GAY TRUTH

The Story:  A recent federal appeals court ruling is a significant victory for free speech and religious freedom. The Background:  Carl and Angel Larsen are professional storytellers who use film and their artistic abilities to help their clients tell their own stories. The Larsens wanted to bring their talents to the wedding industry and use their gifts to promote their religious beliefs about marriage—but Minnesota’s government refused to let them do so. According to state officials, a Minnesota law mandates that if the Larsens tell stories that are consistent with their beliefs about marriage (i.e., that marriage is between a man and a woman), then they must tell marriage stories that violate their beliefs as well (e.g., that same-sex couples can be legitimately married). If they decline to do so, the Larsens would face steep fines and even up to 90 days in jail. The couple has challenged the law in federal court, but their case— Telescope Media Group v. Lindsey —was ini

Religious groups and employment of staff Can a Christian secondary school require that its teachers not openly advocate a sexual lifestyle that is contrary to the Bible’s teaching? Can an Orthodox Jewish preschool ask its teachers to live in accordance with Orthodox moral principles? Can a Protestant church refuse to hire someone to act on its behalf in political advocacy when that person does not share their religious beliefs? These are all issues that have come up in recent months. Two of them are dealt with in decisions in connection with judicial proceedings, one in the UK and one from the European Court of Justice . One has been raised by media reports in Australia . In this post I want to flag these three cases briefly and to comment on the issues they raise for religious freedom, and how they should be resolved.  Religious freedom and groups It is worth, however, setting out a few general principles to start with. When the language of “ human rights ” is invoke

An Alliance Defending Freedom video illustrates how wedded college students are to anti-Christian , pro-"gay" political correctness when it comes to comprehending (or not) the freedom of Americans to live by their conscience. In the ADF video , a man interviews a few students at the University of Wisconsin-Madison , long regarded as one of the most liberal campuses in America . Drawing off actual cases in the news, he first asks them if a liberal dress designer should have the right not to make dresses for First Lady Melania Trump . One by one, they quickly say yes. "Absolutely," says one young woman. Then the interviewer asks the students if a Muslim professional singer should have the right to "opt out" of performing at an Easter concert if his singing services were requested by a church. Each student says yes, the Muslim should be able to opt out so as not to be compelled to violate his beliefs. "Yeah, if that goes against your religiou

“It’s going to be an issue.” You may recall those five words that were spoken by Solicitor General Donald Verrilli in the oral arguments phase of  Obergefell v Hodges . Specifically, that sentence was Verrilli’s response to a question from Justice Alito about the tax-exempt status of private religious schools that continued to define marriage traditionally over and against the definition of the government.   Justice Alito made a salient observation: If the Obama administration’s contention was that traditional marriage laws were analogous to racial segregation, wouldn’t schools that defined marriage traditionally be in the same category as those (such as Bob Jones University in the 1990s) who continued to enforce anti-segregation campus policies (and, thus, were ineligible for tax-exempt status)? Verrilli’s response was telling; it signaled a willingness to acknowledge the latent tension in the same-sex marriage debate between the advance of “equality” and the preservatio