The 3 - July 26, 2020

This week in The 3, featuring three stories of relevance to the Christian community, the state of Nevada will not have to change its restrictions on churches that were initiated as the result of the coronavirus, thanks to the highest court in the land.  Also, a large social media platform has announced its intention to censor therapy that results in people struggling with same-sex attraction changing.  Plus, a faith-based adoption agency in New York has received a favorable ruling from a Federal appeals court after a governmental entity tried to shut it down because of its beliefs about Biblical marriage.

U.S. Supreme Court upholds state restrictions during COVID-19 - again; this time for Nevada

For a second time, the U.S. Supreme Court has refused to lift restrictions placed on churches during the coronavirus crisis.  Just days ago, as CBN.com reports:

In a 5 to 4 ruling Friday against the request filed by Calvary Chapel Dayton Valley, the high court upheld the limit of 50 people in houses of worship due to the coronavirus pandemic.

The church, which is located east of Reno, argues that the state is treating churches unfairly compared to casinos, restaurants, and entertainment parks.

The dining and entertainment venues are allowed to open at 50% capacity, which, as the article points out, could be significantly larger than the 50 people or less allowed in churches.

Three justices wrote dissents, including the court's newest justice, Brett Kavanaugh, who wrote that he is in agreement that “courts should be very deferential to the States' line-drawing in opening businesses and allowing certain activities during the pandemic." He added, "But COVID-19 is not a blank check for a state to discriminate against religious people, religious organizations, and religious services...Nevada is discriminating against religion."

In late May, the high court had denied an emergency appeal, again by a 5-4 margin, by a California church that had challenged an order by the governor that loosened some of the restrictions on houses of worship, but still only allowed up to 25 percent of capacity, with a maximum of 100 people, according to Liberty Counsel.

Meanwhile, in California, in light of recent orders by California Governor Gavin Newsom that banned indoor worship in much of the state, The Christian Post reports that Grace Community Church in Sun Valley, pastored by John MacArthur, announced it would be meeting this past weekend.  The article quotes MacArthur as saying, "Government officials have no right to interfere in ecclesiastical matters in a way that undermines or disregards the God-given authority of pastors and elders..." The article also states:

The pastors and elders of Grace Community Church, therefore, “respectfully inform our civic leaders that they have exceeded their legitimate jurisdiction, and faithfulness to Christ prohibits us from observing the restrictions they want to impose on our corporate worship services,” he added.

The welcome to Dr. MacArthur was described as "raucous" over at Capstone Report, where these words from the sermon can be found:

“This is not a problem to be feared. This is a triumphant hour for the church to be the church,” MacArthur said. “Standing for the glory of our Lord is more important in this hour than I’ve ever known it in my life. For His glory, we will stand and meet and worship and preach the saving Gospel of Jesus Christ.”

The report says:

MacArthur read from the Book of Daniel, chapter 6 and explored the purpose of the church and the eternal condition of the lost world citing Scripture that shows the lost world does not understand the spiritual things—in fact the things of God are foolishness to the world.

MacArthur pointed out the double standard during the Coronavirus COVID-19 Pandemic.

Facebook announces ban on posts supporting sexual orientation change therapy 

It's called "gay conversion therapy," and there are many who try to make that seem like a bad thing. But, it's essentially helping a person who has experienced unwanted same-sex attraction to break free through the power of Christ.  But, Facebook apparently wants to quell any talk of it on its platform, according to an article at the CBN.com website.

A spokesperson for Facebook says, "We don't allow attacks against people based on sexual orientation or gender identity and are updating our policies to ban the promotion of conversion therapy services. We are always reviewing our policies and will continue to consult with experts and people with personal experiences to inform our approach..."  As the article points out, Facebook-owned Instagram has already banned ads for this type of therapy.

Well, perhaps Facebook would consider the testimonies of people who have been set free in Christ. CBN quoted April Lockhart from Albuquerque, New Mexico, who wrote: "I had fully believed in this lie that gets perpetuated that people don't change, they can't change, and if you try to change them, it's detrimental to their health. And I just want to say that's a lie." She added, "Nobody has the right to tell you can't be what you want to be. And I did want change. And through the power of God, the Creator of heaven and earth, this was able to happen. These days we're able to happen. These moments. And I'm a happy woman. I don't suffer depression. I don't suffer with anxiety. I don't drink myself into stupors like I used to have to."

Luis Ruiz of Orlando testified to Jesus "looking for me." He said, "I was able to find a church where they loved me. And they taught me that my identity is not my behavior. My identity was not who I thought it was. But it was a child of God. So, I stand here to say that I was a homosexual,...And now I am a child of God."

New York faith-based adoption agency receives positive ruling from Federal appeals court

New Hope Family Services is a faith-based adoption agency based in the state of New York. According to the Alliance Defending Freedom, "The New York State Office of Children and Family Services singled out the religious nonprofit for its policy prioritizing the placement of children it serves in homes with a married mother and father."  So, the office set out to close New Hope down.

A Federal district court dismissed New Hope's lawsuit against the agency, but recently, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit said the suit should not have been stopped.  ADF's website says that the 2nd Circuit...

...reversed a district court’s dismissal of New Hope’s lawsuit against New York officials seeking to shut down the provider simply for its religious beliefs about marriage. In November, at the request of Alliance Defending Freedom attorneys representing New Hope, the 2nd Circuit temporarily halted state officials from interrupting current adoption placements or mandating the closure of New Hope’s adoption program until the court had a chance to consider whether to reverse the federal district court’s decision. The case now goes back to district court for further proceedings.

It seems that the court actually went back to Justice Kennedy's majority opinion in Obergefell, stating, regarding so-called "same-sex marriage": "Indeed, the Court has suggested that differing secular and religious views in this area should be allowed to coexist. This is evident from the fact that, at the same time that the Court ruled that the Constitution does not permit government to prohibit same-sex marriage, it ‘emphasized that religions, and those who adhere to religious doctrines, may continue to advocate with utmost, sincere conviction that, by divine precepts, same-sex marriage should not be condoned.’”

The 3 - July 19, 2020

This week on The 3, featuring three stories of relevance to the Christian community, there are developments concerning a ban on singing in churches in California, where indoor worship services have been prohibited for around 8-out-of-10 residents of the state.  Plus, members of the U.S. Navy, as the result of a recent order, can not participate in indoor worship services.  And, two states recently have experienced rulings against pro-life "heartbeat" bills.

California singing ban challenged, governor enacts more restrictions

There was certainly consternation at the announcement by California health officials that singing and chanting in public settings was no longer allowed.  The law firm, Tyler and Bursch, in association with other organizations, including the American Center for Law and Justice, has challenged the edict in court, requesting, according to a press release by the law firm, "...a restraining order and injunctive relief based on the First and Fourteenth Amendments," adding, "Our clients would like to see a quick resolution, with the governor and health officers changing or modifying this wording."

The firm notes:

Since the initiation of the lockdown, restrictive mandates in the state’s health orders have been applied to houses of worship unfairly and much more aggressively than other businesses arbitrarily deemed essential, including restaurants and other gatherings. In fact, once they are allowed to reopen, this current state order does not ban singing or chanting in dine-in restaurants/bars/wineries, casinos, family entertainment centers, day camps, hotels, shopping malls, childcare centers, schools, or music, tv and film production.

In some counties of the state, indoor worship has been prohibited - this was not challenged in the lawsuit against singing, because the plaintiffs were not in counties where this was put into effect.

But, the Sacramento Bee reports on Governor Newsom's July 13 order, stating:

The order restricting indoor worship services applies to any county on the state’s COVID-19 monitoring list. On Monday, Newsom said that encompasses 80 percent of Californians.

Jonathan Keller, president of the conservative California Family Council, said Newsom’s order shows that the governor “trusts big box stores like Costco and Target more than churches and synagogues.”

In a statement, Keller said, “Coupled with last week’s ban on singing during worship services, people of faith are increasingly alarmed by Sacramento’s disregard of their constitutional rights. We have to ask ourselves: where do we draw the line?”  The article reported on some churches' disappointment in this new order.

U.S. Navy allows indoor worship

In the Faith Radio broadcast area, worship services have been allowed on Maxwell Air Force Base and at Fort Rucker for several weeks.  But, because of early concerns about outbreaks on certain U.S. Navy vessels early on in the coronavirus pandemic, Navy members were apparently not being allowed to take part in indoor worship services, according to a Daily Caller article, which said:

A memo issued July 7 by the acting assistant Secretary of Defense for the U.S. Navy sought “clarification” of earlier orders prohibiting service members from attending “indoor religious services.”

The article also states:

The follow-up memo states in part that “nothing” in the original orders “should be construed to restrict attendance at places of worship where attendees are able to appropriately apply COVID-19 transmission mitigation measures, specifically social distancing and use of face covering.”

Some Christian organizations had challenged the initial order, so that indoor worship would be allowed, prior to this new language.

Federal judges block GA, TN pro-life "heartbeat" bills

As you are probably aware, a number of states have passed bills that would ban abortion after a heartbeat is detected in an unborn child, which could be "as early as six weeks of gestation," according to a report at the WORLD Magazine website, which reported on recent decisions by Federal judges who have ruled against "heartbeat" legislation in two states.

The article says that, in the case of a Georgia law, "U.S. District Judge Steve Jones on Monday permanently ruled the state’s 2019 “heartbeat” law unconstitutional after the American Civil Liberties Union sued on behalf of pro-abortion advocates and abortion providers." And, in Tennessee, "U.S. District Judge William Campbell on Monday issued a temporary restraining order on similar protections for unborn babies in Tennessee, just hours after Republican Gov. Bill Lee signed the bill into law."  Keep in mind this is temporary; and a hearing is scheduled for July 24.

WORLD reports that eight states passed "heartbeat" bills in 2019 and all eight have been blocked by court action.

The 3 - July 12, 2020

There is encouraging court action from the highest court in the land, which handed down another victory for religious schools, this time in the area of employment practices.  Plus, it gave a charity that is operated by nuns a long-fought victory against a government mandate to provide objectionable components in its health insurance plan.  And, Virginia has a new law that could force wedding photographers to photograph same-sex weddings, and a man in that profession has challenged it.

U.S. Supreme Court follows one positive ruling for religious schools with another plus for religious schools

Recently, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a ruling in favor of the participation of religious schools in a scholarship program made available to private institutions. Another ruling favoring religious schools came down from the high court this week involving granting that type of organization's right to govern its practices toward employees.

Liberty Counsel offered on its website some information and analysis of the decision, saying:

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled 7-2 that faith-based schools have a First Amendment Free Exercise right to make employment decisions regarding religious teachers without government interference. The principles set forth in the consolidated cases of Our Lady of Guadalupe School v. Morrissey-Berru and St. James School v. Biel apply beyond teachers at a religious school.

Two teachers at separate Catholic schools who had signed employment agreements that included upholding church teachings were dismissed at the time of their annual review and filed lawsuits claiming discrimination. As Liberty Counsel points out, "The Supreme Court ruled that both schools were protected religious organizations and that the courts could not interfere with their employment decisions under the 'ministerial' exception that protects the autonomy of houses of worship and religious employers."  The website also says:

The majority opinion, authored by Justice Alito, states: “The First Amendment protects the right of religious institutions “to decide for themselves, free from state interference, matters of church government as well as those of faith and doctrine.”

Little Sisters of the Poor journey through courts may have reached end at Supreme Court

It has been a lengthy case, one among many centered on the Affordable Care Act dictates that employers, even religious ones, must provide free contraception and abortion-inducing drugs in their health care plans.  The group of charitable nuns known as Little Sisters of the Poor did not wish to violate its religious convictions by providing these components in their health insurance.  After many years of litigation, the Little Sisters have received relief from the U.S. Supreme Court.

As the Susan B. Anthony List states on its website:

Today the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of President Trump’s regulations protecting the Little Sisters of the Poor and other moral and religious objectors from the Obama-Biden HHS abortifacient drug mandate, which sought to require the Little Sisters and other entities to provide abortion-inducing drugs in their health care plans.

The article quotes SBA List President Marjorie Dannenfelser, who said, “We hope today’s victory at the Supreme Court will finally allow the Little Sisters to carry out their mission to love and serve the elderly poor without having to violate their conscience. The Sisters, along with other religious and moral objectors who conscientiously object to abortion, should never be forced to go against their consciences to provide abortion-inducing drugs in their health care plans."

Virginia photographer challenges new law that could force him to photograph same-sex wedding ceremonies

Recently, the state of Virginia passed a law called the Virginia Values Act.  A Christian photographer, concerned about perhaps being forced to create works that violate his Biblical beliefs, filed a lawsuit in association with the Alliance Defending Freedom.  CBN.com states:

Chris Herring believes the newly enacted Virginia Values Act forces him to promote same-sex marriage in defiance of his Christian convictions, according to The Virginian-Pilot.

The entrepreneur “faces an impossible choice: violate the law and risk bankruptcy, promote views against his faith, or close down,” said his attorneys at ADF. “And this was exactly what Virginia officials wanted for those who hold Chris’ religious beliefs about marriage. Legislators who passed Virginia’s law called views like Chris’ ‘bigotry’ and sought to punish them for ‘unlimited punitive damages’ to remove them from the public square.”

The CBN article says the new law, "...bans discrimination on the basis of gender identity and sexual orientation in housing, public and private employment, public accommodations, and access to credit." Herring, according to his attorney, would like to post a notice on his website regarding why he will not photograph same-sex wedding ceremonies, but he thinks that doing so may result in a stiff fine, according to CBN - "...starting at $50,000 and $100,000 for each additional violation, according to the ADF’s court documents..."  But the article notes that the attorney general is doubling down to "protect" LGBTQ individuals from so-called "discrimination," according to a spokesperson for the AG.

The 3 - July 5, 2020

There was plenty of activity from the U.S. Supreme Court during the past few days, and while the high court did offer some glimmers of hope, two rulings stand out as being disappointing for Christian groups and leaders: the rewriting of civil rights law to include sexual orientation and gender identity under a broadened definition of "sex" and ruling against a LA law requiring hospital admitting privileges for abortion doctors.  But, the court did issue a ruling allowing religious schools to participate in a Montana scholarship program.  And, it sent two Indiana pro-life laws back to an appeals court for another review.  Plus, California has banned singing in church to try to reduce the spread of the Coronavirus.

U.S. Supreme Court rules that religious schools should be eligible in choice programs

In Montana, a state program had forbidden scholarship dollars made available for students to choose private schools from going to religious schools.  According to Family Research Council, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that program to be unconstitutional.

The piece at the FRC site was written by Katherine Johnson and she said that, "More broadly, we are confident that the case sounded the death knell for Blaine Amendments, which are state constitutional provisions that prevent any public aid from being distributed to any schools with a religious affiliation," pointing out that, "Thirty-eight states have Blaine amendments that prevent religious parents and students from using tax credits to sectarian schools."  Johnson points out:

In the majority opinion, the Supreme Court noted the injustice of only allowing students who would use the tax credits towards secular schools to participate in the scholarship programs. This choice forces students to choose between their faith and educational opportunities.

After disappointment in LA case, SCOTUS makes decisions more acceptable to pro-lifers

The Supreme Court, while getting it right on religious freedom, had a chance to reverse a decision from four years ago, when the court at the time struck down a Texas law requiring doctors to have admitting privileges at a local hospital.  With two new justices and a Chief Justice who had voted in favor of that Texas law, you would think that the high court would right its wrong in a similar case out of Louisiana that came before it.

But, as the Christian Post reports, that is not the case. Here's the backstory, according to a Post article:

In 2014, Louisiana passed the Unsafe Abortion Protection Act, requiring abortion providers to have admitting privileges at a hospital within 30 miles of where they perform the procedure.

The law was blocked from taking effect and a similar law passed in Texas was struck down by the Supreme Court in a 5-3 decision in 2016 known as Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt.

Last October, the Supreme Court agreed to hear an appeal in the case and in March, oral arguments in the case were heard, with both sides holding demonstrations outside the court.

Many considered the case noteworthy since it was the first abortion-related case brought before the Supreme Court since the confirmations of Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh.

In a 5-4 decision, the court ruled against the Louisiana law, with Justice Breyer writing the majority opinion: “Those findings mirror those made in Whole Woman’s Health in every relevant respect and require the same result. We consequently hold that the Louisiana statute is unconstitutional.” The article said that Justice Thomas "authored one of the dissents to the court decision, saying that the majority was 'enjoining a perfectly legitimate state law and doing so without jurisdiction.'

Later in the week, though, the high court issued rulings in two cases out of Indiana; the Christian Post reported, "In orders issued Thursday, the high court tossed out rulings against Indiana laws requiring abortion clinic staff to show mothers an ultrasound image of their baby before an abortion is scheduled to be performed, and another requiring parental notification before an abortion is performed on an underage girl."  Those cases will now go back down to the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.  The article stated:

Indiana Right to Life President and CEO Mike Fichter said in a statement released Thursday that he was “cautiously optimistic that the ultrasound and parental notification appeals will find success in the Seventh Circuit.”

California governor to churches: no singing

State officials in California are trying to get a handle on the surge in Coronavirus cases in his state, so they have taken a rather novel approach that has a chilling effect on freedom of speech and religion - just ban singing in churches!  That's right, The Sacramento Bee reports on the state's newest set of guidelines:

Citing the risk of spreading the coronavirus, updated COVID-19 guidelines issued Wednesday by the state Department of Public Health say “places of worship must therefore discontinue singing and chanting activities.”

In previously allowing religious organizations to reopen in late May, the state merely said these institutions should “strongly consider discontinuing singing, group recitation, and other practices and performances.”

The article says:

It remains to be seen if, or how, the state or counties are expected to end singing in houses of worship. Churches were among the most aggressive institutions in pushing back on Newsom’s original stay-at-home order in mid-March. Several sued the governor to overturn the order, saying it violated their First Amendment rights, although none were successful in court.