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.