The last remaining Roman Catholic adoption agency to resist Labour’s equality laws is facing closure, after the charity watchdog ruled that it could not avoid considering same-sex couples as potential parents.

Catholic Care had been given hope earlier this year that it could get around the controversial anti-discrimination rules that forced other agencies either to close down or sever their links with the church. ...

Since Labour’s homosexual rights law came into effect in January 2009, all the other 11 Catholic adoption agencies in England have either had to close down or sever their ties with the church hierarchy. Catholic Care was the last to hold out as it launched its legal bid.

The charity, which only found out the judgement was coming on Wednesday, has not yet decided whether to close its adoption service.

Labels: adoption, Catholic Church, discrimination law, gay parenting, religious liberty, United Kingdom

VOTE

A graduate student in school counseling is accusing Augusta State University in federal court of violating her constitutional rights by demanding that she work to change her views opposing homosexuality.

In a lawsuit filed on Wednesday in the U.S. District Court in Augusta, Ga., the student, Jennifer Keeton, argues that faculty members and administrators at the university have violated her First Amendment rights to free speech and the free exercise of religion by threatening her with expulsion if she does not fufill requirements contained in a remediation plan intended to get her to change her beliefs.

Ms. Keeton's lawsuit accuses the university of being "ideologically heavy-handed" in imposing the requirements on her "simply because she has communicated both inside and outside the classroom that she holds to Christian ethical convictions on matters of human sexuality and gender identity." It argues that her views, which hold that homosexual behavior is immoral and that homosexuality is a chosen lifestyle, would not interfere with her ability to provide competent counseling to gay men and lesbians.

Labels: Christianity, culture, homosexuality, professional associations, religion, religious liberty, universities

VOTE

...Briefly, describe the Michigan case, Ward v. Eastern Michigan University. What led to the lawsuit and what are the key legal issues involved?

In March 2009, Julea Ward, a student at Eastern Michigan University (EMU), was dismissed from her graduate-level counseling program when she refused to counsel a gay man about a same-sex relationship. The program, run by the University’s Department of Counseling and Education, aims to give students real world experience by requiring them to counsel several clients, who pay a small fee, over the course of a semester. After reading this client’s file, Ward asked a supervisor to refer him to another student counselor and to assign her another client. In making this request, Ward stated that her Christian beliefs about homosexuality would prevent her from affirming the client’s relationship with another man. The supervisor claimed that Ward’s refusal violated the ethical obligations of a counselor not to discriminate against clients based on sexual orientation or to impose one’s personal beliefs on clients. Based on this judgment, the school expelled Ward from the counseling program.

Ward filed suit in federal district court in the Eastern District of Michigan, alleging that the school violated her constitutional rights to free exercise of religion and freedom of speech. ...

Are we likely to see many more conscience-related disputes that involve sexual orientation? If so, how are these cases likely to be resolved?

As illustrated by the Michigan and California cases, future health care-related cases are likely to involve counseling for those clients who seek advice with respect to same-sex relationships and medical treatment on matters of fertility and reproduction. These are the areas in which some professionals who are religious may have difficulties because they do not want to facilitate or promote same-sex intimacy. In contrast, we do not expect to see cases in which medical professionals refuse to treat a patient for physical ailments or psychological problems solely on the ground of the patient’s sexual orientation.

Labels: culture, discrimination law, donor conception, gay couples, professional associations, religious liberty

VOTE

Dale McAlpine was charged with causing “harassment, alarm or distress” after a homosexual police community support officer (PCSO) overheard him reciting a number of “sins” referred to in the Bible, including blasphemy, drunkenness and same sex relationships.

The 42-year-old Baptist, who has preached Christianity in Workington, Cumbria for years, said he did not mention homosexuality while delivering a sermon from the top of a stepladder, but admitted telling a passing shopper that he believed it went against the word of God.

Police officers are alleging that he made the remark in a voice loud enough to be overheard by others and have charged him with using abusive or insulting language, contrary to the Public Order Act. ...

The Public Order Act, which outlaws the unreasonable use of abusive language likely to cause distress, has been used to arrest religious people in a number of similar cases.

Harry Hammond, a pensioner, was convicted under Section 5 of the Act in 2002 for holding up a sign saying “Stop immorality. Stop Homosexuality. Stop Lesbianism. Jesus is Lord” while preaching in Bournemouth.

Stephen Green, a Christian campaigner, was arrested and charged in 2006 for handing out religious leaflets at a Gay Pride festival in Cardiff. The case against him was later dropped.

Labels: Christianity, freedom of speech, homosexuality, religion, religious liberty, United Kingdom

VOTE

A marriage guidance counsellor's bid to challenge his sacking for refusing to give sex therapy to homosexuals has led to a serious clash between the Christian lobby and the judiciary.

In a powerful dismissal of the application to appeal, Lord Justice Laws said legislation to protect views held purely on religious grounds could not be justified. He said it was an irrational idea "but it is also divisive, capricious and arbitrary".

The former archbishop of Canterbury Lord Carey had sent a statement to a judge hearing the appeal application by Gary McFarlane. The senior church figure called for a special panel of judges with a "proven sensitivity and understanding of religious issues" to hear the case.

Lord Carey said recent court decisions involving Christians had used "dangerous" reasoning and this could lead to civil unrest.

Lord Justice Laws's ruling said: "We do not live in a society where all the people share uniform religious beliefs. The precepts of any one religion – any belief system – cannot, by force of their religious origins, sound any louder in the general law than the precepts of any other. If they did, those out in the cold would be less than citizens and our constitution would be on the way to a theocracy, which is of necessity autocratic."

Labels: Christianity, culture, discrimination law, gay couples, gay marriage, homosexuality, Marriage, professional associations, religion, religious liberty, United Kingdom

VOTE

A CHURCH of Scotland commission has raised the possibility of banning anyone who has sex outside marriage from joining the clergy.

The policy has been put forward after concerns that a ban on practising homosexuals only could breach discrimination law. ...

The document says: “The Church is not immune from the civil law in relation to issues of employment such as sex discrimination.

“The legal advisers disagree on whether it would be easier for the Church to defend a ban on all sexual relations outside marriage.

“If the Church were of one mind on the issue of homosexual practice, it might be possible to argue that the ban was a proportionate means of complying with the doctrines of our religion.”

Labels: Christianity, discrimination law, homosexuality, Marriage, religion, religious liberty

VOTE

A Christian marriage counsellor sacked for refusing to give sex advice to homosexuals had his appeal bid quashed by a top court Thursday, reigniting a row between the Anglican Church and the judiciary.

Devout Christian Gary McFarlane, 48, from Bristol, wanted permission to appeal against an employment tribunal ruling which supported his 2008 sacking.

The father of two, who had worked for the national counselling service since 2003, claimed unfair dismissal on the grounds of religious discrimination. ...

But throwing out McFarlane's case at the Court of Appeal on Thursday, Lord Justice Laws said legislation for the protection of views held purely on religious grounds could not be justified, the Press Association reported.

Laws called the idea irrational. "But it is also divisive, capricious and arbitrary," he said.

Labels: Christianity, discrimination law, gay couples, marriage counseling, professional associations, religion, religious liberty, United Kingdom

VOTE

An Irish doctor is facing possible disciplinary action because he declined to provide fertility treatment for an unmarried couple. Dr. Phil Boyle, who practices in a Catholic hospital, was questioned by the Fitness to Practice Committee about an apparent violation of the Equal Status Act, which bars discrimination based on marital status. The law offers no "conscience clause" protection. Although no action ws taken against Dr. Boyle, the couple who protested his policy may raise the issue in another legal forum.

Labels: Ireland, marital status discrimination, Marriage, out-of-wedlock births, religious liberty

VOTE

Almost two decades ago, Tashima Crudup left her grandmother's home and entered the city's foster care system, where she learned firsthand what makes a good mother. ...

In July, Crudup — a practicing Muslim — contacted Contemporary Family Services, a private company authorized by the state to place foster children with families. She cleared an initial screening process and completed 50 hours of training classes for prospective parents. But after a home visit, her application was denied.

The main reason: She doesn't allow pork in her house.

Shocked, Crudup contacted the American Civil Liberties Union of Maryland, which filed a complaint Wednesday with the Baltimore City Community Relations Commission, claiming religious discrimination.

"I have a hard time believing [the company] denies every vegetarian or Orthodox Jewish person a foster care license," said Ajmel Quereshi, an attorney with the ACLU. "But I do believe Mrs. Crudup was picked out here … and it has led us to believe an anti-Muslim bias is playing a role in the decision."

Labels: foster parenting, Islam, Maryland, parenting, religion, religious liberty

VOTE

Two national religious groups have taken up the case of a Waterville journalist nearly five months after he was fired for allegedly voicing support for the repeal of Maine’s same-sex marriage law.

Larry Grard, an 18-year veteran reporter at the Morning Sentinel, was dismissed last November after his employer discovered that he responded to an e-mail from an organization that favored same-sex marriage.

Grard said, as a Christian, he was offended by some of the rhetoric contained in an e-mail from the Human Rights Campaign of Washington, D.C., that blamed the outcome of Maine’s same-sex marriage vote on hatred of gays. Using his private e-mail account, Grard responded:

“Who are the hateful, venom-spewing ones? Hint: Not the Yes on 1 crowd. You hateful people have been spreading nothing but vitriol since this campaign began. Good riddance!”

He was fired after management at MaineToday Media, which owns the Portland Press Herald, the Kennebec Journal in Augusta and the Morning Sentinel, found out about the e-mail.

Now, Grard, who said he simply was responding to what he felt was hate speech directed at Christians, is fighting his dismissal with the help of two groups committed to preserving religious rights.

The Catholic League of New York, the nation’s largest Catholic civil rights organization, and the Christian Anti-Defamation Commission of California both are providing counsel to Grard as he pursues legal options.

Labels: culture, discrimination law, gay marriage, Maine, professional associations, religious liberty

VOTE

The dispute between the Roman Catholic Diocese of Portland and Preble Street, an area homeless agency, points out an often forgotten attribute of free speech: It often comes with a price tag.

Just because the government cannot legally restrict an individual or group from making a statement, that doesn't mean that there are no consequences when someone speaks out. When advocates working with Preble Street took a stand on the gay marriage vote last year, they faced the consequence of the agency losing a grant from Portland's Catholic Campaign for Human Development.

That's just what happened, and no one involved should have been surprised.

Critics of the decision seem to forget that CCHD is an arm of the Roman Catholic Church, a religious organization for which charity is just one way it fulfill its mission, which it defines as "spreading the Gospel of Jesus Christ." The church does not give up any of its right to determine how charitable giving fits with that mission when it determines where its money should go.

Labels: Catholic Church, gay marriage, Maine, poverty, religion, religious liberty

VOTE

The British Columbia government’s decision to test the legality of Canada’s 120-year-old polygamy law led to a shocking revelation for Karen and her two male partners. The 37-year-old Winnipeg-area mother, her husband of 15 years and a second male partner concede their arrangement is unconventional. She calls it a plural union based on equality, not religious ideas of male dominance. What she didn’t realize, until the B.C. court reference drew attention to the issue, was that they’re breaking the law by sharing a home. “This has been a real learning experience,” she says.

Karen, who doesn’t want her surname used in order to protect her children, is part of a constituency of polyamorists, one of many groups seeking standing in the B.C. Supreme Court. The case will determine if the polygamy law—Section 293 of the Criminal Code—is constitutional. It was triggered by the province’s failure to prosecute two polygamous bishops in the fundamentalist Mormon community of Bountiful, B.C., but its outcome could affect the rights of thousands.

Some 16 groups have submitted affidavits seeking permission to argue for or against 293 when a trial date is set—proving, if nothing else, that polygamy creates strange bedfellows. Some groups see the polygamy law as the foundation of the traditional family and a defence against the exploitation of girls forced into multiple marriage, as the province alleged happened in Bountiful. Others argue the law is unenforceable, does nothing to help the women of Bountiful, and that it imposes a moral code out of step with Canada’s modern, multicultural society. ...

Fromm’s group is uncomfortably in the same camp as the Canadian Polyamory Advocacy Association, which includes many gay and lesbian multiple partnerships. Vancouver lawyer John Ince, legal counsel for the group, and in a polyamorous relationship himself, says the case will determine only if plural relationships are legal. What flows from that—the rights of multiple partners to pensions, adoption or immigration sponsorship—are issues for future rulings many years, and many appeals, down the road, he said.

Labels: Canada, polyamory, polygamy, religion, religious liberty

VOTE

A Catholic adoption society has unexpectedly won a High Court battle against legislation forcing it to consider homosexual couples as parents.

Catholic Care had said it would have to give up its work finding homes for children if it was made to comply with the new anti-discrimination legislation.

The Charity Commission had rejected its plea to an exemption under the Sexual Orientation Regulations but a High Court judge this morning allowed the adoption charity's appeal.

Mr Justice Briggs, sitting in London, ordered the commission to reconsider the case in the light of the principles set out in his judgment.

Catholic Care, which serves the dioceses of Leeds, Middlesbrough, and Hallam in South Yorkshire, was the last Catholic adoption charity to continue its fight against the equality legislation.

The Roman Catholic Church lost a battle against the regulations when they were introduced in 2006.

Labels: adoption, Catholic Church, discrimination law, gay parenting, religious liberty, United Kingdom

VOTE

Employees at Catholic Charities were told Monday that the social services organization is changing its health coverage to avoid offering benefits to same-sex partners of its workers -- the latest fallout from a bitter debate between District officials trying to legalize same-sex marriage and the Catholic Archdiocese of Washington. ...

The church faced two options with the approval of the new law, said Robert Tuttle, a George Washington University professor who studies the relationship between church and state. One choice was to expand the definition of domestic partner, as the Archdiocese in San Francisco did years ago, to include a parent, sibling or someone else in the household.

The second choice was to do what the Washington Archdiocese has done: eliminate benefits for all spouses.

"For decades, the church has been at the forefront of worker benefits, so this move cuts against their understanding of social justice and health benefits to all possible," Tuttle said. "But obviously, you can see they felt there was a real conflict between those values. They feel they weren't left with much of a choice."

Labels: Catholic Church, DC, gay marriage, religious liberty

VOTE

The Archdiocese of Washington has been battling the D.C. government for the right to discriminate against gays and lesbians since D.C.’s same-sex marriage legislation got rolling last year.

One major point of contention: Once gays and lesbians are allowed to marry, the Archdiocese—which employs plenty of locals through Catholic Charities—will be required to provide health benefits to same-sex spouses, an act which it says would fly in the face of the Catholic church’s teachings on homosexuality.

The solution? No spousal benefits for anybody.

Labels: Catholic Church, DC, gay marriage, religious liberty

VOTE

On Tuesday, Cardinal Francis George, president of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, gave a talk to nearly 12,000 students and faculty at Brigham Young University in Utah. The cardinal dedicated his speech to exhorting the two faiths to defend religious freedom and their place in the public square.

“In recent years, Catholics and members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints have stood more frequently side by side in the public square to defend human life and dignity,” said Cardinal George on Tuesday morning.

The cardinal gave his presentation, “Catholics and Latter-day Saints: Partners in the Defense of Religious Freedom,” at a BYU forum on Feb. 23, at the school's Marriott Center. Receiving a standing ovation at the end of his address, Cardinal George is believed to be the highest ranking Catholic official to ever speak at the Mormon university. ...

Cardinal George also addressed the opposition that Catholics and Mormons have faced for their joint advocacy of human rights and dignity, citing the response from Proposition 8 opponents in California as an example.

Labels: Catholic Church, LDS, Proposition 8, religion, religious liberty

VOTE

The Catholic Archdiocese of Washington has ended its 80-year-old foster-care program in the District rather than license same-sex couples, the first fallout from a bitter debate over the city's move to legalize same-sex marriage.

Catholic Charities, which runs more than 20 social service programs for the District, transferred its entire foster-care program -- 43 children, 35 families and seven staff members -- to another provider, the National Center for Children and Families. Tommy Wells (D-Ward 6), the D.C. Council member who chairs the Committee on Human Services, said he didn't know of any problems with the transfer, which happened Feb. 1. ...

Catholic Charities, which receives $20 million from the city, had sounded alarms in the run-up to the council vote, saying programs serving tens of thousands of people were in danger. Being forced to recognize same-sex marriage, church officials said, could make it impossible for the church to be a city contractor because Catholic teaching opposes same-sex marriage.

The church and some experts said the city's measure has narrower exemptions for religious groups than other same-sex marriage laws across the country, particularly when it comes to requiring benefits for the same-sex partners of employees.

City officials knew of no other faith-based groups that said their city contracts were in jeopardy.

Labels: adoption, Catholic Church, DC, gay marriage, religious liberty

VOTE

Adoption is arguably one of the Christian social ministries most central to evangelical theology. It has—to a greater extent than church positions on issues such as abortion and marriage—avoided becoming entangled in politics. Until now.

A foster dad's court challenge to a Florida law banning adoption by gays and lesbians has made headlines in recent months. So has a proposed same-sex marriage law in the District of Columbia that the Catholic Archdiocese of Washington warned could force it to cancel its social service programs, including adoption.

At the federal level, U.S. Rep. Pete Stark introduced a bill in October dubbed the "Every Child Deserves a Family Act." The California Democrat's proposal immediately drew the ire of the Institutional Religious Freedom Alliance (IRF). IRF claims the proposed law could run "roughshod over the convictions of many faith-based adoption agencies" and "require every state to forbid every agency that it licenses from preferring mother-father families over gay families or single parents." ...

On the other hand, voters in Arkansas last year passed a referendum banning unmarried couples from adopting or fostering children—a direct attack on gay parenting. Gov. Mike Beebe, a Democrat and active member of an Episcopal Church, voiced concern in November that the law hinders the state's ability to recruit qualified parents.

Labels: adoption, Arkansas, Catholic Church, Christianity Today, DC, Florida, gay parenting, Marriage, religious liberty, single parenting

VOTE

...But the result seems to me to likely violate the First Amendment (though there’s no precedent precisely on point).

[1. Compelled Speech.] Photography is an art, and Huguenin is an artist. It may not be high art, but it embodies a wide range of artistic choices (especially since she says she takes a “photojournalist” approach, rather than just doing normal staged photos). And though she sells the art to its subjects, that is of course part of a long and continuing tradition in the arts, including painting and sculpture, as well as photography. Certainly many of the works protected by the First Amendment (books, newspapers, movies, and the like) were created for money and distributed for money.

Yet the New Mexico government is now telling Huguenin that she must create art works that she does not choose to create. [...]

For whatever it’s worth, Huguenin also says she exercises political judgment in deciding what to photograph (for instance, she reports that she refuses to make photographs that put horror films in a positive light, or to take photographs that positively portray abortion, pornography, or nudity, as well as same-sex marriage). I don’t think that sort of political selectivity should be required for photographers to be protected as artists, but it seems to me to highlight the scope of the artist’s judgment, and the artist’s constitutional right to exercise such judgment (just as a bookstore has the right to choose which books to stock).

Consider also a hypothetical analogy: Say that instead of Willock’s trying to hire a photographer, Willock was trying to hire a solo freelance writer (or a writer in a two-person freelancing partnership) to write materials for Willock’s (hypothetical) same-sex marriage planning company. The writer refused on the grounds that she didn’t want to promote such a company.

I take it the law would cover the writer as much as it would cover the photographer (why wouldn’t it?). Yet wouldn’t requiring writers — even writers of press releases and Web sites — to write words that express views they reject violate the First Amendment? And if not, what’s the difference between that and requiring photographers to take photographs that implicitly but strongly express views they reject? (Wedding photographs, of course, express views celebrating the event being photographed.) ...

[2. Religious Exemptions:] [And] the decision may also violate the photographer’s religious freedom rights under the New Mexico Religious Freedom Restoration Act.

Labels: discrimination law, gay marriage, New Mexico, religious liberty

VOTE

The D.C. Council voted overwhelmingly Tuesday to legalize same-sex marriage in the District, a key step in a process that could enable gay couples to marry in the nation's capital by the spring.

After months of debate, the council passed the legislation 11 to 2 after a lively discussion that elicited passionate statements from members about the historical significance of their action. ...

Council member Phil Mendelson (D-At Large), a key sponsor of the bill, said he may still "tweak" the bill to try to accommodate the [Catholic] Church before the final vote, scheduled for Dec. 15. But Mendelson and other members indicated Tuesday that they are not likely to make new broad exemptions.

"Marriage is just not about two individuals who want to marry. It requires that . . . every third party recognize that couple being married," Mendelson said. "Exemptions are a very troublesome slope because it undoes what we are trying to do here."

Susan Gibbs, a spokeswoman for the archdiocese, said that if a compromise is not reached, the Church will continue to provide services but with fewer resources, because it will no longer be able to bid on city contracts.

"We are just asking for a bill that would balance the city's interest in legalizing same-sex marriage and religious groups' interest in following their faith teachings," Gibbs said.

Other religious leaders are turning their attention to a potential court battle over whether the city should allow a public vote on whether to ban same-sex marriage.

Two weeks ago, the D.C. Board of Elections and Ethics ruled that city laws prohibit a public vote because it would discriminate against gay men and lesbians. Jackson and several other opponents have filed suit in D.C. Superior Court seeking to reverse the election board's decision. Jackson noted that last month voters in Maine overturned a same-sex marriage law that had been approved by that state's legislature.

Labels: Catholic Church, DC, discrimination law, gay marriage, religious liberty

VOTE