in stark contrast to the majority of the country's largest city school districts and governors in more than a dozen states who have shuttered their entire K-12 education systems to stem the spread of the coronavirus." [usnews, 3-14]
• "De Blasio's decision to keep New York City's schools open goes against guidance released Friday by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, which recommended that all schools close for a period of six to eight weeks, especially in states with high numbers of cases." [usnews, 3-14]
• "New York City is one of the few large school districts left in the country that has yet to cancel classes due to the coronavirus outbreak and the teachers that run the classroom say they're 'furious,' according to Facebook posts and statements from the teachers themselves." [nbcnews, 3-15]
• "New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio started rebuffing any effort to close schools last week saying, 'we are going to do our damnedest to keep the schools open.' By the end of last week, the second and third largest education systems, Los Angeles and Chicago, had announced the suspension of classes. Several large states such as Florida and Ohio have announced the cancellation of classes, too. On Sunday, it was announced that Nassau and Suffolk county schools will be closed for two weeks." [nbcnews, 3-15]
• "'Because of his irresponsible decision to keep the public schools open, Mayor Bill de Blasio can no longer assure the health and safety of our students and school communities,' wrote Michael Mulgrew, president of the United Federation of Teachers, in an email to its members. 'The mayor is recklessly putting the health of our students, their families and school staff in jeopardy by refusing to close public schools.'" [nypost, 3-15]

This same delinquent mayor is now worried that someone who is sick with coronavirus may catch the "Christian virus," simply because he was attended to by one of Franklin Graham's volunteer corps of medical professionals. Is he paranoid? Or just a bigot?

De Blasio is an embarrassment. No wonder his presidential bid fell flat. Who in his right mind would want him to run anything?

Georgia Tech faces lawsuit for discriminating against MLK’s niece

Student government denied funding to club sponsoring Alveda King event because she is ‘inherently religious’ like her uncle

ATLANTA – Alliance Defending Freedom attorneys representing the Students for Life chapter at Georgia Tech filed suit in federal court Wednesday after the university’s student government denied funding for a speaking event featuring Alveda King, the niece of civil rights activist Martin Luther King, Jr., because she is “inherently religious” like her uncle.

The funding is freely available to other clubs for their events, and all students—including those with Students for Life—pay into the fund, but the student government nonetheless denied funding for the event, at which King spoke about her experience in the civil rights movement and how students can continue to protect civil rights today. King is also a former member of the Georgia House of Representatives.

“Public universities are supposed to be the marketplace of ideas, but that marketplace can’t function if a university grants funding only to student groups whose views the university favors,” said ADF Legal Counsel Caleb Dalton. “Georgia Tech’s policy allowed discrimination against Ms. King because she was accused of leading an ‘inherently religious’ life. Under such a standard, MLK himself would not be welcome on campus. The Supreme Court made it clear 20 years ago that if public universities wish to force students to pay student activity fees, then those universities have a duty to ensure that the funds are distributed in a viewpoint-neutral manner.”

In the summer of last year, Students for Life at Georgia Tech submitted a request to the Student Government Association for funding the King event out of the pool of mandatory student activity fees available for such events. Such requests are routinely “fast tracked” without any discussion, but when Students for Life club member Brian Cochrane presented his request to the graduate and undergraduate houses of the SGA, they interrogated him on the content and viewpoints that Students for Life and King would present at the event.

SGA members stated that, because King has been involved in religious ministries, her life was “inherently religious,” and they could not separate that from the event about civil rights and abortion and would thus deny the application. They expressed concern that some students may be offended by King’s presence on campus and viewpoints she had expressed.

“The student government discriminated against the viewpoints of Students for Life and Ms. King in favor of the views of students the SGA members were afraid to offend,” explained ADF Senior Counsel Tyson Langhofer, director of the ADF Center for Academic Freedom. “Rather than exemplify this sort of hostility toward the First Amendment, universities should exemplify the importance of those freedoms. When they don’t, they communicate to an entire generation that the Constitution doesn’t matter.”

ADF attorneys filed the lawsuit, Students for Life at Georgia Tech v. Regents of the University System of Georgia, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, Atlanta Division.

“Courageous student leaders across the country face real opposition from their schools because they choose to speak for the defenseless and want to peacefully educate their fellow students about it,” said Students for Life of America President Kristan Hawkins. “The Constitution is clear that public universities can’t engage in the type of discrimination that has taken place at Georgia Tech.”

Students for Life of America is a national pro-life organization dedicated to training and equipping students to lead local pro-life student groups at high schools and universities. It has more than 1,250 groups in all 50 states.

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.