Follow on Twitter
Subscribe by RSS
A California Court of Appeals has ruled that a religious hospital can be liable for discrimination if it refuses to provide medical services for religious reasons without immediately providing a referral to a hospital that will accommodate the patient.
On September 16, 2019, the Arizona Supreme Court ruled 4-3 that a Phoenix city ordinance cannot require a business to create same-sex wedding invitations in violation of their sincerely held religious beliefs.
It is debatable whether a claim by a public school football coach that he is compelled by religious belief to pray at the 50-yard line following each game is a good vehicle for addressing either free exercise or workplace religious accommodation. However, it does appear that the four justices who signed onto Alito's response have concerns about the chilling effect of Hardison and Smith on the ability to even raise Title VII religious accommodation and Free Exercise Clause claims. With Patterson v. Walgreen Co., the Supreme Court has the opportunity to revisit religious accommodation claims under Title VII.
When one person’s opinions can reach the world in a matter of seconds on the Internet, the ability to speak freely is undergoing tremendous growing pains. These decisions show the Court still recognizes the rights to free speech and belief. The First Amendment remains alive and well for the time being.
Regulation of online speech is marching forward from both the left and the right, and it may only be a matter of time until free expression on the Internet becomes a thing of the past.
The Washington Supreme Court ruled last week that a Spokane fire captain met his burden of proving that his free speech rights were restricted in violation of the First Amendment. The court ruled that the burden now shifts to the employer to show that it would have taken the same action even if he had not engaged in the protected religious conduct.
In its third case on the issue of state-required speech this term, the Supreme Court has agreed to hear a California case involving whether the state can compel pro-life pregnancy counseling centers to post notices about the existence of publicly-funded abortion and contraceptive services, and requires disclosures if the centers or personnel are unlicensed.
In a narrowly drafted opinion, the Kentucky Court of Appeals has ruled that the government could not compel a Christian printer to promote messages that violated his religious beliefs.
Last Thursday, President Donald Trump marked the National Day of Prayer with an executive order that at most expressed the administration's desire that the Department of the Treasury should not unnecessarily threaten the tax-exempt status of religious non-profit organizations if they engage in political activity. Despite stating during the campaign that he would "destroy" the Johnson Amendment, the administration ultimately made a benign gesture affirming existing law while describing its parameters and limits.
Congress has two more days to act to save free speech, but in a year when the Internet has been the biggest thorn in the side of both parties, my guess is that Congress will tragically let control of ICANN slide away. The world deserves the full range of First Amendment protections of freedom of speech, freedom of the press, free exercise of religion, and other freedoms that only the United States is constitutionally obligated to maintain.