U.S. Supreme Court Brings Good News with Major Ruling for Evangelist
In a major victory for the First Amendment as well as common sense, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously ruled that our client Gabe Olivier can have his day in court to challenge a city ordinance that stifles his religious freedoms.
The City of Brandon, Mississippi passed an unconstitutional ordinance that bans Gabe from sharing his faith in a public park near a popular amphitheater. It forces him to go to a remote “protest area” some 300 feet from pedestrian foot traffic, where his message can’t be heard or seen. He was arrested and fined when he refused to stay inside the tiny marked-off ”protest” zone.
Seeking relief, Gabe filed a lawsuit challenging future enforcement of the ordinance. But because of a misunderstanding of the law, the district court dismissed his claim without ever considering the merits of it, denying him his day in court.
The 9-0 decision in Olivier v. City of Brandon is a tremendous victory that rectifies this wrong, bolstering the right of Gabe and all of us to live out our faith in public. Americans should be able to rely on the judiciary to protect our constitutional rights. This decision is a victory for every American who cherishes these fundamental freedoms.
Preach It, Brother! This Supreme Court Victory
Opens Up Huge Doors to Share Your Faith
First Liberty President and CEO Kelly Shackelford and Senior Counsel Nate Kellum take a deeper look at the Supreme Court’s decision in Olivier v. City of Brandon.
They discuss the ripple effect this ruling will have for millions of Americans, ensuring every person in our country has strong legal protections when they share their faith in the public square.
Leading The Conversation | First Liberty in the News
‘Can’t Be The Standard’: NKY Church Takes ‘Shrine Zoning Fight’ to Supreme Court – Senior Counsel Jeremy Dys on CBS Local 12
Sphere Sovereignty: Limited Government & Human Flourishing – Center for Religion, Culture & Democracy Executive Director Jordan Ballor in Institute for Faith, Work & Economics
Supreme Court Allows Street Preacher’s Lawsuit – The New York Times
This City Arrested a Pro-Life Street Preacher Over His Speech – The Supreme Court Just Weighed In – Townhall
New Britain Teacher Removed from Class for Hanging Crucifix Appeals Ruling that Upheld Suspension – CT Insider
Barista Gets Roasted for Sharing Her Beliefs
A coffee shop fired a college student over a conversation in which she was asked to share her religious beliefs on marriage. On Wednesday, First Liberty filed a charge of discrimination with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.
We’re taking action to get Paige Rogers’ job restored and to hold Heine Brothers Coffee accountable for their unlawful action. We’re also asking the company to compensate Paige for the days she lost income.
Paige is a sophomore at Boyce College in Louisville, Kentucky. During her shift at the coffee shop, two coworkers asked Paige about her views on marriage, sexuality and other topics. Paige respectfully shared her Christian beliefs, understanding that while her beliefs are central to who she is, not everyone shares her outlook. Despite this, the employees took serious offense to her answers.
Heine Brothers fired Paige via text 12 days later. There was no warning or conversation, only a short explanation alleging that Paige expressed her religious beliefs in a manner that was unwelcome and offensive.
“The idea that an employer can fire an employee for simply voicing a religious belief, after being invited to do so, is chilling,” said Cliff Martin, Senior Counsel for First Liberty. “No employee should have to hide their faith in order to keep their job.”
Is It No Longer Safe to Go to Church in America?
Across America, houses of worship are being terrorized. Mobs of agitators are storming churches during their services, blocking people from entering and intimidating congregants. In our country, this isn’t just unacceptable – it’s illegal.
We’re fighting a major federal court case right now against hostile agitators who disrupted worship gatherings in Southern California. Our clients, The Mission Church and The Christian and Jewish Alliance, have suffered ongoing persecution as they seek to bring churches and synagogues together for worship and prayer.
Our clients are counting on your continued support. Winning their case could set a precedent protecting congregations and houses of worship across the country, including yours. Will you donate to First Liberty today and help us keep leading the fight to protect America’s churches?
Ohio School District Gets A+ on Religious Freedom Test
Good news for our client Shawnae Carlisle!
The Salem City School District recently got the answer right on a key religious liberty question. The district agreed to grant Shawnae a religious accommodation after previously denying her request. Now, she can take time off to observe various religious holy days in accordance with her faith.
Shawnae has been a teacher for more than 15 years and currently teaches elementary science. For her entire career, she was granted time off to observe religious holy days without any issues. In October, the superintendent rejected her request without any explanation. So, she arranged for a substitute so that she could take time off to remain true to her convictions. Afterwards, the school suspended her for five days without pay.
Now that the school has reversed course, she is no longer forced to choose between her faith and her job.
“Salem City School District’s reversal serves as a model for how all school districts should respect their religious employees,” said First Liberty Senior Counsel, Cliff Martin.
1,000+ Texas School Districts Just Failed Their Students
by Jeremy Dys, Senior Counsel
In Texas, the law allows public school districts to provide time for students and educators to pray or read the Bible or other religious texts during school.
Known as “SB11,” the statute said that school boards had to vote by March 1 whether to adopt a policy requiring schools in their district to provide a period of the school day during which students—at the direction of their parents—may pray and read their Bible or other religious text. Under the law, such religious activity would occur in a designated space, pursuant to explicit parental permission, and would never be broadcast over the school public address system.
Implementing this policy was an opportunity for school districts to show how respectful they are to the presence of religion on a public-school campus. Doing so would be a clear acknowledgement of tolerance and inclusion of religion, especially for so many students and teachers whose faith is a central part of their lives.
But most school districts missed a key opportunity to offer something of great benefit to their students and employees. The vast majority voted against implementing the measure. Only 15 out of 1,200 school districts in the Lone Star State voted in favor.
Many districts rejected the optional policy due to “data and safety concerns,” since for accountability purposes, particularly in larger schools, there would need to be a record of the students who participated in the prayer time. Apparently the “record” of students participating in biology class poses no threat, but students praying and reading religious texts does?
Other school districts across the state invoked the tired phrase, “separation of Church and State,” in order to scare school officials into enforcing a public-school campus entirely sanitized of religion. These vocal opponents of SB11 fret that respecting and tolerating the religious practices of public-school students would cause division, steal valuable instructional time, or even “squeeze in Christian religious opportunities and principles into the school day itself.”
That was the concern of one political scientist interviewed on the topic whose hand wringing revealed she hoped school officials would reject the tolerant-of-religion approach of SB11. After all, the “scientist” intoned these are “educational professionals, and they know what their principal task is, it’s to teach these students (to) prepare for adult life.”
Except that is emphatically not the duty of “educational professionals.” U.S. Supreme Court Justice James McReynolds said more than 100 years ago, it is “the natural duty of the parent to give his children education suitable to their station in life.” That may mean employing professional educators to do so, but, as Justice McReynolds recognized just two years later, “The child is not the mere creature of the state.” If he were, then perhaps “educational professionals” might determine their future.
Rather, Justice McReynolds continued, “those who nurture him and direct his destiny have the right, coupled with the high duty, to recognize and prepare him for additional obligations.” (To be clear, by “those who nurture him” Justice McReynolds meant the student’s parents.)
More recently, the U.S. Supreme Court reinforced the notion that parents drive the educational (and religious) upbringing of their students, declaring that “the right of parents ‘to direct the religious upbringing of their’ children would be an empty promise if it did not follow those children into the public school classroom.”
And, so, SB11 rested on the solid legal footing as one way of schools accommodating “the natural duty of the parent” in directing the religious upbringing of their children. Can we not tolerate a few moments for students to center themselves through prayer and the reading of their religious text and adopt a policy that supports it?
A state-enforced secularism lacks neutrality to one of the most central aspects of the human condition: religion. Wouldn’t a welcoming, tolerant public school recognize the important place religion holds in the lives of students across the State of Texas?
In Kennedy v. Bremerton School District, the Supreme Court further rejected the idea that the government must suppress private religious expression in public schools to avoid violating the Establishment Clause. The Court emphasized that the Constitution protects private religious exercise, even in a public setting.
Rather, the Court noted, “The Constitution and the best of our traditions counsel mutual respect and tolerance, not censorship and suppression, for religious and nonreligious views alike.”
Can school districts not muster “respect and tolerance” for religious views during a small portion of the public school day? That they must resort to “censorship and suppression” by demanding school boards reject the opportunity SB11 affords its parents and students reveals much about their opinion of freedom. To them, the State of Texas should enforce freedom for the secular, but never the religious.
“Respect for religious expressions”—yes, even of public-school students—“is indispensable to life in a free and diverse Republic,” said Justice Neil Gorsuch in Kennedy.
We hear a lot about “mutual respect and tolerance” for different points of view, often from school board officials and administrators themselves. School districts had the prime opportunity to show their resolve to tolerate the religious needs of their students by giving them a small period of the day to pray and read their Bible. They chose not to do so.
Many of the school districts that rejected the bill probably hoped to set an example of freedom and diversity for their students. But it seems they did quite the opposite.
Editors’ Picks | Stories Around the Nation
Speaker Mike Johnson: Separation of Church and State is ‘Misunderstood’ – Christian Post
Gov. Patrick Names Texas Select Committee on Religious Liberty – Baptist Global News
The Fourth Circuit’s Opportunity to Clarify Church Autonomy – National Review
Street Preachers Sue Chicago Over ‘Unconstitutional’ Arrests for Sharing the Gospel – Christian Post
America at 250: Celebrating Both a Birthday and a History of Religious Liberty – Catholic Review
Opinion: Is Islam a Religion? Texas is About to Answer That Question – Deseret News
 |
|
|
