Exclusion of Religious Schooling from Generally Available School Choice Programs Generally Unconstitutional,
except for the training of the clergy, holds the Supreme Court.
except for the training of the clergy, holds the Supreme Court.
so long as the court makes the decision for secular reasons.
despite a school policy that generally bars teachers from doing so. (For my views on the question, see the end of the post.)
The employee argued that "her faith in God 'will protect her from COVID-19 so there is no reason to take a test.'"
What if a doctor feels a religious obligation to perform abortions, (e.g., because he believes doing so is necessary for him to be the Good Samaritan, by removing a threat to his patient's mental health)?
So the Supreme Court held this morning, though it made clear that a city could pick and choose which flags it flies, if it makes clear that the flags are its own speech.
The justices unanimously agree that the city was not endorsing the flags, and that therefore it couldn’t exclude religious organizations.
Courts are all over the map about jurisdiction, but the label isn't as important as the substance.
Some doctrinal tools to appropriately limit church autonomy.
Church autonomy coexists with state responsibility, as a matter of history and theory.
They know there are limits—but what are they?
A primer on a religious liberty issue that went from a backwater to a hot topic in the last decade.
though laws generally banning mislabeling food as “halal” (or “kosher”) violate the Establishment Clause.
The key is that they are agreements, enforceable under American law as non-religious agreements are.
"FedSoc's decision to lend legitimacy to this hate group...profoundly undermined our community's values of equity and inclusivity."
[UPDATE: Comments now work.]
Will this follow-up to the famous wedding cake case finally decide if this is mandated speech violating the First Amendment?
"Although the Air Force claims to provide a religious accommodation process, it proved to be nothing more than a quixotic quest for Plaintiff because it was 'by all accounts, ... theater.'"
N.Y. appellate court reverses the order.
H.B. 2802 would expand discrimination protections but would carve out religious institutions.
The question for the Supreme Court was not whether the policy was wise but whether it was legal.
in part because he is a citizen of Kuwait, “where ‘sexual activity outside of marriage goes against religious and cultural values’ and ‘sexual relations outside of marriage are illegal"?
Yes, says a federal court, partly because this particular challenge (to a policy “which only allowed religious exemptions for those individuals who are members of organized religions whose teachings entirely forbid vaccinations”) appears to be purely legal in nature.