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.
That's the issue raised by a newly filed federal lawsuit.
Four courts have recently said yes, in cases brought by conservative Muslims and Christians.
Donating to the needy, in addition to being a generally nice thing to do, is a protected First Amendment activity.
“The Very Reverend Georges F. de Laire, J.C.L., who serves as the Judicial Vicar and the Vicar for Canonical Affairs for the Diocese of Manchester, brings a defamation claim against Gary Michael Voris, Anita Carey, and St. Michael’s Media, Inc. a/k/a Church Militant.”
The defendant hospital might be violating Title VII by denying the exemption (especially since it "changed its policy in an arguably arbitrary manner")—but the employees' remedy would be to sue for damages from being fired, and not to get a preliminary injunction ordering that they not be fired.
That at least is the temporary injunction pending appeal, just issued Sunday.
Celebrate your independence with a subscription to Reason magazine, your most trusted source of honest, insightful news and analysis.
