W.D. N.C.: Catholic high school liable for firing teacher in same-sex marriage

W.D. N.C.: Catholic high school liable for firing teacher in same-sex marriage. The court rejected defenses based on the First Amendment—including the Ministerial Exception— Title VII, and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, among others. Religion Clause reports on the decision here. Read the decision here: Billard v. Charlotte Catholic High School(W.D. N.C., Sept. 3, 2021).

Josh on Theology Thursdays: Church, State, and COVID-19

Josh on Theology Thursdays: Church, State, and COVID-19 Yesterday I had the pleasure of joining Lutheran pastors James Smith (Trinity Episcopal and St. John’s Lutheran in Three Rivers, Michigan) and Chris Laughlin (Messiah Lutheran in Constantine, Michigan) for their “Theology Thursdays,” which they post to their congregations’ Facebook pages while we keep social distance due to COVID-19. We talked about Church and State issues during COVID-19. It was a fun conversation in a difficult time. Go here to watch the hour-long conversation.

Continue reading “Josh on Theology Thursdays: Church, State, and COVID-19”

“Sex, Drugs, and Eagle Feathers: An Empirical Study of Federal Religious Freedom Cases”

Sex, Drugs, and Eagle Feathers: An Empirical Study of Federal Religious Freedom Cases” Luke Goodrich and Rachel Busick have written this article in an upcoming issue of the Seton Hall Law Review. The authors summarize their findings: Continue reading ““Sex, Drugs, and Eagle Feathers: An Empirical Study of Federal Religious Freedom Cases””

Ind. Ct. App.: Ind. Code doesn’t prohibit sex offenders from attending church

Ind. Ct. App.: Ind. Code doesn’t prohibit sex offenders from attending church. The Indiana Lawyer reports here on Doe v. Boone County Prosecutor, No. 06A01-1612-PL-2741 (Ind. Ct. App. Oct. 24, 2017). The decision interprets a statute that prohibits sex offenders from entering a building that is “school property,” defined as any “nonprofit program or service operated to … benefit children who are at least three years of age and not yet enrolled in kindergarten.” The court decided this did not include churches. The court also mentioned that the state would not prevail under RFRA claims, though it did not analyze those claims.

“Trump Administration Set to Roll Back Birth Control Mandate”

Trump Administration Set to Roll Back Birth Control Mandate” Robert Pear of the New York Times has this report about coming exemptions to regulations under Affordable Care Act that require employers to provide coverage for contraceptives. The new exemptions allow employers or insurers that object to covering contraceptive based sincerely held religious beliefs or moral convictions. Houses of worship and similar religious employers were exempted under the Obama-era rules, but other religious organizations, including hospitals and schools, and entities that were not overtly religious but that were owned by individuals with religious objections to the coverage were required to provide the coverage. The 2014 Supreme Court decision in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby held that the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) required an exception for closely held, for-profit corporations controlled by owners who object to paying for contraceptives. In 2016 the Supreme Court considered a group of cases brought under RFRA by religious nonprofits, colleges, and schools that sought to expand the exemption as it applied to houses of worship to those groups. Zubik v. Burwell, 136 S. Ct. 1557 (2016). The Supreme Court did not decide the issue, instead remanding the case and encouraging the sides to explore alternative resolution. In May President Trump highlighted one of the groups in that consolidated case, the Little Sisters of the Poor Home for the Aged, praising the nuns who run that organization for their challenge and promising these changes allowing their objections to be accommodated.

ECFA reports on the decision here.