By Michael Peabody – Although the U.S. Supreme Court did not provide a reason for declining Huguenin’s writ, it is probably not because the Court intends to lock in the New Mexico decision or that the Supreme Court is not interested in addressing this issue at a later date. It is most likely because the Court is looking for a better case, perhaps a combination of several cases which represent different results in different jurisdictions.
Guatay, CA – A church is in high spirits after six years of litigation with the County of San Diego for abruptly shutting them down. The County agreed to confer a Minor Deviation Permit to the church, allowing them to continue operations despite having been zoned many years ago—and unknown to the church—as a country-western bar.
By James Coffin – In the United States, individuals and groups have a long history of discrimination against fellow humans.
But over many decades, legislators and judges have curtailed our freedom to negatively impact others’ lives based on our own prejudices. Such government actions have been a great blessing to the targets of discrimination.
Although anti-discrimination laws limit our freedom to say by our actions that we view certain categories of our fellow humans as inferior, unworthy or evil, they also help ensure justice for all.
By Michael Peabody – On March 25, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby Stores (transcript and audio). According to a number of court pundits, the court is expected to split with four justices on each side and the deciding vote is predicted to fall to Anthony Kennedy. Perfectly projecting the Court’s decision is not much easier than predicting a perfect NCAA March Madness bracket, but here are some potential outcomes for the case.
In a rare showing of bipartisanship, U.S. Speaker of the House of Representatives John Boehner and his predecessor, Nancy Pelosi, both Catholics, have both issued invitations for Pope Francis to address a joint session of Congress.
By Martin Surridge – When I accepted a position as a ninth and tenth-grade English teacher a little ways north of Seattle, the principal of my new public high school asked me quite good-naturedly, “Now, you won’t have a problem coming from Christian school, teaching in the public system?” I explained to her that of course I would be very respectful and professional and that I anticipated no problems, which has been true.
Citing the lack of examples where a business’ religious freedom was being violated under current law and the concept that the broadly worded bill could have unintended negative consequences, Arizona Governor Janet Brewer vetoed SB 1062 on Wednesday evening, February 26, 2014.
Arizona Bill SB 1062 is on Governor Jan Brewer’s desk where she is expected to sign it, veto it, or ignore it and let it become law by default within the next few days. This bill modifies Arizona’s 1999 Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) to permit business owners to deny service to gay customers, or potentially members of any other group, so long as they are doing it because of the religious beliefs of the owners. SB 1062 could potentially cause more harm than good.
By Michael Peabody – Parties to these kinds of disputes should be well-served if they cooperatively seek solutions by identifying and respecting those specific personal areas which are non-negotiable and cordoning them off, while respecting the freedom of the areas in between where both sides must intersect. Identifying and preserving these areas of respect and finding opportunities for accommodation is not an easy process in today’s ideologically divided world, but the results will be much more profitable for both sides than engaging in perpetual conflict in the public arena. At the same time, the religious rights of the participants on both sides to belief and practice would be honored and protected.
The United States Supreme Court has scheduled oral arguments on the Hobby Lobby case for March 25, 2014. According to SCOTUSBlog, the issue is: “Whether the [RFRA], which provides that the government ‘shall not substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion’ unless that burden is the least restrictive means to further a compelling governmental interest,…