And *Another* Solid Win for Religious Liberty (Michigan Case)

[smac97]

In August, I started a thread discussing a positive development in the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals pertaining to free speech and religious liberty: A Solid Win for Free Speech and Religious Liberty (8th Circuit Case)

In September, I started another thread on the same topic: *Another* Solid Win for Free Speech and Religious Liberty (Arizona State Case)

And now, on the first day of October, we have this thread.

Oh, this is cool:

Quote

The case is called Buck v. Gordon. My friends at Becket represent St. Vincent Catholic Charities, a former foster child, and the adoptive parents of five special-needs kids.

"Becket" here is a reference to the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, "a non-profit, public interest law firm defending the freedom of religion of people of all faiths."  They do good work.

Quote

The facts are relatively complicated, but here’s the short version: St. Vincent upholds Catholic teaching by referring same-sex and unmarried families who seek foster and adoption recommendations and endorsements to agencies that have no objection to providing those services. There is no evidence that St. Vincent has prevented any legally qualified family from adopting or fostering a child. In fact, same-sex couples “certified through different agencies” have been able to adopt children in St. Vincent’s care.

In 2015 the state of Michigan passed a statute specifically designed to protect the religious liberty of private, religious adoption agencies. In 2018, however, Dana Nessel, a Democratic attorney general, took office. During her campaign, she declared that she would not defend the 2015 law in court, stating that its “only purpose” was “discriminatory animus.” She also described proponents of the law as “hate-mongers,” and the court noted that she believed proponents of the law “disliked gay people more than they cared about the constitution.”

This seems like a pretty good example of "projection" ("a defence mechanism in which the human ego defends itself against unconscious impulses or qualities (both positive and negative) by denying their existence in themselves while attributing them to others").

Quote

Then, in 2019, the attorney general reached a legal settlement in pending litigation with the ACLU that essentially gutted the Michigan law, implementing a definitive requirement that religious agencies provide recommendations and endorsement to same-sex couples and banning referrals. The plaintiffs sued, seeking to enjoin the relevant terms of the settlement, and yesterday Judge Robert Jonker (a Bush appointee) granted their motion for a preliminary injunction.

So the AG was not only hostile to religious liberty, she apparently unilaterally re-worked a legislatively-enacted statute.  Quite a peach!

Quote

His reasoning was simple. There was ample evidence from the record that the state of Michigan reversed its policy protecting religious freedom because it was motivated by hostility to the plaintiffs’ faith. Because Michigan’s targeted St. Vincent’s faith, its 2019 settlement agreement couldn’t be truly considered a “neutral” law of “general applicability” that would grant the state a high degree of deference in enforcement.

Instead, the state’s targeting led to strict scrutiny. Here’s Judge Jonker:

Quote

Defendant Nessel made St. Vincent’s belief and practice a campaign issue by calling it hate. She made the 2015 statute a campaign issue by contending that the only purpose of the statute is discriminatory animus. After Defendant Nessel took office, the State pivoted 180 degrees. . . . The State also threatened to terminate its contracts with St. Vincent. The Summary Statement’s conclusion – that if an agency accepts even one MDHHS child referral for case management or adoption services, the agency forfeits completely the right to refer new parental applicants to other agencies based on its sincerely held religious beliefs – is at odds with the language of the contracts, with the 2015 law, and with established State practice. Moreover, it actually undermines the State’s stated goals of preventing discriminatory conduct and maximizing available placements for children.

The last point is key. As stated above, there was no evidence that St. Vincent prevented any qualified couple from adopting.

But there was plenty of evidence that the AG was a anti-religious jerk who abused her authority to impose her personal views on the residents of her state.

Also, it looks like the AG could resist the impulse to virtue signal here.  I'm glad the Becket folks were there to stop her.

Quote

In fact, if the state forced St. Vincent’s to choose between upholding the teachings of its faith or maintaining its contractual relationship with the state, then it risked shrinking the available foster or adoption options in the state of Michigan.

I think that's the intention of folks like the AG.  

Quote

The state demonstrated that it was more interested in taking punitive action against people of faith than it was in maintaining broader access to foster and adoption services for its most vulnerable citizens.

Yep.  As I noted in the previous thread on this topic: "I would submit that the 'initial effort to divide' and the 'great cause for division' here arises not from people like Phillips, but from people who are weaponizing public accommodations/antidiscrimination statutes to punish religious people, particularly Christians.  To drive them to financial ruin (and, perhaps, even prison) should they fail to capitulate.  To push them out of the public sphere for WrongThink."

I think that is the objective of folks like the AG in this story.

Quote

The judge rightly called the state’s actions a “targeted attack on a sincerely held religious belief.” Once again, Masterpiece Cakeshop pays religious-liberty dividends. Once again, a court declares — in no uncertain terms — that in the conflict between private faith and public bigotry, religious liberty will prevail.

Religious liberty is a wonderful thing for some, but for others it is a bitter pill to swallow.  I am glad that our courts can and do function (not always, but perhaps more often than we thinkg) to protect the former group from the excesses of the latter.

Huzzah for religious liberty!

Thanks,

-Smac

 

[LoudmouthMormon]

21 hours ago, smac97 said:

Huzzah for religious liberty!

I'm glad to see stuff like this happening more often.  Thank you for keeping us in relevant links and making it easier for non-lawyerly folk like me to understand. 

[poptart]

I have a soft spot for LDS and Catholic charities.  Especially the latter does so much good while people give the Catholic Church no end of grief.  Far as I can tell, anymore at least stateside it's mostly the LDS church who works with Catholic Charities as extensively as they do, seeing someone step up and fight for the good guys always puts a smile on my face.   Thanks for sharing. 

[Scott Lloyd]

With Trump having appointed so many federal judges (over a hundred last I heard) and two Supreme Court justices so far, I’m hopeful we will see less judicial activism (legislating from the bench) that does violence to the free exercise of religion. 

[Ahab]

32 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

With Trump having appointed so many federal judges (over a hundred last I heard) and two Supreme Court justices so far, I’m hopeful we will see less judicial activism (legislating from the bench) that does violence to the free exercise of religion. 

Yes! Huzzah for Trump!

Wait a minute.  Did i actually say that?

Hmm, okay, I suppose most people have positive attributes, even Donald John Trump.

But we're still going to see some people who don't really appreciate the free exercise of religion, even with what Donald is doing and has done.

[Scott Lloyd]

17 minutes ago, Ahab said:

Yes! Huzzah for Trump!

Wait a minute.  Did i actually say that?

Hmm, okay, I suppose most people have positive attributes, even Donald John Trump.

But we're still going to see some people who don't really appreciate the free exercise of religion, even with what Donald is doing and has done.

Of course. That’s why we fight — and celebrate the occasional victory. 

[MiserereNobis]

4 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

With Trump having appointed so many federal judges (over a hundred last I heard) and two Supreme Court justices so far, I’m hopeful we will see less judicial activism (legislating from the bench) that does violence to the free exercise of religion. 

Yes, Trump, the champion of religion and morality. 

I’m in favor of religious freedom. I’m against abortion. But I detest the ends justify the means stance towards Trump.

In LDS theology, wasn’t Satan the ends justify the means guy?

[Scott Lloyd]

48 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

Yes, Trump, the champion of religion and morality. 

I’m in favor of religious freedom. I’m against abortion. But I detest the ends justify the means stance towards Trump.

In LDS theology, wasn’t Satan the ends justify the means guy?

I didn’t say whether Trump champions religion and morality. But it seems to me he champions the freedoms in the Bill of Rights, including the First Amendment, and that’s good enough for me. 
 

In his judicial appointments, he favors originalists, or those who believe the role of the judiciary is to interpret existing law, not make new laws (the role of the legislative branch) or create de facto legislation (which activist judges seem to want to do).  I don’t see this behavior in Trump as reflecting an “ends justify the means” attitude. Now, on the other hand, a jurist who tries to formulate new law through the rulings he issues, well, that would seem to be more in the category of ends justifying the means. 
 

I don’t quite grasp what you’re driving at with your comment about Satan in Latter-day Saint theology, but I will say that our scripture (Doctrine and Covenants) explicitly supports the U.S. Constitution insofar as it protects the moral agency of mankind which, by implication, includes the right to the free exercise of religion and other liberties that facilitate that right, namely freedom of speech, freedom of the press and freedom of assembly. 
 

You bring up Satan. We are taught in scripture that he sought to destroy the agency of man with the plan he proposed in the pre-mortal existence. It is the intent of the U.S. Constitution, according to the Lord, to preserve said agency.

If you like, I will look up those specific verses in the Doctrine and Covenants I’m alluding to and present them here. 

Edited October 3, 2019 by Scott Lloyd

[The Nehor]

An institution defended by mercenaries is perpetually at risk.

[OGHoosier]

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

An institution defended by mercenaries is perpetually at risk.

This is true. It is for this and other reasons why I do not take an "ends justify the means" approach to Trump as described by MiserereNubis.

However, when Trump does things like this, why not take the proffered gift?

It's certainly more uplifting than, say, the debacle with the Finnish President yesterday.

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, OGHoosier said:

This is true. It is for this and other reasons why I do not take an "ends justify the means" approach to Trump as described by MiserereNubis.

However, when Trump does things like this, why not take the proffered gift?

It's certainly more uplifting than, say, the debacle with the Finnish President yesterday.

Please explain. Or provide a link.

Edited: Never mind. I found it through Google.

 

 

Edited October 3, 2019 by Scott Lloyd

[The Nehor]

5 hours ago, OGHoosier said:

This is true. It is for this and other reasons why I do not take an "ends justify the means" approach to Trump as described by MiserereNubis.

However, when Trump does things like this, why not take the proffered gift?

It's certainly more uplifting than, say, the debacle with the Finnish President yesterday.

Beware of Greeks bearing gifts.

And yeah:

"There are those that think I'm a very stable genius, okay? I watch my words very, very closely. And to have somebody get up, and to totally fabricate a conversation that I had with another leader, and make it sound so bad. It was so evil."

[Amulek]

Quote

The facts are relatively complicated, but here’s the short version: St. Vincent upholds Catholic teaching by referring same-sex and unmarried families who seek foster and adoption recommendations and endorsements to agencies that have no objection to providing those services. There is no evidence that St. Vincent has prevented any legally qualified family from adopting or fostering a child. In fact, same-sex couples “certified through different agencies” have been able to adopt children in St. Vincent’s care.

This is one of those areas that I find incredibly frustrating. The foster care and adoption system - even here in the US - is...to put it mildly: not amazing.

I remember watching a comedian one time start his routine by talking about his experience growing up in the foster system. He went on to explain, "So for those of you who don't know, the foster system is a program set up by the government where they take kids who have been, you know, brought up in homes where they have been abused, molested, neglected...they take kids who have been brought up in that kind of environment and then they place them into that exact same environment." Dark humor to be sure, with an uncomfortable amount of truth to it.

The system is unquestionably better off by having faith based charities like St. Vincent (and others) involved. I cannot stand the kind of ideological intractability that refuses to bend and look for a way to accommodate religious organizations who are operating in this space. To be fair, I'm not certain that such moves are being largely driven by the LGBT community, but rather politicians who are looking to make a statement / draw attention to themselves. 

 

[MiserereNobis]

10 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I didn’t say whether Trump champions religion and morality. But it seems to me he champions the freedoms in the Bill of Rights, including the First Amendment, and that’s good enough for me. 
 

In his judicial appointments, he favors originalists, or those who believe the role of the judiciary is to interpret existing law, not make new laws (the role of the legislative branch) or create de facto legislation (which activist judges seem to want to do).  I don’t see this behavior in Trump as reflecting an “ends justify the means” attitude. Now, on the other hand, a jurist who tries to formulate new law through the rulings he issues, well, that would seem to be more in the category of ends justifying the means. 
 

I don’t quite grasp what you’re driving at with your comment about Satan in Latter-day Saint theology, but I will say that our scripture (Doctrine and Covenants) explicitly supports the U.S. Constitution insofar as it protects the moral agency of mankind which, by implication, includes the right to the free exercise of religion and other liberties that facilitate that right, namely freedom of speech, freedom of the press and freedom of assembly. 
 

You bring up Satan. We are taught in scripture that he sought to destroy the agency of man with the plan he proposed in the pre-mortal existence. It is the intent of the U.S. Constitution, according to the Lord, to preserve said agency.

If you like, I will look up those specific verses in the Doctrine and Covenants I’m alluding to and present them here. 

I might have been responding to something you weren't actually saying. If so, I apologize.

My response was to those who defend Trump and his actions by pointing to his judicial appointments. That is the "ends justify the means" point I was making. The ends are the judicial appointments, the means is Trump. The fact that he appoints appropriate judges in no way excuses his behavior or the fact that he is a terrible president.

My reference to the LDS view of Satan might also be mistaken. My understanding is that in the life before this one Satan offered a plan that would get all to heaven but without freedom. The ends, getting to heaven, are good, but they do not justify the means, lack of freedom. That was the comparison I was drawing.

Again, if I misunderstood you or LDS theology, my apologies.

 

Edited October 3, 2019 by MiserereNobis

[The Nehor]

33 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

I might have been responding to something you weren't actually saying. If so, I apologize.

My response was to those who defend Trump and his actions by pointing to his judicial appointments. That is the "ends justify the means" point I was making. The ends are the judicial appointments, the means is Trump. The fact that he appoints appropriate judges in no way excuses his behavior or the fact that he is a terrible president.

My reference to the LDS view of Satan might also be mistaken. My understanding is that in the life before this one Satan offered a plan that would get all to heaven but without freedom. The ends, getting to heaven, are good, but they do not justify the means, lack of freedom. That was the comparison I was drawing.

Again, if I misunderstood you or LDS theology, my apologies.

 

No, you got Satan right. We do not know exactly what Satan’s plan was but it was some kind of destruction of choice.

I also worry because Trump has no ideological loyalty to freedom of religion. He is not religious and does not seem to think religious liberty is something worthwhile. Listen to him talk about God and it is clear he has no idea. He is willing to play on that side because there is a huge voting bloc behind it but that bloc is filled with Evangelicals and other Christian groups. I think they sold their soul on this. I could understand holding their nose and voting for him as the better alternative but too many are talking about him in quasi-messianic terms. These faiths have not historically been good friends with my church (or the Catholics for that matter). I am not convinced that all of them love religious freedom in general either. I know how they feel about Islam. There is always the possibility that freedom of religion could morph into freedom of their religion.

About this case in general I like the decision and I hope accommodations of this type can be reached with governments elsewhere. This is the kind of reasonable accommodation and work with the government I believe the apostles are trying to encourage us to make when we can develop respect for each other’s efforts.

[MiserereNobis]

1 minute ago, The Nehor said:

These faiths have not historically been good friends with my church (or the Catholics for that matter).

Yeah, they call us both cults. But, in their defense, we used to burn them at the stake (ah, the good ol' days). I guess the Mormons have the moral ground here...

[The Nehor]

48 minutes ago, Amulek said:

This is one of those areas that I find incredibly frustrating. The foster care and adoption system - even here in the US - is...to put it mildly: not amazing.

I remember watching a comedian one time start his routine by talking about his experience growing up in the foster system. He went on to explain, "So for those of you who don't know, the foster system is a program set up by the government where they take kids who have been, you know, brought up in homes where they have been abused, molested, neglected...they take kids who have been brought up in that kind of environment and then they place them into that exact same environment." Dark humor to be sure, with an uncomfortable amount of truth to it.

The system is unquestionably better off by having faith based charities like St. Vincent (and others) involved. I cannot stand the kind of ideological intractability that refuses to bend and look for a way to accommodate religious organizations who are operating in this space. To be fair, I'm not certain that such moves are being largely driven by the LGBT community, but rather politicians who are looking to make a statement / draw attention to themselves. 

 

This is also very true. There was a horrifying study done (I believe it was in the late 90s or early 00s) that found that kids were better off being left in their abusive homes as opposed to going into the foster care system. There used to be financial incentives to keep kids in foster care (federal money!). I do not want to suggest that the entire system was corrupt because it was not but the incentives were off. Back then kids were kept in foster care until a judge was satisfied they should go home and judges tend to listen to CPS. Kids would languish in foster care for five or even ten years in perpetual limbo.

The system was reformed and CPS was told by Congress that you have a year (with rare extensions). After that they either go home or they go into foster care and are up for adoption. Foster care was also expanded and they were forced to racially integrate. I think it is a little better but recent changes in my state scare me. They have privatized foster care recruiting and foster care oversight and, in many cases, these organizations are owned by the same people so they are the watchdogs of the standards in their own company.

Incidentally that financial incentive above is why I despise privatized prisons. Governments sign contracts to pay penalties if their prisons fall below a certain occupancy which of course influences parole hearings and even sentencing by adding considerations other then the merits of the case. Private prisons were big lobbyists in the tough on crime initiatives. I have personally decided will never vote for anyone who takes money from these organizations. Trump’s executive orders about the border and all the people that have to be put in detention are a huge financial  love letter and payday to these lobbying scum. I do not care if private prisons are more efficient. Inefficiency is less damaging then the current travesty that is creating financial and political incentives for increasing incarceration.

[The Nehor]

22 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

Yeah, they call us both cults. But, in their defense, we used to burn them at the stake (ah, the good ol' days). I guess the Mormons have the moral ground here...

I am going to turn my back on all that kerosene, wood, and that lighter. If something happens I didn’t see anything.  

Edited October 3, 2019 by The Nehor

[smac97]

1 hour ago, MiserereNobis said:

My response was to those who defend Trump and his actions by pointing to his judicial appointments. That is the "ends justify the means" point I was making. The ends are the judicial appointments, the means is Trump.

But are Trump's moral failings the "means?"

1 hour ago, MiserereNobis said:

The fact that he appoints appropriate judges in no way excuses his behavior or the fact that he is a terrible president.

Agree as to the first point.  As to the second, that's getting a bit too political.

1 hour ago, MiserereNobis said:

My reference to the LDS view of Satan might also be mistaken. My understanding is that in the life before this one Satan offered a plan that would get all to heaven but without freedom. The ends, getting to heaven, are good, but they do not justify the means, lack of freedom. That was the comparison I was drawing.

Again, if I misunderstood you or LDS theology, my apologies.

You are correct on the doctrine.  Less sure on the application.

Could we get back to the topic?  Trump has little to do with the Michigan case referenced in the OP.

Thanks,

-Smac

[The Nehor]

1 minute ago, smac97 said:

But are Trump's moral failings the "means?"

Agree as to the first point.  As to the second, that's getting a bit too political.

You are correct on the doctrine.  Less sure on the application.

Could we get back to the topic?  Trump has little to do with the Michigan case referenced in the OP.

Thanks,

-Smac

What are we supposed to talk about? Doing a victory lap? Unless someone shows up and says the court ruling is awful there is not much to discuss.

[Calm]

Removed as off topic

Edited October 3, 2019 by Calm

[Scott Lloyd]

So long as there are those in society (and there are plenty) who would curtail religious freedom there is plenty to do — and plenty to talk about. My contribution was to suggest we need our elected leaders to appoint more originalist judges, the sort who don’t legislate from the bench, harming the cause of religious freedom in the process. 
 

There must be other aspects of this to discuss. If you don’t have anything to say, you are welcome not to participate. 

Edited October 3, 2019 by Scott Lloyd

[The Nehor]

2 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

So long as there are those in society (and there are plenty) who would curtail religious freedom there is plenty to do — and plenty to talk about. My contribution was to suggest we need our elected leaders to appoint more originality judges, the sort who don’t legislate from the bench, harming the cause of religious freedom in the process. 
 

There must be other aspects of this to discuss. If you don’t have anything to say, you are welcome not to participate. 

That is not much of a discussion though unless you are trying to bait an argument on constitutional interpretation. I refuse to quarter troops in my home. Anyone disagree?

[Scott Lloyd]

2 hours ago, The Nehor said:

That is not much of a discussion though unless you are trying to bait an argument on constitutional interpretation. I refuse to quarter troops in my home. Anyone disagree?

Why are you trying to shut down a discussion that you as much as said you don’t have anything to contribute to? You may go your way and let others continue here as they see fit. 

Incidentally, since you bring up the quartering of troops, I’ll observe that it is the only thing I can think of in the Bill of Rights that pertains even remotely to public accommodation — and the Bill of Rights does not protect said quartering but prohibits it. 
 

Free exercise of religion, on the other hand, is emblazoned in the First Amendment, yet public accommodation legislation is sometimes used as a pretext for abridging it. 

Edited October 3, 2019 by Scott Lloyd

[The Nehor]

2 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Why are you trying to shut down a discussion that you as much as said you don’t have anything to contribute to?

Clearly if I cannot contribute anything to the conversation it is a not worth having. Obviously.

No actually I was bored at work and just started  rambling and I was hoping it was funny looking at it now......not my finest work.

I will leave you to your serious conversation about originalist judges and probably something about cakes. It is always about cakes.