The 3 - August 18, 2019

This week's edition of The 3 features two stories related to action in Federal district courts: one involves a ruling involving bathroom usage in favor of a former high school student who is female, but identifies as a male.  Another deals with inequities of funding of campus organizations at a California college.  Plus, the Administration has announced a new policy on protecting religious freedom of contractors who do business with the Federal government.

Appeals Court rules in favor of transgender female in bathroom flap

Gavin Grimm is a female; she identifies as male, and wanted to use the boy's restroom at her school.  The school district said "no," and Grimm filed a lawsuit - in 2015.  According to
The Christian Post, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled in favor of Grimm because of "a 2015 Obama administration guidance encouraging all public schools to allow transgender students to use facilities consistent with their gender identity."

But, in 2017, as the article points out, "The Obama-era bathroom guidance was rescinded under the Trump administration..."  The U.S. Supreme Court sent the case back to the lower appeals court, and it was relayed to the district level.

So, the case went back up the chain, and recently, a Federal district judge ruled in favor of the now-graduated Grimm.  The article says:

Judge Arenda Wright Allen, an appointee of President Barack Obama, contended in her court order that the school district violated the 14th Amendment and Title IX of education civil rights law by not allowing the biologically female student into boys' bathrooms and by refusing to change school transcripts to reflect the student's gender identity.

This is clearly another attempt to redefine sex, according to the Title IX civil rights provisions, to mean "sexual orientation" or "gender identity," granting special consideration to those identify as a gender other than their biological one.

Department of Labor announces religious freedom protections

A new rule from the Trump administration protects the religious freedom rights of Federal contractors, according to Liberty Counsel, which states on its website that, "The proposed rule by the U.S. Department of Labor’s Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs ensures that conscience and religious freedom are given the broadest protection permitted by law."

According to Liberty Counsel, "The proposal also reaffirms employers’ obligations not to discriminate on the basis of race, sex, or other protected bases and does not exempt or excuse a contractor from complying with any other requirements."

Mat Staver, Founder and Chairman of Liberty Counsel, responded by saying, "I commend the Trump administration and the Department of Labor for not discriminating against religious employers and organizations that can provide the same high-quality services as allowed by other federal contractors..."  

California university directed to address discrepancy on funding for student groups

California State University-San Marcos funds a variety of the 100 student groups on campus through mandatory student fees.  The Alliance Defending Freedom reports on its website that during the 2016-17 school years that the Gender Equity Center and the LGBQTA Pride Center received almost $300,000 for "speech and expressive activities." That's just over one-fifth of the fees that had been received. The other groups: a combined total of just over $38,000.

That same school year, "Students for Life applied for a $500 'Leadership Funding' grant to host pro-life speaker and University of North Carolina–Wilmington Professor Mike Adams to provide an alternative view" to the clear promotion of a homosexual agenda. It was denied, and Students for Life filed a lawsuit.

Recently, the university's policy was struck down by a Federal district court, referring to the school's activities as "back room deliberations."  ADF Senior Counsel Caleb Dalton stated: 

“The university spared no expense to fund the advocacy of its preferred student groups but denied funding for speakers from Students for Life. But yesterday, the district court correctly declared, ‘These “back room deliberations” are exactly the [sic] type of considerations the First Amendment is designed to prevent. Nothing prevents these officials from encouraging some views while suppressing others through cosponsorship funding.’ We’re grateful the district court has rejected this unfair and discriminatory policy as unconstitutional.”