Today Virginia Governor Terry McAuliffe vetoed SB 1324/HB 2025, a combination First Amendment Defense Act and Pastor Protection Act that would have allowed religion to be used as an excuse to discriminate against LGBTQ Virginians. In his veto statement, Governor McAuliffe called the bill “unconstitutional” and stated that any bill that privileges one religious belief “equates to discrimination under the guise of religious freedom.”
After the backlash Georgia faced last year when the legislature attempted to allow taxpayer-funded discrimination, it’s surprising that the state senate is willing to go down this road again. And even shocking that they made the target of discrimination youth who need adoptive and foster homes and the parents who want open their hearts to them.
Last week, Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito gave a speech to a group of Catholic lawyers that didn’t get as much attention as it should have.
Today, the Arkansas House Judiciary Committee is scheduled to hear HB 2232. Although the bill’s title claims it would it promotes “non-discrimination” and protects “religious liberty,” it would do the exact opposite.
Judge Ruth Neely, a municipal judge and part-time circuit court magistrate in Pinedale, Wyoming, has never been asked to preside over the marriage of a same-sex couple. Nonetheless, she announced that, based on her religious beliefs, she’d refuse to do so if asked. Last week the Wyoming Supreme Court formally reprimanded Judge Neely because she wouldn’t treat everyone the same way and apply the law fairly.
For the second year in a row, the Virginia General Assembly has sent the Governor “religious freedom” bill that would allow religion to be used as an excuse to discriminate. Religious freedom is a fundamental value. It guarantees us the right to believe—or not—as we see fit. But it does not give anyone the right to discriminate against others.
SB 149 gives taxpayer-funded child-placement agencies the right to refuse to provide services to children if doing so is contrary to the agency’s religious beliefs—basically providing them with a religious right to discriminate against nearly anyone.
The Supreme Court this morning announced that it is remanding and vacating the lower-court decision in Gloucester County School Board v. G.G., the first transgender-rights case that the high court had ever agreed to hear.
Gavin Grimm is the 17-year-old high-school senior at the center of the first U.S. Supreme Court case on the civil rights of transgender persons. At issue: Whether a provision in federal law known as Title IX, which forbids discrimination in public schools on the basis of sex, also protects transgender students who have been denied the equal use of school facilities based on their gender identity.
Organizations Work With Law Firm Hogan Lovells To File Court Brief Asserting Religious Beliefs Can’t Be Used To Justify Government Discrimination Against High School Student Gavin Grimm
Donald J. Trump will address a joint session of Congress tonight and will be setting out his vision and goals for his new administration. While we don’t know the full details of what he will say, we will be watching for his comments on initiatives that may harm our LGBTQ neighbors and others in the name of religion.
On Tuesday, February 21, 20 Republican Georgia state senators dropped SB 233, a bill many are calling this year’s “religious freedom” bill. By Thursday, however, Georgia Governor Nathan Deal had already vowed to veto it. This is no real surprise considering Governor Deal vetoed a similar bill last year after it evoked large-scale opposition across the state and the country as well as threats of boycotts.
UPDATE: On Thursday, February 23, 2017, Americans United filed a friend-of-the-court brief in this case arguing that a hospital should not be able to take away employee pensions just because it's religiously affiliated. You can read the brief here. This post originally appeared on December 5.
From our Wall of Separation blog:
On Friday, the Supreme Court agreed to hear three cases that could affect hundreds of thousands of employees nationwide. The cases— Dignity Health v. Rollins (Ninth Circuit), St. Peter’s Healthcare System v. Kaplan (Third Circuit), and Advocate Healthcare Network v. Stapleton (Seventh Circuit)— deal with the federal Employee Retirement Income Security Act, better known as ERISA. Many people’s eyes gloss over at the mere mention of ERISA, but here’s why we have been working on these cases, and why you should pay attention.
ERISA protects the retirement savings, and hence the financial security, of tens of millions of employees nationwide. The law requires that if an employer offers a pension plan, it must meet certain basic standards. These include, among others, (1) adequately funding the pension plan (to ensure that there is money available to pay the benefits promised to employees when those employees actually retire), (2) informing employees of key information about the plan (so that the employees will know whether the plan is adequately funded and precisely what it covers), and (3) insuring the plan (again, to ensure that the money is there when the employees need it). ERISA assures that the employer’s promises of guaranteed pension benefits will be met, allowing people to reliably plan for their retirement. And because of those guarantees, employees who receive pension plans treat those plans as a form of compensation: The benefits inform employees’ choices about where to work and how to negotiate their wages.
As important as ERISA is, however, Congress exempted houses of worship from its requirements. ERISA involves governmental regulation of employers’ finances and business organization, and applying it to houses of worship would raise some difficult legal questions because, as a matter of religious freedom and respect for church autonomy, the government generally does not intrude into the financial administration and management of houses of worship.
But here’s the problem: It’s not just houses of worship that have claimed the church exemption. Religiously affiliated hospitals across the country have decided that they should be entitled to be treated as churches under ERISA— and therefore have not been following ERISA’s requirements.
The upshot is that hundreds of thousands of employees of religiously affiliated hospitals—from janitors to doctors—who aren’t required to be of any particular faith and who perform overwhelmingly if not completely secular duties, aren’t getting ERISA’s protections. The hospitals promise their employees retirement benefits, which the employees depend on in planning for their futures, but then the hospitals don’t adequately fund the pension plans (meaning that there won’t be enough money to pay the employees what is due to them), and the hospitals don’t comply with legal requirements to give employees information about the plan (meaning that the employees have no notice that anything fishy is going on). Thus, it has turned out that hundreds of thousands of hard-working people across the country have traded higher wages for what they thought were better benefits. They have gone about their daily lives believing that they had ample savings for their retirement, only to find when the time comes that their employers won’t have lived up to their end of the bargain. The result: The employees have no nest egg for their retirement.
To make matters worse, religiously affiliated hospital groups are purchasing non-religiously affiliated hospitals at an incredible clip and then invoking ERISA’s church-plan exemption to defund existing employee pension plans at those hospitals, so that the employees who had, and relied on, a fully funded pension suddenly are left with nothing— and may not even be told that that’s happening.
Employees of the hospitals have been going to court to protect their legal rights to their hard-earned pensions. And in each case, Americans United has filed a friend-of-the-court brief in the federal court of appeals to explain that ERISA’s drafters intended for the church exemption to protect religious liberty by preserving church autonomy and the Constitution forbids stretching the exemption to cover religiously affiliated hospitals. As we regularly explain to the courts, claims of religious liberty cannot be used to harm innocent third parties. And that’s precisely what is happening here.
Hundreds of thousands of employees nationwide are at risk of losing hundreds of millions, if not billions, of dollars in retirement funds. And they aren’t even being told that their money is being taken away from them. That’s just wrong. When these cases are heard in the Supreme Court, we will continue working to ensure that ERISA’s narrow exemption intended to avoid having the government muck around in church finances isn’t used to strip the financial security of hospital workers across the country.
We hope that you will join us in this fight.
Follow Bradley Girard online at @BradleySGirard
Last night the Trump administration officially revoked an Obama-era guidance reminding public schools that a provision in a 1972 federal law known as Title IX prohibits discrimination against transgender students, including denying them access to the restrooms consistent with their gender identity.
Oklahoma's SB 197, a "religious freedom" bill, passed out of the Oklahoma Senate Judiciary Committee yesterday, along with two other extreme bills. This post from AU's Wall of Separation blog explains why this SB 197 and another bill that seeks to violate church-state separation are so dangerous.
Last year, the U.S. Department of Education and the U.S. Department of Justice issued guidance reminding schools that Title IX prohibits discrimination against transgender students, including denying them access to the restrooms consistent with their gender identity. Attorney General Jeff Sessions and Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos are expected to rescind this guidance.
Earlier this week, the South Dakota House Health and Human Services Committee voted 5-2 to allow child placement agencies to substitute their religious beliefs for the child’s best interest, leaving us wondering why?
Today, the Supreme Court of the state of Washington issued an important ruling, unanimously holding that a business can’t ignore the state anti-discrimination law and refuse to provide flowers for a same-sex couple’s wedding.
According to new Public Religion Research Institute analysis, a clear majority of religious Americans oppose business owners using their religious beliefs to deny goods and services to LGBTQ individuals and couples. Indeed, religious freedom gives us the freedom to believe— or not— as we see fit. It does not, however, permit anyone to use religion as an excuse to discriminate.