GAY TRUTH

This week, Justice Clarence Thomas reminded us of this important truth: People of faith should be able to live according to their beliefs without fear of government punishment. This reminder came in Thomas’s concurrence to a denial for certiorari in a case called Davis v. Ermold. The case involved a county clerk in Kentucky, Kim Davis, who declined to issue a marriage certificate to a same-sex couple after the Obergefell v. Hodges decision nationalized same-sex marriage. While Thomas didn’t think the questions of the case were clear enough to warrant the Court’s hearing, he did think that it brought up this important reminder for all Americans. After the Obergefell decision, many were concerned that people of faith—such as Christians, Muslims, and Orthodox Jews—who believe that marriage is a union of one man and one woman would have their First Amendment rights compromised. Some brushed off this concern. But, as Justice Thomas notes, it turned out to be well warranted. “Since Obergefel

A Christian minister has filed a federal lawsuit arguing that a local “anti-discrimination” law will effectively force her to officiate same-sex “weddings.” Kristi Stokes owns Covenant Weddings, which offers marriage services as well as homilies, vows, and prayers for unions “between one biological man and one biological woman.” Represented by Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), she is suing to block an ordinance adding “sexual orientation and gender identity” to local non-discrimination rules, which she says will not only force her to unite same-sex couples but forbid her from explaining why she only believes in heterosexual unions. The ordinance penalizes violating businesses starting at $1,000 per violation, plus additional costs such as attorneys’ fees. Stokes says she has not faced such a suit yet, but realized she was in danger in December 2019, when she turned down a request to officiate a same-sex union and realized she could have been sued for doing so – despite the fact

In a controversial decision, the United States Supreme Court has held by 6-3, in Bostock v Clayton County, Georgia (No. 17–1618; June 15, 2020), that the prohibition of “sex discrimination” in the workplace in Title VII of the federal Civil Rights Act of 1964 means that an employer cannot discriminate on the basis of “sexual orientation” or “gender identity”. Both majority and minority focus strongly on the issues of how statutes should be interpreted.  In my view, the concerns expressed by the minority about the “literal” approach of the majority judgment are well-justified, as are the possible detrimental implications for religious freedom in the USA. I will also comment briefly on how similar issues would be resolved in Australia. The Facts The judgment of the Court relates to not one, but three separate claims. Without going into the details, two of these claims involve an employee dismissed on account of his homosexuality; the third involved an employee dismissed on the

Jewish leaders in the U.K. have stated that they will oppose educational authorities and not allow their schools to teach about homosexuals and other “lifestyles” that are “prohibited by the Torah.” Chinuch U.K., an organization that represents Britain’s main strictly Orthodox Jewish communities, has “issued a defiant challenge to the government by insisting their schools cannot discuss LGBT-related issues with pupils,” according to  The Jewish Chronicle . The statement was reportedly prompted by recent visits to Jewish schools by government inspectors, who made it clear that primary schools have to teach children about LGBT “equality.” In 2018, Rabbi Mordechai Rose, who is affiliated with Chinuch U.K., wrote an article explaining his concern that Orthodox Jewish schools would be closed down after having their status downgraded by government inspectors from “outstanding” to “inadequate” because “they did not prepare the students for life in secular modern Britain but for life i

The left would like every American to accept their narrative that same-sex marriage is a done deal and has been fully embraced throughout society. Of course, that narrative is nonsense. A strong majority of voters made their views on same-sex marriage quite clear by going to the polls to ensure that marriage remained the union of one man and one woman. Even after the Supreme Court ruling in Obergefell v Hodges imposing gay ‘marriage’ on the nation, a majority of Americans still believe in traditional marriage. Further, there is overwhelming public support for the concept that no American should be forced to participate in a same-sex ceremony against their deeply held beliefs. In Waco, TX Judge Dianne Hensely has been admonished by the Texas State Commission on Judicial Conduct that she must officiate same-sex ‘weddings.’ Hensely is a devout Christian who according to media reports maintains that her Christian conscience and beliefs will not allow her to perform same-sex ‘weddings.’ Sh

The Commonwealth Government has  released the second version  of its draft legislation dealing with religious discrimination issues, for further comment before it is formally introduced into the Federal Parliament in the New Year. There are a number of important changes from the previous drafts which in my view make it a much better package of amendments. But there are areas for improvement. Background Regular readers of this blog will be familiar with the background to these proposals, but for those who are not, I discussed the genesis of the currently proposed reforms, and summarised the first Exposure Draft of the  Religious Discrimination Bill  (“RDB1”), in  this post , and  this previous post , and in somewhat more detail in  this submission  to the Government. In broad terms, while the RDB1 proposed draft was a worthwhile exercise, there were a number of concerns that I (and others) had. The main ones included: the definition of “religious activity” excluding broa