Elder Oaks speaks at Claremont on religious freedom

[Scott Lloyd]

18 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I actually didn't demand anything.

But perhaps my question wasn't clear.

You had said that individuals were suggesting/implying/asserting that people of faith need to keep their religious beliefs out of politics & government.

I agree that there are individuals making such assertions.

I had asked if you had any evidence of that happening in a substantial way?

By that I meant:  is there evidence of people not being able to bring their religious beliefs into politics/government.  To me, that would be an actual erosion of religious freedom, but I don't see that happening.

I take it that you interpreted my question differently.  And you gave me Oaks' examples of the suggestions, implications, and assertions that people have made.  Similarly the Church has been vocal about its right to have a say in politics.

 

That individuals are making such strident assertions -- and doing it loudly and often -- is reason enough for vigilance. They must be vigorously opposed, lest their extremism begins to hold sway. A stitch in time saves nine.

There's a famous poem by Pastor Martin Niemoller. Though written about the Nazi rise to power, I think it has application in principle to what we are discussing here as pertaining to the danger in being too complacent:
 

Quote

 

First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Socialist.

Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.

 

 

Edited March 30, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[thesometimesaint]

10 minutes ago, Storm Rider said:

She, the baker, sold cakes and other items to the public off the shelf.  She also had skills, which she would sell to others by baking a cake.  She determined she did not feel comfortable making a specific kind of cake for a specific kind of event.  Her feelings were based upon her constitutional right to practice her own religion.  

The couple wanting the cake could have gone to numerous other bakeries in the immediate vicinity to order a special cake for their event that did not have a religious objective and felt comfortable accepting their offer.  They specifically chose to offend this baker because of her religious convictions and feelings.  Why?  

Are you saying the the feelings and commitments of this baker are not the equivalent of the woman who feels sexually harassed?  Are you saying that the black person who feels someone is being racist should also be ignored?  I agree with you I think it is absurd, but I suspect that this is not your intention.  If we are going to respect the feelings of the woman and the black person then at least be as fair and respect the feelings of the religious woman who is just as offended as the other two classes of people. 

That bakery violated the Public Accommodations Law. She(you) can believe anything you like. She(you) don't have the right to violate the law.

That argument is fallacious on its face. She(you) don't have the right to violate the law, regardless of her(your) religious beliefs.

She(you) can have any feelings she(you) want. She is conducting a business that must comply with the law. She can feel any way she wants. She must follow the law or face the consequences.

[rockpond]

5 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

That individuals are making such strident assertions -- and doing it loudly and often -- is reason enough for vigilance. They must be vigorously opposed, lest their extremism begins to hold sway. A stitch in time saves nine.

There's a famous poem by Pastor Martin Niemoller. Though written about the Nazi rise to power, I think it has application in principle to what we are discussing here as pertaining to the danger in being too complacent:
 

 

Yes, vigilance is certainly good.

Claiming a loss of freedom when there hasn't been - would not be good.

Citing that poem is ironic considering the recent Church statement regarding hate crime legislation.

[JulieM]

17 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said:

That bakery violated the Public Accommodations Law. She(you) can believe anything you like. She(you) don't have the right to violate the law.

That argument is fallacious on its face. She(you) don't have the right to violate the law, regardless of her(your) religious beliefs.

She(you) can have any feelings she(you) want. She is conducting a business that must comply with the law. She can feel any way she wants. She must follow the law or face the consequences.

How did the court rule on this?

(I think that I remember the baker lost, correct?)

If so, I agree with the ruling and I believe the baker was wrong to refuse baking a wedding cake.

Edited March 30, 2016 by JulieM

[Scott Lloyd]

23 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Yes, vigilance is certainly good.

Claiming a loss of freedom when there hasn't been - would not be good.

Citing that poem is ironic considering the recent Church statement regarding hate crime legislation.

The Church of Jesus Christ does not uphold hate crimes.

By the way, here, for your reading pleasure, is a web page from the Beckett Fund for Religious Liberty containing a compilation of numerous cases in which freedom of religion is now or has been at stake.

Edited March 30, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[Storm Rider]

12 minutes ago, JulieM said:

If she baked and sold wedding cakes to other couples, then I believe they weren't asking her to do anything she didn't already do as a service and that wasn't already a part of her business.  

Selling a cake to a gay couple doesn't mean you support SSM.  Aren't there hotels that serve liquor and are owned by active Mormons?  Since they offer that service and sell liquor do you think this means they support or think drinking liquor is a good thing?

 

My position is that the issue is not baking a wedding cake; the issue is feelings.  Did she feel good; did she feel that an action was acceptable based upon her religious convictions?  She has clearly stated that she did not feel it was appropriate and that she had a conscientious objection to such an action.  Do we accept these types of feelings in our society?  Yes, we clearly do.  Are you saying that it is appropriate to respect the feelings of only some classes of people and ignore other classes of people?  

Our society does not allow the collective "you" to determine what one should feel; we accept the individual's word that they feel the actions of others and being forced to do an action are not acceptable.  Should we accept her feelings and conscientious objection or not?

[Jeanne]

39 minutes ago, Storm Rider said:

She, the baker, sold cakes and other items to the public off the shelf.  She also had skills, which she would sell to others by baking a cake.  She determined she did not feel comfortable making a specific kind of cake for a specific kind of event.  Her feelings were based upon her constitutional right to practice her own religion.  

The couple wanting the cakShe e could have gone to numerous other bakeries in the immediate vicinity to order a special cake for their event that did not have a religious objective and felt comfortable accepting their offer.  They specifically chose to offend this baker because of her religious convictions and feelings.  Why?  

Are you saying the the feelings and commitments of this baker are not the equivalent of the woman who feels sexually harassed?  Are you saying that the black person who feels someone is being racist should also be ignored?  I agree with you I think it is absurd, but I suspect that this is not your intention.  If we are going to respect the feelings of the woman and the black person then at least be as fair and respect the feelings of the religious woman who is just as offended as the other two classes of people. 

She is okay if she is the baker and owns her own business.  If she works for someone else...not so.  I can just see it now I told my bosses "NO" on baking any.one a cake.  I can't just pick and choose my customers who are good american citizens.  Ugh...it is all so stupid!!  The biggest stupid in all this is getting fired! 

Edited March 30, 2016 by Jeanne

[Storm Rider]

17 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said:

That bakery violated the Public Accommodations Law. She(you) can believe anything you like. She(you) don't have the right to violate the law.

That argument is fallacious on its face. She(you) don't have the right to violate the law, regardless of her(your) religious beliefs.

She(you) can have any feelings she(you) want. She is conducting a business that must comply with the law. She can feel any way she wants. She must follow the law or face the consequences.

It is interesting how the court accepts to respect the feelings of a woman who feels she is being harassed and ignores another woman who feels she is forced to doing something offensive and/or obscene.  Either feelings are respected or not, but an activist court that ignores feelings in one area and excludes them in another is the definition of being a kangaroo court, a joke, a farce.  It seems impossible to be concerned about the court systems of other nations when ours has become a joke and a political tool. 

[Buckeye]

36 minutes ago, Storm Rider said:

I think the definition of a Progressive is one who demands that their wants and desires be met first and everyone else can.....go to hades.  Their wants, their desires, their demands must be superior than and limited to solely their group.  They don't really have a concept of understanding their judgments and beliefs.  They only see what they want and are blind to everything else.  Scary. 

[Storm Rider]

1 minute ago, Jeanne said:

She is okay if she is the baker and owns her own business.  If she works for someone else...not so.  I can just see it now I told my bosses "NO" on baking any.one a cake.  I can't just pick and choose my customers who are good american citizens.  Ugh...it is all so stupid!!

The woman in Oregon owned her own business.  She was not the only baker in the area or the neighborhood.  She had a conscientious objection based on her religious feelings.  I am aware of no law that requires religious people to ignore their religion.  In fact, the nation has accepted drug use for Indians solely based on religious grounds.  Yeah, it is stupid.  It is the result of a court system that ignores laws and precedence over time in order to create new law and new precedence in order to meet their agenda.  For the most part we can rely on our court system to be fair for minor issues; but heaven forbid that the issue falls within the social objectives of Progressives.  All bets are off and the courts and do anything they want, when they want.  There are no checks and balances on an unfair, expensive court system.   

[rockpond]

20 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

The Church of Jesus Christ does not uphold hate crimes.

By the way, here, for your reading pleasure, is a web page from the Beckett Fund for Religious Liberty containing a compilation of numerous cases in which freedom of religion has been at stake.

What does that mean:  the Church does not uphold hate crimes?  I was referencing their comment against the recent Utah hate crime legislation.

I randomly picked three of the past cases on that link:  two were decided in favor of the church and the third wasn't really a matter of religious freedom.  So, based on that sampling, I'd suggest that the protections for religious freedom in the US are alive and well.

 

[CV75]

58 minutes ago, rockpond said:

By that I meant:  is there evidence of people not being able to bring their religious beliefs into politics/government.  To me, that would be an actual erosion of religious freedom, but I don't see that happening.

By that you must really mean the exercise of religious beliefs… Such freedom is eroded when they exercise their belief by voting according to secular procedure and their winning vote is not upheld by government officials on secular grounds, setting up the spike for judges to further erode such freedom by declaring the law unconstitutional on secular grounds. I think that is substantial.

[Scott Lloyd]

6 minutes ago, rockpond said:

What does that mean:  the Church does not uphold hate crimes?  I was referencing their comment against the recent Utah hate crime legislation.

 

I don't know what specifically you're referring to, but being opposed to a specific piece of legislation does not amount to being in favor of hate crimes. I wanted to make that clear, as your comment seemed to imply otherwise.

Quote

I randomly picked three of the past cases on that link:  two were decided in favor of the church and the third wasn't really a matter of religious freedom.  So, based on that sampling, I'd suggest that the protections for religious freedom in the US are alive and well.

That it would be necessary to defend religious liberty in court at all is alarming enough.

And you drew your conclusion by glancing at three cases, did you? To give a sense of magnitude, I will post the list here:

Current Cases

Health and Human Services Mandate Challenge

    Little Sisters of the Poor v. Burwell

   Ave Maria University v. Burwell

   Colorado Christian University v. Burwell

   Houston Baptist University & East Texas Baptist University v. Burwell

   EWTN v. Burwell

   Guidestone v. Burwell

   Wheaton College v. Burwell

Heffernen v. Paterson (Supreme Court – Freedom of Assembly)

Holt v. Hobbs (Supreme Court RLUIPA case)

Slockish v. U.S. Federal Highway Administration (Oregon – Sacred Native American lands)

Stormans v. Wiesman (Formerly Stormans v. Selecky) (Washington – Pharmacist conscience rights)

Central Rabbinical Congress et al. v. New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene (New York – Regulation of circumcision practices)

Oliver v. Hofmeister (Related to Jenks v. Spry) (2015 – Present)

Moussazadeh v. Texas Department of Criminal Justice (Jewish prisoner denied kosher food)

Douglas County School District v. Larue (Colorado – discriminatory Blaine Amendments)

McAllen Grace Brethren Church v. Jewell (Texas – Native American right to eagle feathers)

Trinity Lutheran Church v. Pauley (Missouri – Shredded tires for children’s playground)

Simratpal Singh v. Carter

U.S. v. Sterling 

U.S. v. Florida (Florida – Kosher prison meals)

Past Cases

ACLU-NJ v. Schundler (1998-1999)

ACLU-NJ v. Township of Wall (1999-2001)

Agostini v. Felton (1997)

Albanian Associated Fund v. Township of Wayne, NJ (2006)

Amandeep Singh v. Greenburgh Central School District (2005)

American Atheists v. Duncan, Utah (2005 – 2011)

American Atheists v. Port Authority of New York and New Jersey (2011-2014) (Ground Zero Cross)

Americans United for Separation of Church and State v. Prison Fellowship Ministries, Iowa (2006 – 2007)

Anonymous Iranian Christian Family (2000-2005)

Arizona Christian School Tuition Organization v. Winn (1997-2011)

Atheists of Florida v. City of Lakeland (2012-2013)

Bauchman v. West High School (1997)

Bear Lodge Multiple Use Association v. Babbitt and Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe, Wyoming, (1998)

Belmont Abbey College v. Burwell (2011-2014)

Benning v. Georgia (2004-2005)

Bethel World Outreach Church v. Montgomery County (2011-2013)
(Maryland – church property rights)

Big Sky Colony v. Montana Dept. of Labor and Industry (2009-2013)
(Montana – Hutterite colony)

The Boise Rescue Mission (2009-2011)
(Idaho – Ministering to homeless in a religious atmosphere)

Boy Scouts of America v. Dale (2000)

Bronx Household of Faith v. The Board of Education of the City of New York (2011)

Burwell v. Hobby Lobby (2012-2014)

Calvary Assembly of God, Wisconsin (2008)

Calvary Chapel O’Hare v. Village of Franklin Park, Ill. (1998-2003)

Cambodian Buddhist Society of Connecticut, Inc. and Pong Me v. Town of Newton Planning and Zoning Commission, Connecticut (2006)

Castle Hills First Baptist Church v. City of Castle Hills (2001-2008)

Centennial Baptist Church v. City of Sand Springs, Oklahoma (2006-2008)

Center for Inquiry v. Jones (Florida – Prison ministry, Blaine Amendment)

Chi Alpha v. Cal State (2014 – 2015) (California- Student group discrimination)
Christian Legal Society v. Martinez (2010)

Church of Christ in Hollywood v. Lady Cage-Barile (2002)

Church of Our Savior v. City of Jacksonville Beach (2014-2015)

C.L.U.B. v. City of Chicago, Illinois (2000-03)

Congregation Kol Ami v. Abington Township (1999-2005)

Cotton v. Florida Department of Corrections (2000-2003)

Cottonwood Christian Center v. City of Cypress (2000-2003)

Creatore v. Trumbull (1994-1999)

Cutter v. Wilkinson (2004)

Darling v. Bakersfield School District (2006)

EEOC v. Abercrombie (2011-2015) (Supreme Court – religious discrimination in the workplace)

EEOC v. Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School (2010-2012) (Michigan – 9-0 Supreme Court ruling on ministerial exemption)

Elane Photography (2009-2014) (New Mexico – Photographer conscience rights)

Elijah Group v. City of Leon Valley (2010-2012) (Texas – Church property rights, RLUIPA)

Elk Grove Unified School District v. Newdow (2003)

Elmbrook School District v. Doe (2012-2014)

Elsinore Christian Center v. City of Lake Elsinore (2003-2007) 

Fraternal Order of Police v. City of Newark, New Jersey (1998-1999)

Freedom Baptist Church v. Township of Middletown (2000-2002)

Freedom From Religion Foundation v. Lew (2011-2014) (Parsonage Exemption Case)

Gallart v. City of Frederick and Frederick Presbyterian Church (2001-2003)

Ganulin v. U.S. (1998-1999)

Gonzales v. O Centro Spirita (2005)

Good News Club v. Milford Central School (2000)

Greater Bible Way Temple of Jackson et al. v. City of Jackson (2007)

Greenwood Community Church v. City of Greenwood (1997-2002)

Guzzi v. Thompson, Massachusetts (2008)

Hale O Kaula v. County of Maui, Hawai’i, (2001-2005)

Haven Shores Community Church v. City of Grand Haven, Mich. (2000)

Hindu Temple Society of North America v. New York Supreme Court, NY (2004-2008)

Hinrichs v. Bosma (2006-2007)

Islamic Center of Murfreesboro v. Rutherford County (2012-2014) (Tennessee)

Freedom From Religion Foundation v. Koskinen (2013-2014) (Holy Cross Anglican Church)

Freedom From Religion Foundation vs. Weber (Montana –  Jesus war memorial honoring fallen comrades)

Hood v. Medford Township Board of Education (1999-2000)

Jasvir Singh v. France, Bikramjit Singh v. France (2004-2009)

Jenks v. Spry (Kimery v. Broken Arrow Public Schools) (2011-2012) (Oklahoma – Disabled children’s scholarship, BLAINE Amendment)

Kelo v. New London (2005)

Lighthouse Institute v. City of Long Branch (2000-2008)

Living Faith Ministries v. Camden County Improvement Authority (2005)

Living Water Church of God (dba Okemo Christian Center) v. Township of Meridian (2005)

Living Waters Bible Church v. Town of Enfield (2001-2002)

Lt. Ryan Berry v. USAF (1999)

Matter of Congregation Kol Shafar (2006)

McCreary v. ACLU (2005)

Merced v. Euless (2009)

McCullen v. Coakley (2000-2014)

Meredith v. Daniels (2012-2013) (Indiana – discriminatory Blaine Amendments)

Michele Curay-Cramer v. Ursuline Academy, et al., Delaware (2003-2007)

Missionaries of Charity v. City of Los Angeles (2001-2002)

Mitchell v. Helms (1999-2000)

Morr-Fitz v. Blagojevich (Illinois – Pharmacist conscience rights)

Moss v. Spartanburg County School District No. 7 (2009-2012)

Negusie v. Michael Mukasey, Louisiana (2008)

Newdow v. The Congress of the United States (2013-2014) (Protecting “In God We Trust”)

Norwood v. Gamble (2005)

Odgaard v. Iowa (2013-2014) (Iowa forces participation in religious ceremony)

Pleasant Grove v. Summum (2005)

The Pledge of Allegiance Cases

American Humanist Association v. Matawan-Aberdeen Regional School District (New Jersey, 2014-2015)

Doe v. Acton-Boxborough Regional School District (Massachusetts, 2011-2014)

Freedom from Religion Foundation v. Hanover School District (New Hampshire, 2007-2011)

Newdow v. Rio Linda Union School District (California, 2005-2010)

Elk Grove Unified School District v. Newdow (California, 2000-2004)

Pine Hill Zendo Inc. v. Town of Bedford Zoning Board of Appeals (2001)

Reed v. Town of Gilbert  (Supreme Court – religious speech for houses of worship)

Refuge Temple Ministries v. City of Forest Park (2000)

Rich v. Buss (2010-2014)

Richardson Matter (2005)

Rigdon v. Perry (1997)

Rocky Mountain Christian Church v. Boulder County, Colorado, (2004-2011)

Romeike v. Holder, Tennessee, (2010)

Sac and Fox Nation v. Borough of Jim Thorpe (Supreme Court – Native American burial ceremonies)

Salazar vs. Buono (2009)

Smith v. Haley (2001-2008)

Stark v. Independent School District (1995-1997)

Tagore v. Dept. of Homeland Security (2010-2014) (Texas – Sikh’s right to wear a kirpan)

Temple B’nai Sholom v. City of Huntsville, Alabama (2000-2003)

Third Church of Christ, Scientist, Washington D.C. v. District of Columbia Historical Preservation Review Board (2008-2011)

Tommy DeForest, Cullman, Alabama (2007)

Tong v. Chicago Park District (2004)

Town of Foxfield v. Archdiocese of Denver (2002-2007)

Town of Greece v. Galloway (2013-2014) (New York – Supreme Court legislative prayer case)

Unitarian Universalist Church of Akron v. City of Fairlawn, Ohio (2000-2001)

Van Orden v. Perry (2005)

Vermont Department of Corrections restrictions on religious prisoners, Vermont (2007)

Ward v. Wilbanks (2012) (Michigan – Graduate counseling student’s conscience rights)

Welch v. Cobb County (2000)

Wirzburger v. Galvin (1998-2006)

Yoder v. Morristown (2006-2013) (2008-2012)

Zelman vs. Simmons-Harris (2001)

Edited March 30, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[thesometimesaint]

29 minutes ago, JulieM said:

How did the court rule on this?

(I think that I remember the baker lost, correct?)

If so, I agree with the ruling and I believe the baker was wrong to refuse baking a wedding cake.

As best as I can remember she lost the case.

[thesometimesaint]

24 minutes ago, Storm Rider said:

It is interesting how the court accepts to respect the feelings of a woman who feels she is being harassed and ignores another woman who feels she is forced to doing something offensive and/or obscene.  Either feelings are respected or not, but an activist court that ignores feelings in one area and excludes them in another is the definition of being a kangaroo court, a joke, a farce.  It seems impossible to be concerned about the court systems of other nations when ours has become a joke and a political tool. 

Harassment has a specific legal meaning. Hurt feelings aren't it.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/harassment

[Gray]

36 minutes ago, Storm Rider said:

It is interesting how the court accepts to respect the feelings of a woman who feels she is being harassed and ignores another woman who feels she is forced to doing something offensive and/or obscene.  Either feelings are respected or not, but an activist court that ignores feelings in one area and excludes them in another is the definition of being a kangaroo court, a joke, a farce.  It seems impossible to be concerned about the court systems of other nations when ours has become a joke and a political tool. 

I'm going to claim an exemption to paying taxes. It feels obscene to me. Wish me luck!

[Scott Lloyd]

17 hours ago, Teancum said:

Talk away.  Advocate away.  Set the rules of your own religion as long as it does not harm others.  But don't expect the rest of society to buy into it nor support it just because you think your God says so.  This is fairly clear on the SSM issue.  The Church overall has lost this debate.  It can set its own rules for its own members as it clearly has. Members can seek to change the law within legal bounds.  No problem with that.  But don't cry persecution just because the majority of society disagrees with you and perhaps even ignores you. 

 

14 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

CFR that I cried persecution because somebody disagreed with me. 

In fact, I don't think I've used the word "persecution" at all on this thread for any reason.

But perhaps my memory is faulty. Do you have a quote or a link? 

Bumping for Teancum. There is an unanswered CFR on the table.

[Storm Rider]

Thanks for the definition.  Tell me, how many times are feelings operative and required to achieve any of the defined actions and responses?

Another definition is:   The definition of Sexual harassment is unwelcome words or conduct of a sexual nature that have the purpose or effect of creating an embarrassing, hostile, humiliating or offensive environment for the victim.

How many times are feelings included, if not required, in any of those actions in order for harassment to be identified?  

Using both definitions requires the feelings of the individual being harassed to be evaluated and used as prima facie evidence to make an allegation.  I am certainly not a lawyer, thank the good Lord, but we are stuck with what it is and how it is defined.  Feelings matter regardless of what others have said or alleged.  In fact, it is foundational for there to be any charge of sexual harassment. 

[CV75]

21 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

 

Current Cases

Here’s just one recent example of what can be construed as erosion: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/supreme-court-appears-divided-on-contraceptive-coverage-in-oral-arguments/2016/03/23/3d722814-f10e-11e5-a61f-e9c95c06edca_story.html?hpid=hp_rhp-more-top-stories_no-name%3Ahomepage%2Fstory

When a majority is against religion, such as when 8 of 9 regional appeals courts rule against the plaintiff religious organizations, that is erosion. No matter what the Supreme Court decides, it is clearly operating in an environment of erosion. And as you pointed out, the number of cases to defend religious freedom speaks to the secular society conditions that give secular entities the freedom to attack it, offsetting the special protection it should enjoy.

[Storm Rider]

26 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I don't know what specifically you're referring to, but being opposed to a specific piece of legislation does not amount to being in favor of hate crimes. I wanted to make that clear, as your comment seemed to imply otherwise.

That it would be necessary to defend religious liberty in court at all is alarming enough.

And you drew your conclusion by glancing at three cases, did you? To give a sense of magnitude, I will post the list here:

Current Cases

Health and Human Services Mandate Challenge

    Little Sisters of the Poor v. Burwell

   Ave Maria University v. Burwell

   Colorado Christian University v. Burwell

   Houston Baptist University & East Texas Baptist University v. Burwell

   EWTN v. Burwell

   Guidestone v. Burwell

   Wheaton College v. Burwell

Heffernen v. Paterson (Supreme Court – Freedom of Assembly)

Holt v. Hobbs (Supreme Court RLUIPA case)

Slockish v. U.S. Federal Highway Administration (Oregon – Sacred Native American lands)

Stormans v. Wiesman (Formerly Stormans v. Selecky) (Washington – Pharmacist conscience rights)

Central Rabbinical Congress et al. v. New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene (New York – Regulation of circumcision practices)

Oliver v. Hofmeister (Related to Jenks v. Spry) (2015 – Present)

Moussazadeh v. Texas Department of Criminal Justice (Jewish prisoner denied kosher food)

Douglas County School District v. Larue (Colorado – discriminatory Blaine Amendments)

McAllen Grace Brethren Church v. Jewell (Texas – Native American right to eagle feathers)

Trinity Lutheran Church v. Pauley (Missouri – Shredded tires for children’s playground)

Simratpal Singh v. Carter

U.S. v. Sterling 

U.S. v. Florida (Florida – Kosher prison meals)

Past Cases

ACLU-NJ v. Schundler (1998-1999)

ACLU-NJ v. Township of Wall (1999-2001)

Agostini v. Felton (1997)

Albanian Associated Fund v. Township of Wayne, NJ (2006)

Amandeep Singh v. Greenburgh Central School District (2005)

American Atheists v. Duncan, Utah (2005 – 2011)

American Atheists v. Port Authority of New York and New Jersey (2011-2014) (Ground Zero Cross)

Americans United for Separation of Church and State v. Prison Fellowship Ministries, Iowa (2006 – 2007)

Anonymous Iranian Christian Family (2000-2005)

Arizona Christian School Tuition Organization v. Winn (1997-2011)

Atheists of Florida v. City of Lakeland (2012-2013)

Bauchman v. West High School (1997)

Bear Lodge Multiple Use Association v. Babbitt and Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe, Wyoming, (1998)

Belmont Abbey College v. Burwell (2011-2014)

Benning v. Georgia (2004-2005)

Bethel World Outreach Church v. Montgomery County (2011-2013)
(Maryland – church property rights)

Big Sky Colony v. Montana Dept. of Labor and Industry (2009-2013)
(Montana – Hutterite colony)

The Boise Rescue Mission (2009-2011)
(Idaho – Ministering to homeless in a religious atmosphere)

Boy Scouts of America v. Dale (2000)

Bronx Household of Faith v. The Board of Education of the City of New York (2011)

Burwell v. Hobby Lobby (2012-2014)

Calvary Assembly of God, Wisconsin (2008)

Calvary Chapel O’Hare v. Village of Franklin Park, Ill. (1998-2003)

Cambodian Buddhist Society of Connecticut, Inc. and Pong Me v. Town of Newton Planning and Zoning Commission, Connecticut (2006)

Castle Hills First Baptist Church v. City of Castle Hills (2001-2008)

Centennial Baptist Church v. City of Sand Springs, Oklahoma (2006-2008)

Center for Inquiry v. Jones (Florida – Prison ministry, Blaine Amendment)

Chi Alpha v. Cal State (2014 – 2015) (California- Student group discrimination)
Christian Legal Society v. Martinez (2010)

Church of Christ in Hollywood v. Lady Cage-Barile (2002)

Church of Our Savior v. City of Jacksonville Beach (2014-2015)

C.L.U.B. v. City of Chicago, Illinois (2000-03)

Congregation Kol Ami v. Abington Township (1999-2005)

Cotton v. Florida Department of Corrections (2000-2003)

Cottonwood Christian Center v. City of Cypress (2000-2003)

Creatore v. Trumbull (1994-1999)

Cutter v. Wilkinson (2004)

Darling v. Bakersfield School District (2006)

EEOC v. Abercrombie (2011-2015) (Supreme Court – religious discrimination in the workplace)

EEOC v. Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School (2010-2012) (Michigan – 9-0 Supreme Court ruling on ministerial exemption)

Elane Photography (2009-2014) (New Mexico – Photographer conscience rights)

Elijah Group v. City of Leon Valley (2010-2012) (Texas – Church property rights, RLUIPA)

Elk Grove Unified School District v. Newdow (2003)

Elmbrook School District v. Doe (2012-2014)

Elsinore Christian Center v. City of Lake Elsinore (2003-2007) 

Fraternal Order of Police v. City of Newark, New Jersey (1998-1999)

Freedom Baptist Church v. Township of Middletown (2000-2002)

Freedom From Religion Foundation v. Lew (2011-2014) (Parsonage Exemption Case)

Gallart v. City of Frederick and Frederick Presbyterian Church (2001-2003)

Ganulin v. U.S. (1998-1999)

Gonzales v. O Centro Spirita (2005)

Good News Club v. Milford Central School (2000)

Greater Bible Way Temple of Jackson et al. v. City of Jackson (2007)

Greenwood Community Church v. City of Greenwood (1997-2002)

Guzzi v. Thompson, Massachusetts (2008)

Hale O Kaula v. County of Maui, Hawai’i, (2001-2005)

Haven Shores Community Church v. City of Grand Haven, Mich. (2000)

Hindu Temple Society of North America v. New York Supreme Court, NY (2004-2008)

Hinrichs v. Bosma (2006-2007)

Islamic Center of Murfreesboro v. Rutherford County (2012-2014) (Tennessee)

Freedom From Religion Foundation v. Koskinen (2013-2014) (Holy Cross Anglican Church)

Freedom From Religion Foundation vs. Weber (Montana –  Jesus war memorial honoring fallen comrades)

Hood v. Medford Township Board of Education (1999-2000)

Jasvir Singh v. France, Bikramjit Singh v. France (2004-2009)

Jenks v. Spry (Kimery v. Broken Arrow Public Schools) (2011-2012) (Oklahoma – Disabled children’s scholarship, BLAINE Amendment)

Kelo v. New London (2005)

Lighthouse Institute v. City of Long Branch (2000-2008)

Living Faith Ministries v. Camden County Improvement Authority (2005)

Living Water Church of God (dba Okemo Christian Center) v. Township of Meridian (2005)

Living Waters Bible Church v. Town of Enfield (2001-2002)

Lt. Ryan Berry v. USAF (1999)

Matter of Congregation Kol Shafar (2006)

McCreary v. ACLU (2005)

Merced v. Euless (2009)

McCullen v. Coakley (2000-2014)

Meredith v. Daniels (2012-2013) (Indiana – discriminatory Blaine Amendments)

Michele Curay-Cramer v. Ursuline Academy, et al., Delaware (2003-2007)

Missionaries of Charity v. City of Los Angeles (2001-2002)

Mitchell v. Helms (1999-2000)

Morr-Fitz v. Blagojevich (Illinois – Pharmacist conscience rights)

Moss v. Spartanburg County School District No. 7 (2009-2012)

Negusie v. Michael Mukasey, Louisiana (2008)

Newdow v. The Congress of the United States (2013-2014) (Protecting “In God We Trust”)

Norwood v. Gamble (2005)

Odgaard v. Iowa (2013-2014) (Iowa forces participation in religious ceremony)

Pleasant Grove v. Summum (2005)

The Pledge of Allegiance Cases

American Humanist Association v. Matawan-Aberdeen Regional School District (New Jersey, 2014-2015)

Doe v. Acton-Boxborough Regional School District (Massachusetts, 2011-2014)

Freedom from Religion Foundation v. Hanover School District (New Hampshire, 2007-2011)

Newdow v. Rio Linda Union School District (California, 2005-2010)

Elk Grove Unified School District v. Newdow (California, 2000-2004)

Pine Hill Zendo Inc. v. Town of Bedford Zoning Board of Appeals (2001)

Reed v. Town of Gilbert  (Supreme Court – religious speech for houses of worship)

Refuge Temple Ministries v. City of Forest Park (2000)

Rich v. Buss (2010-2014)

Richardson Matter (2005)

Rigdon v. Perry (1997)

Rocky Mountain Christian Church v. Boulder County, Colorado, (2004-2011)

Romeike v. Holder, Tennessee, (2010)

Sac and Fox Nation v. Borough of Jim Thorpe (Supreme Court – Native American burial ceremonies)

Salazar vs. Buono (2009)

Smith v. Haley (2001-2008)

Stark v. Independent School District (1995-1997)

Tagore v. Dept. of Homeland Security (2010-2014) (Texas – Sikh’s right to wear a kirpan)

Temple B’nai Sholom v. City of Huntsville, Alabama (2000-2003)

Third Church of Christ, Scientist, Washington D.C. v. District of Columbia Historical Preservation Review Board (2008-2011)

Tommy DeForest, Cullman, Alabama (2007)

Tong v. Chicago Park District (2004)

Town of Foxfield v. Archdiocese of Denver (2002-2007)

Town of Greece v. Galloway (2013-2014) (New York – Supreme Court legislative prayer case)

Unitarian Universalist Church of Akron v. City of Fairlawn, Ohio (2000-2001)

Van Orden v. Perry (2005)

Vermont Department of Corrections restrictions on religious prisoners, Vermont (2007)

Ward v. Wilbanks (2012) (Michigan – Graduate counseling student’s conscience rights)

Welch v. Cobb County (2000)

Wirzburger v. Galvin (1998-2006)

Yoder v. Morristown (2006-2013) (2008-2012)

Zelman vs. Simmons-Harris (2001)

My, my, my.  Religious liberty alive and well in the Unites States of America?  No, the three blind mice were not blind and saw perfectly.  Can you turn the heat up on that frog in the pot; he is getting comfortable again.  

[rockpond]

33 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I don't know what specifically you're referring to, but being opposed to a specific piece of legislation does not amount to being in favor of hate crimes. I wanted to make that clear, as your comment seemed to imply otherwise.

That it would be necessary to defend religious liberty in court at all is alarming enough.

And you drew your conclusion by glancing at three cases, did you? To give a sense of magnitude, I will post the list here:

Ha... No, my comment didn't imply that the Church favors hate crimes.  My comment was that the Church (or at least the church authorities who approved the statement) opposed the hate crime legislation.

Regarding the cases, in our society there are many things brought to the judicial system that are alarming.  Your list of cases that spans multiple decades and covers a country of over 350 million persons doesn't actually seem that long.  AND, more importantly, to my point:  that list includes many cases that were decided in favor of religious liberty.  So, your data dump doesn't actually prove anything about an erosion of freedoms.

Edited March 30, 2016 by rockpond

[thesometimesaint]

24 minutes ago, Storm Rider said:

Thanks for the definition.  Tell me, how many times are feelings operative and required to achieve any of the defined actions and responses?

Another definition is:   The definition of Sexual harassment is unwelcome words or conduct of a sexual nature that have the purpose or effect of creating an embarrassing, hostile, humiliating or offensive environment for the victim.

How many times are feelings included, if not required, in any of those actions in order for harassment to be identified?  

Using both definitions requires the feelings of the individual being harassed to be evaluated and used as prima facie evidence to make an allegation.  I am certainly not a lawyer, thank the good Lord, but we are stuck with what it is and how it is defined.  Feelings matter regardless of what others have said or alleged.  In fact, it is foundational for there to be any charge of sexual harassment. 

I'm not a lawyer either. Thank Goodness.

I don't believe that is a simple matter of hurt feelings. I've had my feelings hurt many times, and unfortunately have hurt other people's feelings too. I don't see the need or desirability for civil or criminal actions in either event.  However I do think that hurting other people's feelings to pursue illegal or immoral actions should be subject to the law.

Edited March 30, 2016 by thesometimesaint

[Scott Lloyd]

49 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Ha... No, my comment didn't imply that the Church favors hate crimes.  My comment was that the Church (or at least the church authorities who approved the statement) opposed the hate crime legislation.

 

But you had earlier remarked that it was "ironic" for me to use the Niemoller poem when the Church had opposed hate crimes legislation -- as though to imply that the Church's opposition to the legislation meant that the Church upholds hate crimes. It seems you are now being coy.

Quote

Regarding the cases, in our society there are many things brought to the judicial system that are alarming.  Your list of cases that spans multiple decades and covers a country of over 350 million persons doesn't actually seem that long.  AND, more importantly, to my point:  that list includes many cases that were decided in favor of religious liberty.  So, your data dump doesn't actually prove anything about an erosion of freedoms.

Are you going to ignore the fact that the list includes 20 current cases?

CV75 expressed it well:

Quote

The number of cases to defend religious freedom speaks to the secular society conditions that give secular entities the freedom to attack it, offsetting the special protection it should enjoy.

By the way, this list is limited to just those specific cases in which the Beckett Fund is/has been involved. The list does not purport to be exhaustive of each and every religious-liberty case that has come along. Presumably there are many more that did not involve the Beckett Fund.

Edited March 30, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[HappyJackWagon]

16 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

CV75 expressed it well:

By the way, this list is limited to just those specific cases in which the Beckett fund was involved. The list does not purport to be exhaustive of each and every religious-liberty case that has come along.

Are you going to apologize to Rockpond for misrepresenting his claim? He clearly stated that the church opposed the Hate Crime legislation and you took that to mean Rockpond claims the church approves of Hate Crimes. You kind of missed the boat on that one.

[Scott Lloyd]

3 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Are you going to apologize to Rockpond for misrepresenting his claim? He clearly stated that the church opposed the Hate Crime legislation and you took that to mean Rockpond claims the church approves of Hate Crimes. You kind of missed the boat on that one.

Did you see what I added later to my post?

Quote

But you had earlier remarked that it was "ironic" for me to use the Niemoller poem when the Church had opposed hate crimes legislation -- as though to imply that the Church's opposition to the legislation meant that the Church upholds hate crimes. It seems you are now being coy.

No, I'm not going to apologize. One doesn't get a pass for making a snide insinuation and then acting coy about it. Not in my book, anyway.