Read: When the religious doctor refuses to treat you

The dissenters, led by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, pointed out that the distinction between a community made up of believers in the same religion and one embracing persons of diverse beliefs, clear as it is, constantly escapes the Courts attention, and wondered about religious employers who were offended by health coverage of vaccines, or equal pay for women, or medications derived from pigs, or the use of antidepressants. At the very least, there is a compelling interest in protecting access to contraceptives, which the Supreme Court has deemed a fundamental right.

In June 2020, the Court ruled in Our Lady of Guadalupe School v. Morrissey Berru that teachers at a Catholic school could not sue for employment discrimination. The two cases before the Court involved a teacher who had sued for disability discrimination after losing her job following a breast-cancer diagnosis and a teacher who had sued for age discrimination after being replaced by a younger instructor.

Previously, in Hosanna-Tabor Lutheran Evangelical Lutheran Church and School v. EEOC (2012), the Court said that a narrow exception protects religious organizations from being held liable for choices they make about their ministers, which traditionally have been considered exclusively ecclesiastical questions that the government should not second-guess. But now the Court has expanded that exception to all religious-school teachers, meaning that the schools can discriminate based on race, sex, religion, sexual orientation, age, and disability with impunity.

This reflects a Court that is likely to expand the ability of businesses to discriminate based on their owners religious beliefs. A few years ago, the Court considered in Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission whether a baker could refuse, on account of his religious beliefs, to design and bake a cake for a same-sex couple. This should be an easy decision: People should not be allowed to violate antidiscrimination laws because of religious beliefs, or any beliefs. For more than half a century, courts have consistently recognized that enforcing antidiscrimination laws is more important than protecting freedom to discriminate on account of religious beliefs. A person cannot invoke religious beliefs to refuse service or employment to Black people or women. Discrimination by sexual orientation is just as wrong. Although the justices in this case sidestepped the question of whether the free-exercise clause requires such an exemption, a number of other courts have ruled that compliance with general antidiscrimination laws might impose an impermissible burden on the free exercise of the owners religious beliefs, at least when the beliefs are Christian and the protected class includes gay and lesbian people. Moreover, the religious right has demanded that it is entitled to such exemptions.

See more here:

The Weaponization of the Free-Exercise Clause - The Atlantic

The first right stated in the First Amendment reads, Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

By Howard Sierer

It takes a lot of chutzpah to drag an organization with a name like Little Sisters of the Poor into court. The Little Sisters have served the elderly poor worldwide without regard to race or religion since 1839.

Mounting yet another attack on religious freedom, the Democratic governors of Pennsylvania and New Jersey insisted that the Little Sisters provide birth control to their employees, prohibited by their Catholic faith. The Supreme Court said no in 2016 but the governors are like puppies that refuse to let go of a sock.

They argue that its the principle of the thing. The Little Sisters would agree.

You may be surprised to learn that Obamacare legislation does not require employers to provide birth control. Instead, it only requires insurance plans to include cost-free access to preventative care of all kinds as provided for in subsequent regulations.

Unsurprisingly, the Obama administration included the birth control mandate in its regulations. The Little Sisters took their case all the way to the Supreme Court in 2016.

They pointed out that the Obama administration had grandfathered health plans that dont include birth control offered by ExxonMobil, Chevron, Visa, and PepsiCo among others along with a plan offered to the countrys military. In total, one-third of Americans had plans that did not offer contraception.

In its 2016 ruling for the Little Sisters, the court voided fines that had been levied and ordered the administration to find a compromise that respected sincere religious beliefs. The Trump administration complied, issuing a new regulation exempting employers with religious objections to contraceptives.

Claiming that the new regulation is too broad, Pennsylvania and New Jersey anti-religious zealots trotted out their previous argument that the regulation would prevent women from receiving an essential service.

That argument failed four years ago and failed again this last summer: birth control contraceptive pills, abortifacients, et al are already available to all women in any economic circumstance from a variety of sources. The federal Title X Family Planning Program is available to low-income families and all Obamacare plans include contraceptives. Nurx and Planned Parenthood will deliver them to your door.

In finding for the Little Sisters a second time, the Supreme Court stated that the administrations exemptions were issued with the proper statutory authority and that their implementation was free from procedural defects.

The Courts ruling was split 7-2 with diehard liberals Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor dissenting, once again ignoring the law and instead voting their personal preferences. Liberal justices Elena Kagan and Stephen Breyer supported the majority decision but made it clear that a future administration could reverse the regulation, inevitably sending the Little Sisters back to court a third time.

And thats exactly what Joe Biden has promised to do. I will restore the Obama-Biden policy that existed before the ruling, Biden said. This promise or threat is one of a number of clear-cut choices facing voters in November.

Ive championed religious freedom in a number of previous columns. In doing so, I reminded readers that the first right stated in the First Amendment reads, Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

Likewise, the federal executive branch cant promulgate regulations prohibiting the free exercise of religion as the Obama administration was reminded by the courts on a number of occasions. Joe Bidens promise threatens to reignite the long-standing battle between liberals and the Constitution.

The left claims to champion diversity. Im still waiting for an explanation as to why that diversity doesnt include people of faith.

Its well past time to let the Little Sisters return to their charitable work for the poor.

View post:

Whatever Happened to Religious Freedom? - The Independent | News Events Opinion More - The Independent | SUindependent.com

This week, we examine one Ninth Circuit decision exploring the extent to which the deprivation of information and statutorily-conferred powers can satisfy Article IIIs injury-in-fact requirement, and a second declining to extend the Supreme Courts decision in Janus to former union-members asserting First Amendment right not to pay agreed-upon dues.

SOUTHCENTRAL FOUNDATION v. ANTHCThe Court holds that a board of directors alleged delegation of decision-making authority to an executive committee, and a confidentiality policy that allegedly restricted the flow of information to board members, sufficed to confer Article III standing under a statute entitling plaintiff to a voting representative on the board of directors.

Panel: Judges Gould, Bea, and Murguia, with Judge Murguia writing the opinion.

Key highlight: Because we conclude that Section 325 [of the Department of the Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations Act of 1998] conferred governance and participation rights to [plaintiff], which necessarily includes an entitlement to information necessary to effectively exercise those rights, we reverse the district courts dismissal of [plaintiff]s complaint for lack of Article III standing.

Background: Congress created the Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium (the Consortium) under Section 325 of the Department of the Interior and Related Agencies Appropriation Act of 1998 to provide health services at the Alaska Native Medical Center in Anchorage, Alaska. Southcentral Foundation (Southcentral) is a nonprofit regional tribal health organization that provides health care to some 65,000 Alaska Natives as a member of the Consortium. Section 325 provides in relevant part that the Consortium shall be governed by a 15-member Board of Directors, which shall be composed of one representative of each of 13 regional tribal health organizations, including Southcentral, and two tribal representatives. The statute also provides that [e]ach member of the Board of Directors shall be entitled to cast one vote. Decisions of the Board of Directors shall be made by consensus whenever possible, and by majority vote in the event that no consensus can be reached.

Southcentral alleged that the Consortiums board, over Southcentrals objection, created an executive committee authorized to take actions without ratification by the full board. The executive committee then allegedly approved lucrative employment contracts for Consortium executives without disclosing the terms of those contracts to the full board. A few years later, the board also adopted a strict confidentiality policy that allegedly gave unidentified Consortium personnel absolute discretion to restrict information from being shared even with the Board of Directors, with a rebuttable presumption against disclosure. Southcentral sought declaratory relief that the Consortium violated Section 325 when it: (1) formed the Executive Committee and delegated the authority of the full board, and (2) erected informational barriers to board member decision-making. The district court dismissed the suit, concluding that Southcentral failed to allege an injury in fact sufficient to confer Article III standing.

Result: The Ninth Circuit reversed. The Court began by laying out the now-familiar requirements for Article III injury-in-fact: to confer standing, an injury must be particularized (affect[ing] the plaintiff in a personal and individual way) and concrete (de facto; that is, it must actually exist.). Applying that standard, the Court first addressed Southcentrals executive committee claim. The statutory language conferring governance and participation rights on representatives of each member health organization made clear that Southcentrals alleged injury was particularized and concrete, the Court reasoned, because the creation of the executive committee deprived Southcentral of precisely those express statutory powers. The Court was not convinced by the Consortiums argument that Section 325s participation rights only applied to providing health care, not management decisions, or its argument that Section 325 grants governance rights only to individual directors, rather than the organizations they represent. Because Congress endowed each specified regional health entity with the right to have a representative on the Board that stands in the shoes of the designating entity by acting on its behalf, Southcentral had alleged sufficient injury to its statutory decision-making power.

As for the confidentiality policy, the Court reached a similar conclusion. Because the Consortiums policy allegedly restricted information necessary to make decisions called for by the statute, the Court said Southcentral had adequately alleged Article III injury. In so holding, the Court rejected the Consortiums argument that to satisfy Article III, an alleged informational injury must stem from an express statutory right to receive such information. Making informed decisions requires having information, the Court reasoned. Because Southcentrals informational injury was inextricably tied to its interest in exercising its governance and participation rights under the statute, the Court concluded that Southcentral had alleged sufficient injury-in-fact. The case was remanded to the trial court for further proceedings.

BELGAU v. INSLEEThe Court holds that former union members who had agreed to allow their employer, the State of Washington, to deduct union dues even if they terminated their union membership had no First Amendment claim when that agreement was enforced.

Panel: Judges McKeown, Christen, and Harpool (W.D. Mo.), with Judge McKeown writing the opinion.

Key Highlight: We join the swelling chorus of courts recognizing that Janus does not extend a First Amendment right to avoid paying union dues.

Background: Plaintiffs were Washington state employees who had joined a union (WSFE) shortly after starting work. They had signed contracts allowing the state to deduct union dues from their paychecks. They subsequently agreed to revised contracts making their consent to the deduction of such dues irrevocable for one year.

In Janus v. American Federation of State, County, and Muni Employees, 138 S. Ct. 2448 (2018), the Supreme Court overturned longstanding precedent and held that public employers cannot automatically deduct union fees from the paycheck of nonunion employees because such deductions compel nonmembers to subsidize union speech. After Janus was issued, the plaintiffs notified their union that they no longer wanted to be members, and the union terminated their memberships. The state, however, continued to deduct their union dues until the irrevocable one-year terms for dues payment had expired.

In response, the plaintiffs filed a putative class action against various state officials and the union, pressing First Amendment claims. The district court granted summary judgment to the defendants.

Result: The Ninth Circuit affirmed. The Court began by holding that the plaintiffs constitutional claims against the union failed for lack of state action. First, the Court reasoned, the plaintiffs could not establish that the claimed constitutional deprivation resulted from the exercise of some right or privilege created by the State or by a rule of conduct imposed by the state or by a person from whom the State is responsible; rather, the source of their harm was their contract with the union, not any state statute or policy. Second, and in any event, the plaintiffs also could not establish that the party charged with the deprivation could be described in all fairness as a state actor: the union was plainly a private entity, and it had not been coerced or overseen by the state in shaping or entering the challenged agreements, nor had it acted in concert with the state. As the Court declared, Providing a machinery for implement the private agreement by performing an administrative task does not render Washington and the [union] joint actors.

The Court next turned to the plaintiffs claims against the state, holding that these likewise failed. The Court first addressed whether it had jurisdiction to consider this issue, given that the plaintiffs had sought only prospective relief and the state was no longer deducting fees from their paychecks. It determined that these claims satisfied the capable of repetition yet evading review exception to mootness, as the one-year period of fees-deductions was too short to allow full litigation, and other similarly situated employees might confront the same issue.

On the merits, the Court rejected the plaintiffs contention that the state had violated their First Amendment rights. As the Court explained, plaintiffs complained of obligations that were self-imposed rather than imposed by the State, and the First Amendment provides [no] right to disregard promises that would otherwise be enforced under state law. Although Janus had condemned the practice of automatically deducting agency fees from nonmembers who were not asked and not required to consent before the fees are deducted, the plaintiffs here had experienced no such compulsion. They had voluntarily joined the union and accepted the benefits of membership, and thus had agreed to bear the financial burdens of membership. The First Amendment, the Court held, does not prevent the State from honoring that agreement.

[View source.]

Read the rest here:

This Week at The Ninth: Informational Injury and Union Dues - JD Supra

When AT&T moved to buy CNNs parent company, Time Warner, in 2016, Mr. Trump began attacking his old friend. He did it in public, on Twitter. He also raised Mr. Zucker in a private meeting with AT&Ts then-C.E.O., Randall Stephenson, in early 2017, a comment that hasnt been previously reported.

The presidents campaign against Mr. Zucker was interpreted reasonably by Mr. Zucker as an attempt to get him fired as a condition of the merger, according to three people who spoke to AT&T and Time Warner executives at the time. But Time Warner stood by him, and Mr. Trumps Justice Department sued to stop the merger. When Mr. Stephenson finally took control of the company in 2018, he didnt fire the CNN president.

Mr. Mahlers piece noted that CNN had become more focused on American politics, an unending loop of dramatic moments, conflicts and confrontations in other words, it had become Trumpier. He also noted Mr. Zuckers strange symbiosis with Mr. Trump. But that summer, CNN fired Jeffrey Lord, a genial, silver-haired former aide to Ronald Reagan who had been Mr. Trumps most stalwart defender on the network.

And by the end of that year, the lure of ratings pulled the network in a new direction: resistance. Mr. Trumps own political theater featured regular televised confrontations with CNNs White House correspondent, Jim Acosta, a different kind of win-win. But if Mr. Trump and Mr. Zucker sometimes still seemed to be winking, their audiences arent in on the joke, and the deadly serious stakes became clear when a deranged Trump supporter mailed a bomb to CNNs New York headquarters in October 2018.

Mr. Zucker didnt respond through a spokeswoman when I asked again, five years later, whether he now regrets his role in Mr. Trumps career.

But this run, too, may be coming to an end. When I spoke to former NBC colleagues of Mr. Zucker about his tenure there, the show they brought up most often wasnt The Apprentice; it was Fear Factor, in which contestants were tossed in their underwear into a pit full of rats, among other grotesque stunts. USA Today described it as perhaps the most vile program ever to air on a major network.

Fear Factor didnt age well. The show lasted six seasons, and a revival was cut short by public backlash to a stunt in which competing sets of identical twins drank donkey semen. The public got tired of it (and that donkey stunt didnt air).

Read the original post:

Jeff Zucker Helped Create Donald Trump. That Show May Be Ending. - The New York Times

Autoplay

Show Thumbnails

Show Captions

WarrenWhat was expected to be a protest to defenda Black familytargeted with racially motivated attacks on Saturday ended up as a standoff between Black Lives Matter proponents and Donald Trump supporters.

Activistgroup Detroit Will Breathe, as well as the South Warren Alliance for Radical Movement, organized a protest for the Halls, who werevictim ofwhat Warren police say were "hate crimes" earlier this month.

During the same time, a Back the Blue rally was held across the street on Hoover Roadwith people holding Trump 2020 flags.

A Detroit Will Breathe protester argues with a Trump supporter before the March Against Racism in Warren on Sept. 19, 2020. The march in Warren occurred in response to the city called hate crimes against residents Candace Hall, her husband Eddie and their two children.(Photo: Nic Antaya, Special to The Detroit News)

"What does Trump have to do with this... because of what happened to us, why are you here doing that? If anything we should be supporting each other,"father and husband Eddie Hall said.

Tensions were high even before the march began. Profanities were yelled from both sides as protesters came face to face with each other.

At one point, a woman who Tristan Taylor, aDetroit Will Breathe organizer, said was not part of the group was walking on the Trump supporter's side and got in an altercation with supporters.

The woman was holding onto a flag while multiple men tried to take it out of her hands, pulling the woman around on the ground.

"There's a lot of things that's going on that are trying to blame each side because they want us in a civil war... we don't want to fight, we want to unite," said Ellie Seals, a Detroit woman who held a flag with the Trump supporters.

A Trump supporter improperly wears a mask while counter protestering the March Against Racism in Warren on Sept. 19, 2020. The march in Warren occurred in response to the city called hate crimes against residents Candace Hall, her husband Eddie and their two children.(Photo: Nic Antaya, Special to The Detroit News)

Warren, Michigan's third largest city by population,has long played a significant role in Metro Detroit's racial landscape. Bordering Detroit, it resisted integrated housinginto the 1970s. Among the last inner-ring suburbs to integrate, less than 3% of its population in 2000 was Black. By 2019, that population had grown to nearly 19%.

Significantly during this election season, the blue collar suburb liesin Macomb County, which Trump won by about 48,000 votes in 2016, and ishome to many so-called "Reagan Democrats," traditional Democratic voters who supported Ronald Reagan and similarly powered Trump to a narrow victory in Michigan.

As the march went on throughout main roads and residential streets in Warren on Saturday, several smaller disputes occurred. Drivers argued with protesters to get out of the streets, although the march had a police escort from state police and Warren police.

Residents came out of their homes as protesters walked by to continuously chant "Trump," to yell for demonstrators to get of their grass and to tell people to take off their masks.

"It's been uncomfortable and a little bit unsettling and kind of tense. We feel some type of way about what happened and knowing that racism is that close to home where I live is a little bit uncomfortable," said Duane Daniels, a 22-year-old Warren resident.

Protesters marched for over two hours and ended with organizers calling for a public hearing in Warren.

"We need Mayor Fouts and all the city officials in Warren to take responsibility for the perpetrating, racist policies that are created... there has to be a spectacular amount of racism that you have to have in your body to try and demonstrate against a rally defending a Black family whose house got shot up," said Taylor.

Warren Police Commissioner Bill Dwyer confirmed an altercation happened between the two groups, but the issue was resolved quickly with no injuries and no arrests.

"Overall, I thoughtit was a very peaceful protest, which obviously under the First Amendment they have that right," he said. "And our task is to maintain a safe environment for all."

About 250 people participated in the march with Detroit Will Breathe, Dwyer said.

At the end of the march, demonstrators heard from a protester that came from Portland, and the Hall family expressed appreciation for the support.

A Trump supporter yells at Detroit Will Breathe protesters before the March Against Racism in Warren on Sept. 19, 2020. The march in Warren occurred in response to the city called hate crimes against residents Candace Hall, her husband Eddie and their two children.(Photo: Nic Antaya, Special to The Detroit News)

"It's not just about me and my husband or our children but it's about each and every one of us so that we can live neighbor to neighbor... we don't believe in hate or violence or any of that, we just want to be able to live peacefully among our neighbors," said wife and mother Candace Hall.

Between September7-9, Candace and Eddie Hall's home was attacked. On Sept. 7 around 10:30 p.m. someone fired shots at the home,although the Halls said at first they thought it was fireworks.

The following Wednesday, around the same time, someone threw a large rock through the front window of the home, which had a Black Lives Matter sign. Someone also slashed the tires on the Halls car, and used a marker to draw a swastika on the vehicle, along with the inscriptions "terrorist Black Lives Matter," "not welcome," and "get the f--- out," police said.

The next day, police say they recovered six 9 mm shell casings from the Halls' home from a shooting that occurredabout 11:30 p.m. Police also have grainy video of a man slinking around the side of the Halls' house.

On Saturday, Dwyersaid there was a second incident last week, in the same neighborhood, that was believed to have been committed by the same suspect. In that case, the garage door of a home with Biden signs on the lawn was graffitied with the word "pedofile" and a rock was thrown through the window. The homeowner is white.

Dwyer said that incident wasn't racially motivated but rather appeared to be "provoked by political signs."

Dwyer said finding the man is the department's number one priority.

"We're putting all our resources into that," he said. "I feel very confident that person will be arrested very soon."

Detectives said the suspect was about 5' 8", and between 20-25 years old. He appeared to be muscular, but police said they couldn't determine his race. Because he fled on foot after each incident, Dwyer said police believe he lives in the neighborhood.

Dwyer said police are offering a $3,000 reward for information leading to the suspect's arrest. He added his detectives have alerted the FBI about the incidents, and that he plans to seek federal charges against the man once he's arrested.

Read or Share this story: https://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/local/macomb-county/2020/09/19/protest-black-family-becomes-standoff-between-detroit-breathe-and-trump-supporters/5839022002/

More:

Protest for Black family becomes clash between Detroit Will Breathe and Trump supporters - The Detroit News