Does the Recent Supreme Court Ruling on Sex Discrimination Threaten Religious Freedom?

In the case of Bostock v. Clayton County, the Supreme Court ruled that protections against discrimination on the basis of sex found in the 1964 Civil-Right Act apply to homosexuals and transsexuals as well. That means, for instance, a company cannot refuse to hire someone because he is gay, or transsexual. To the traditionally religious, the ruling, issued last week, raises some serious concerns. Can an Orthodox synagogue be sued for not hiring a gay rabbi? Must conservative Christian schools allow men who identify as women to live in women’s dormitories? David French believes the threat to religious liberty, although not negligible, is nowhere as grave as some fear:

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964—the same statute at issue in Bostock—contains a provision specifically designed to protect the autonomy of religious organizations. . . . It’s true that this carveout does not allow the religious organization to discriminate on other grounds (such as race or sex), but it does allow them to filter out all applicants who do not share the group’s faith.

Religious employers, [moreover], are completely exempt from nondiscrimination statutes when hiring and firing “ministerial” employees. The ministerial exception may well be the key firewall protecting church from state.

If there’s a single question I’ve received more than any other, it’s this: does Bostock mean that religious schools will now have to alter policies regarding dorm rooms or sexual conduct to comply with federal prohibitions against sexual orientation and gender identity discrimination? The short answer is no. The longer answer is nope, not unless they choose to be subject to Title IX, the federal statute that prohibits sex discrimination in federally funded educational programs and activities.

If anything, French writes, the trend in the federal jurisprudence of recent years has been to strengthen such protections for religious freedom, suggesting that these will survive new challenges as well. He concludes:

[I]t is true that in some respects religious liberty is “under siege.” There are activists and lawmakers who want to push back at multiple doctrines and some radicals even dream of revoking tax exemptions from religious organizations that maintain traditional teachings on sex and sexuality. But if the siege is real, then so is the citadel. People of faith in the United States of America enjoy more liberty and more real political power than any faith community in the developed world.

Read more at Dispatch

More about: Freedom of Religion, Homosexuality, Supreme Court, Transsexuals

 

Using the Power of the Law to Fight Anti-Semitism

Examining carefully the problem of anti-Semitism, and sympathy with jihadists, at American universities, Danielle Pletka addresses the very difficult problem of what can be done about it. Pletka avoids such simplistic answers as calling for more education and turns instead to a more promising tool: law. The complex networks of organizations funding and helping to organize campus protests are often connected to malicious states like Qatar, and to U.S.-designated terrorist groups. Thus, without broaching complex questions of freedom of speech, state and federal governments already have ample justifications to crack down. Pletka also suggests various ways existing legal frameworks can be strengthened.

And that’s not all:

What is Congress’s ultimate leverage? Federal funding. Institutions of higher education in the United States will receive north of $200 billion from the federal government in 2024.

[In addition], it is critical to understand that foreign funders have been allowed, more or less, to turn U.S. institutions of higher education into political fiefdoms, with their leaders and faculty serving as spokesmen for foreign interests. Under U.S. law currently, those who enter into contracts or receive funding to advocate for the interest of a foreign government are required to register with the Department of Justice under the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA). This requirement is embedded in a criminal statute, and a violation risks jail time. There is no reason compliance by American educational institutions with disclosure laws should not be subject to similar criminal penalties.

Read more at Commentary

More about: American law, Anti-Semitism, Israel on campus