The 3 - February 23, 2020

This week's edition of The 3 features good news for a tall cross in Pensacola, Florida, which a Federal appeals court has allowed to stand.  But, there's some bad news for delivery drivers in South Carolina who have been told they cannot pray with other employees in their facility's parking lot.  And, a Christian professor who filed a lawsuit after a student complaint for not using the proper pronouns has been denied his day in court.

Cross in Pensacola park can stay, according to appeals court

Back in 2018, a panel of the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals rendered a decision that a 34-foot cross in Pensacola's Bayview Park had to be removed due to Establishment Clause concerns. The Christian Post reports that a panel of the same circuit, in light of the U.S. Supreme Court finding that a large veterans memorial cross in Maryland was constitutional, has agreed to allow the Pensacola cross to stand.

The Post article notes that, "In September 2018, a three judge panel of the Eleventh Circuit unanimously ruled against the cross, with the panel stating that they were 'constrained' by legal precedent."  The Maryland case has apparently removed those constraints and resulted in a positive decision for the cross.

The article notes:

Becket, a religious liberty law firm that represented Bayview in the litigation, celebrated the new opinion, giving credit to the Supreme Court for their Bladensburg ruling.

“The Supreme Court has now made clear that religious symbols are an important part of our nation’s history and culture,” said Luke Goodrich, vice president and senior counsel at Becket, in a statement released Wednesday.

Prayer meetings in UPS parking lot create difficulties for drivers

Religious freedom is an issue in the bizarre case of United Parcel Service, or UPS, drivers who have found themselves at odds with their employer or without a job as the result of - prayer. Liberty Counsel reports on a story out of Myrtle Beach, SC:

In July 2019, approximately 40 UPS drivers started voluntarily praying together each morning in the parking lot prior to their shifts. The group has since grown to between 50 and 60 drivers.

Employees reported to Liberty Counsel that the center manager told a driver on January 16, 2020 that the drivers “cannot pray anymore on company property because someone else may feel discriminated against.” Then January 20, the manager told a second driver that the drivers “could no longer pray on company property because it violates others’ religious rights.” The following week, the drivers met, but did not pray. Some bowed their heads in a simple moment of silence.

Then, after a social media post that was viewed by over a thousand people, according to Liberty Counsel, "several drivers with many years’ experience who regularly participated in the prayer meetings have been fired for what appears to be pretextual reasons. Other drivers are afraid of speaking out in the wake of this firing."

The website states:

Liberty Counsel Founder and Chairman Mat Staver said, “An order that employees refrain from voluntarily praying together violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Employers are prohibited from discriminating against employees based on religion. These UPS drivers may voluntarily gather for prayer in the parking lot before they clock in for work. UPS must permit the drivers to continue praying together and reinstate the jobs of any who were fired,” said Staver.

Court drops suit filed by Christian professor over pronouns

Nicholas Meriweather is a professor at Shawnee State University in Ohio.  In 2018, a male student identifying as a female demanded that the professor use his transgender pronoun, i.e. refer to him as a woman, according to a report at The Federalist website.  Meriweather refused, the student filed a complaint, the school supported the student, and the professor went to court.  He was assisted by the Alliance Defending Freedom.

According to the article, "The court dismissed the professor’s suit for failing to effectively prove he faced discrimination for his beliefs." The article linked to the ruling from a Federal district court. The article went on to say:

The court determined, “Plaintiff’s refusal to address a student in class in accordance with the student’s gender identity does not implicate broader societal concerns and the free speech clause of the First Amendment under the circumstances of this case,” reasoning that the use of titles is not considered speech, but is conduct in violation of the university’s anti-discrimination policies. The court further determined the professor was not compelled to use speech he morally opposed, as the university gave him the option of either removing all gendered language from his classroom or addressing each student according to his or her individual preference.

The Federalist points out that:

The court rejected the professor’s religious objections, saying the reasonable-person standard would not consider using preferred pronouns as unreasonable and that the anti-discrimination policy is “neutral” and therefore not specifically affecting any religious group or belief. Most shockingly, the court upheld the university’s position that it could not accommodate the professor due to his religious objection, as it would then be required to make similar accommodations for racist or sexist views as well.

And the article also stated: "Strangely, the court determined Meriwether faced no form of discrimination for his religious beliefs after his superior openly laughed at his concerns during their meeting and compared his views to those of racists."