The 3 - July 25, 2021

This week's edition of The 3, with three stories of relevance to the Christian community, includes a court ruling against a law in California that imposes punishment for "misgendering" a person, i.e., calling that person by a pronoun other than his or her preferred one.  Plus, a man fined for preaching on the streets of London has been exonerated.  And, a Texas judge has had his religious freedom affirmed by a federal appeals court.

California "misgendering" court decision a mixed bag

At first glance, a ruling by a California court struck down a law that prevented someone from calling another person by a pronoun other than his, or her, or whatever, so-called "preferred gender" might have seemed to be a positive one.  But, as The Daily Citizen from Focus on the Family points out, look again.

But first some history - its article on the ruling says that:

In 2017, the California legislature passed SB 219, the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender (LGBT) Long-Term Care Facility Residents’ Bill of Rights. This “misgendering” law criminalized the speech of employees of such facilities who on more than one occasion use a pronoun not in keeping with a patient’s “preferred pronouns.”

A group called Taking Offense sued, and the state appeals court said that, as the Daily Citizen puts it: "...once the government starts regulating the content of speech, only the most compelling government interests will survive, and even then, only if the law is narrowly tailored to achieve those interests." That law didn't meet that standard, according to the article.

But, as the court stated, "...we recognize the State has a compelling interest in eliminating discrimination against residents of long-term care facilities. However, we conclude the pronoun provision is not narrowly tailored to achieve a compelling government objective because it burdens speech more than is required to achieve the State’s compelling objective."

So far, so good - the law is out, but...

The bottom line, according to the Daily Citizen analysis by Bruce Hausknecht: "This decision, which could still be appealed to the California Supreme Court by either side, merely faults the state legislature for going too far in criminalizing someone who violates the law. The legislature has other, less severe, options for punishing people who 'misgender' someone, the justices wrote."

British street preacher exonerated

Joshua Sutcliffe is a 31-year-old man who proclaimed the gospel on the streets of London during the COVID lockdowns. According to The Christian Post:

Sutcliffe was detained and surrounded by four police officers as he was preaching and handing out leaflets in North London’s Camden area on Good Friday last April. He was told he was in breach of COVID-19 lockdown regulations by being outdoors without a reasonable excuse.

Sutcliffe explained to the officers that he was a pastor and worship leader and was outdoors to provide charitable services. However, he was cautioned and received a fixed penalty notice of $80 (£60), according to Premier Christian News.

For $80, one could say he could pay the fine and head home. But, he challenged the ruling, and, according to the Post, the London Magistrate Court determined he was: "'not guilty' as he 'was outside and that he had a reasonable excuse as he was traveling to his place of work, as a worship leader,' said Christian Legal Centre, which supported the preacher, in a statement released Friday." The article quotes Andrea Williams, the chief executive of the Christian Legal Centre:

Christians in the U.K. have been “easy targets” for the police during the pandemic “while other groups gathering in significant numbers have been favored by the police..."

Prayers still allowed in Texas courtroom

A judge in Montgomery County, Texas, Justice of the Peace Wayne Mack, can continue to have a volunteer chaplain offer prayers in his courtroom to open sessions, according to a ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, which is allowing the practice while a lawsuit filed against the judge by the so-called Freedom from Religion Foundation progresses, according to a story at CBNNews.com.

The article says:

The legal battle over Mack's tradition of prayers in the courtroom, which has been fought for years, reached a high watermark last month when U.S. Southern District Judge Kenneth Hoyt ruled prayers before court proceedings were unconstitutional, saying they violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.

But the Fifth Circuit wrote Judge Mack "has made a strong showing that the district court erred" in siding with Freedom From Religion Foundation (FFRF) in its lawsuit against the Montgomery County judge.

CBN News adds: "In his role as Justice of the Peace, Mack, a Christian, allows the multi-faith, volunteer chaplains to open his courtroom ceremonies with a brief invocation and the pledge of allegiance in order to honor their service. Mack allows those in attendance to leave the courtroom if they do not want to participate in the prayer."

The 3 - July 18, 2021

This week's edition of The 3 includes appeals court action that was favorable to Christian student groups on a university campus who wanted to make sure their leaders affirmed the Christian faith. And, a full appeals court upheld the "ministerial exemption," giving a religious organization the right to determine its own employment policies. And, a well-known evangelistic organization has received positive action in the case of a UK city that banned signage promoting one of its events.

Appeals court finds university was wrong to prevent Christian group from selecting leaders based on faith

Christian groups at the University of Iowa have encountered a double standard at the school, and courts are attempting to straighten out the mess. The Christian Post reported that a three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit ruled in favor of InterVarsity Christian Fellowship and InterVarsity Graduate Christian Fellowship, which were not permitted by the university to choose their leaders because of Christian faith standards.

This is the second similar ruling by the appeals court - a three-judge panel had ruled earlier this year that the school unfairly discriminated against Business Leaders in Christ, "which turned away a student because the student, who was openly homosexual, did not want to adhere to the group’s statement of faith."  Interestingly enough, as the Christian Post points out, the gay student then formed a group that "requires its members and leaders to sign a ‘gay-affirming statement of Christian faith,’” according to the judge who heard the InterVarsity case.  The university did not take action against that group.

In the InterVarsity case, according to the Post:

Circuit Judge Jonathan A. Kobes authored the panel opinion, concluding that he was “hard-pressed to find a clearer example of viewpoint discrimination.”

“Of course, the University has a compelling interest in preventing discrimination. But it served that compelling interest by picking and choosing what kind of discrimination was okay,” wrote Kobes.

“Basically, some [registered student organizations] at the University of Iowa may discriminate in selecting their leaders and members, but others, mostly religious, may not. If the University honestly wanted a campus free of discrimination, it could have adopted an ‘all-comers’ policy …”

Church autonomy in hiring and firing upheld in appeals court ruling

The ability of a church or ministry organization to determine its employment criteria and practices was the key issue in a recent case before the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit recently, the totality of which reviewed a ruling by a three-judge panel of the court in the case, Demkovich v. St. Andrew the Apostle Parish. The panel had ruled against the Archdiocese, which was the defendent in the case.

Liberty Counsel reported that the court "ruled in favor of a Roman Catholic church in Chicago after a former music director sued the church when he was fired for violating Catholic doctrine and his employment agreement by entering a same-sex union. The court ruled that the First Amendment protected the church’s freedom to hire and fire the music director under the 'ministerial exemption,' and that the court had no business adjudicating claims regarding a 'hostile environment.'”

The website states:

Liberty Counsel Founder and Chairman Mat Staver said, “This court decision upholds First Amendment ‘ministerial exception’ that prevents the government from interfering with churches and religious organizations with respect to certain employment decisions. The Supreme Court also has held that these decisions regarding employment are protected under the ‘ministerial exception’ in order to safeguard the autonomy of religious organizations."

Violating religious freedom may cost the government - UK case rewards Franklin Graham and his organization

We have seen governmental entities who have been directed to pay churches for violating their religious freedom for their overreach in COVID-19 regulations. Now, in a story out of the UK, a city has admitted its wrongdoing in the promotion of an event involving evangelist Franklin Graham.

The BillyGraham.org website reported that:

The case centers on the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association’s Lancashire Festival of Hope, which took place in Blackpool, England, in 2018. Simple bus ads that read “Time for Hope” were taken down because of Franklin Graham’s religious beliefs on traditional marriage.

In April, a U.K. judge ruled that Blackpool Borough Council and Blackpool Transport Services Limited were wrong in their decision to remove the advertisements, which she determined violated the Equality Act and the Human Rights Act.

In addition to a public apology, the city agreed to pay 70,000 pounds, or over $96,000, plus "(plus an amount to cover applicable tax) to cover legal costs incurred by the Festival, and, as the BGEA says, "most significantly," 25,000 pounds, or over $34,000, in "'just satisfaction' damages," which the Association says is "a clear message that this type of treatment to Christians will not be tolerated."

Franklin Graham said, “This is an important moment for religious freedom in the U.K.,” adding, “We’re grateful to God for the final outcome of this case, and for what it will mean for churches and Christians across the U.K. in the years ahead.”

The 3 - July 11, 2021

Non-profit organizations have been making headlines, and in this edition of The 3, I share information about a Christian group that had initially been denied non-profit status, but had that denial reversed. And, a U.S. Supreme Court decision has stated that non-profits do not have to release names of their donors.  Plus, 20 state attorneys general have reached out to the Biden administration, challenging policies announced by two federal agencies regarding special considerations based on sexual orientation and gender identity.

IRS changes course, grants non-profit status to Christian group

The Internal Revenue Service a number of years ago was chastised for punishing Christian and conservative groups.  One group was the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association.  A 2012 USA Today article stated:

In a blistering letter to President Barack Obama, the Rev. Franklin Graham said the IRS targeted the two non-profits he heads with an audit last year after the organizations took out ads urging people to support biblical principles on marriage and in choosing political candidates.

In the letter, dated Tuesday, Graham said in light of recent revelations that the Internal Revenue Service targeted conservative groups with "tea party" or "patriot" in their names, he does not believe the audit was "a coincidence — or justifiable."

Does it sound like history may be repeating itself?  The BGEA publication Decision Magazine reported recently on the case of a Christian organization that had applied for 501(c)(3) non-profit status.  According to the magazine's website: 

In May, IRS Exempt Organizations Director Stephen A. Martin rejected Christian Engaged’s application to become tax-exempt, saying the group’s “Bible teachings” on abortion, marriage and other issues were primarily affiliated with the Republican Party, and therefore disqualified the organization from receiving nonprofit status.

But, there is good news - the IRS reversed that decision. Decision reported that, "Religious freedom law firm First Liberty Institute represented Christians Engaged in its appeal, and on July 7, announced that the IRS had done an about-face and had granted the organization tax-exempt status." The organization's President, Bunni Pounds, is quoted as saying, “I am incredibly thankful to the IRS for doing the right thing, and we look forward to continuing our mission of educating more followers of Jesus to pray for our nation and to be civically engaged. When we stand up, our republic works for all Americans.”

High court says non-profit organizations should not be forced to disclose donor information

And, at least at this point, based on a U.S. Supreme Court decision, Christians Engaged and other non-profit organizations will not have to disclose sensitive donor information. 

Alliance Defending Freedom reported on its website about a Michigan-based organization, the Thomas More Law Center, which has roughly 5% of its donors in California. Back in 2012, "the Attorney General’s Office began to harass the center, demanding the names and addresses of its largest financial supporters."

ADF notes that "A district court trial showed that the office leaked such information like a sieve and created a perfect target for hackers by storing confidential donor information on the internet, where the data could be easily discovered."

The case went all the way to the high court, which said, according to the Alliance, "The court determined that state governments cannot impose blanket donor-disclosure requirements forcing charities and other nonprofit organizations to disclose their donors, which would thereby subject them to the possibility of adverse treatment simply for supporting causes with which some people may disagree."

ADF Senior Counsel and Vice President of Appellate Advocacy John Bursch stated, “Potential givers to charities have good reason to fear being doxed—that is, having their public information spread for malicious purposes...Too many are quick to ostracize, lambast, and threaten those with whom they disagree. Everyone should condemn this behavior—often described as ‘cancel culture’—and we’re pleased the Supreme Court did so today.”

Over 20 state attorneys general call out Administration's LGBTQ policies

In the U.S. Supreme Court's Bostock decision, according to a ChristianHeadlines.com article, "the justices ruled that federal law prohibits discrimination in employment based on sexual orientation and gender identity."  Now, Federal agencies are apparently rushing headlong to broaden the narrow decision.

The article relates that 21 state attorneys general are pushing back against Administration attempts to apply the ruling in areas that the high court may have not intended and have sent a letter to that effect.  For instance, the AG's highlight recently released guidance in response to Bostock.  The article states:

The attorneys general letter charges that the EEOC guidance “appears to ignore” two of three “protections provided to religious employers.” Those two are Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which has “express statutory exception for religious organizations” and the First Amendment’s protections of “the employment relationship between a religious institution and its ministers,” the letter says.

The letter also notes that, according to Christian Headlines: "A Q&A on the EEOC website says that 

'use of pronouns or names that are inconsistent with an individual’s gender identity' can be 'considered harassment' in 'certain circumstances.'"

And the article notes that: "The letter also accuses the Department of Education of violating federal law related to sports and the usage of locker rooms and restrooms."  

The letter was issued on letterhead from the Tennessee Attorney General's office and included signatures from the AG's of Alabama and Georgia.  

The 3 - July 4, 2021

This week's edition of The 3 includes news from the U.S. Supreme Court, including the rejection of two cases involving a violation of God's view of sexuality, as stated in His Word: a floral designer in Washington state who would not provide creative products for a same-sex wedding ceremony has found her case rejected by the high court and the high court also rejected the case of a Virginia biological female identifying as a male who demanded that her school district accommodate her in private spaces, such as restrooms.  And, the U.S. State Department has invented a "third" gender option on passport applications. 

Floral designer's case will not be heard by high court

After around eight years of bouncing up and down the Washington state and federal court systems, Barronelle Stutzman, described as a "floral artist" on the Alliance Defending Freedom website is no closer to finding relief in the courts after the U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear her case.

As the ADF website states, a longtime customer of Stutzman's shop, Arlene's Flowers, came to the store one day with a request to provide flowers for a same-sex wedding ceremony.  The site says:

...when Rob asked her to design floral arrangements to celebrate his same-sex wedding, Barronelle knew that because of her Christian beliefs about marriage, she couldn’t agree.

So, she walked Rob to a quiet part of her shop, took his hand in her own, and gently told him why she couldn’t do what he asked. Barronelle then referred Rob to three local floral artists who she knew would do a good job. They chatted a few more minutes about Rob’s wedding plans, hugged, and then Rob left the shop.

Unfortunately, Rob's partner wrote about the encounter on social media, the Washington Attorney General got involved, and filed a lawsuit.  The Washington Supreme Court ruled against her in 2017, and that year, "Barronelle appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. It then sent her case back to the Washington Supreme Court in June 2018 after the decision in the Masterpiece Cakeshop case."  The Washington high court against ruled against her, prompting the appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, which refused to hear the case. 

High court also sides with biological female identifying as male in case involving use of private spaces

Another repeat performance at the Supreme Court occurred within the past week.  A case the high court had heard several years ago, in which it had offered a stay on a lower court action, came before the justices again, and this time, the case of a biological female identifying as male was rejected.

The Christian Post reports that:

In 2015, Grimm, born female but identifies as male, filed a lawsuit against Gloucester County Public Schools. The student claimed that policies preventing trans-identified students from using bathrooms and sex-specific changing areas that correspond with their gender identity violated Title IX civil rights law.

At issue was the preference of Grimm to use the boy’s restrooms and locker rooms, despite being biologically female.

Later that year, a federal district court judge ruled against Grimm, but a three-judge panel of the Fourth Circuit ruled in favor of the student the next year.  The Supreme Court put that ruling on hold and sent it back down to the appeals court, it went back to the district level, then to the Fourth Circuit, which ruled against the school district yet again last year; the case was turned back by the Supreme Court this past week. It is worth noting that the high school Grimm attended had actually constructed single-use restrooms in order to accommodate Grimm. 

State Department to issue "third-gender" option

More gender-related confusion is on the way, this time from the U.S. State Department, which has announced it will offer a third option on passport applications in the future.

ChristianHeadlines.com reports that:

Secretary of State Antony Blinken made the announcement in a statement, saying the change is part of the Biden administration’s commitment “to promoting the freedom, dignity, and equality of all people – including LGBTQI+ persons.”

“We will be updating our procedures to allow applicants to self-select their gender as ‘M’ or ‘F’ and will no longer require medical certification if an applicant’s self-selected gender does not match the gender on their other citizenship or identity documents,” Blinken said.

The State Department, Blinken said, has begun moving toward “adding a gender marker for non-binary, intersex, and gender non-conforming” persons applying for a passport or Consular Reports of Birth Abroad (CRBA).

This prompted Franklin Graham to post on Twitter, according to the article:

This administration seems to have declared war on common sense, & they want everyone to go along w/a lie. This is another reminder of the desperate need for Christians to PRAY for our nation & all those in leadership—whether we agree with them or not. We need God’s mercy & help.