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.
On October 8, 2019, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in two cases involving whether the antidiscrimination provisions of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 protect LGBT employees. While state laws may provide localized protection, the question of whether the protection extends nationwide has been raised by two employers who have claimed they have the right under existing Federal law to discriminate based on sexual orientation and transgender status.
The Supreme Court issued a ruling on June 3, 2019, in a case (Fort Bend County v. Davis) involving whether a court may hear a discrimination case where the plaintiff fails to raise all charges in an initial EEOC complaint. The Court found that the Title VII’s rules are procedural, not jurisdictional, and as such procedural defenses need to be raised early in a case.
Legislation that would add sex, gender identity, and sexual orientation to the Civil Rights Act of 1964 threatens women’s bodily privacy says feminist organization
The Vatican has released a document, “Religious Liberty for the Good of All,” calling for an expansion of religious liberty in the face of competing strains of religious fundamentalism and secular intolerance. While not addressing each and every conflict, the document is intended to express the relationship between civil law and religious law in the context of theology, anthropology, and political science.
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.
Over the last few decades, a religious movement has gained widespread political power with the stated intent of turning back the clock by dismantling the Establishment Clause, which requires separation of church and state.
Earlier today, California Assemblyman Evan Low (D-Campbell) withdrew a bill that would have outlaws the sale of any service, including certain forms of advertising, that were intended to change an individual’s sexuality or gender identity. Assembly Bill 2943 had already passed the Assembly and Senate and was one vote away from the governor’s desk.
“Choosing one’s faith is the most personal of choices, a matter of individual conscience. That is why we cherish it as part of our Bill of Rights. That is why Franklin Roosevelt listed as one of his four freedoms the right of everyone to worship God in his own way, everywhere in the world. And that is why people fleeing religious persecution continue to find safety in our country. All people must be free to worship as they please, or not to worship at all. It is a simple truth: There is no freedom without the freedom of religion.”
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.