Federal Judge Rules Against LGBT Group Trying to ‘Strip Religious Liberty From Colleges’
“A group of activists asked the court to strip that protection away from schools that educate the next generation and advance the common good”
Why was this LGBT group even engaged in this battle in the first place? Why was religious liberty on defense?
The College Fix reports:
LGBT group loses effort to strip religious liberty from colleges
A federal judge dismissed efforts by a homosexual advocacy group to strip religious liberty protections from Christian and other religious universities.
Judge Ann Aiken ruled on January 12 in favor of Christian colleges and against the Religious Exemption Accountability Project. The group sought to force Christian colleges to accept men into women’s locker rooms and embrace other parts of the LGBT agenda.
Such exemptions allow religious universities to prohibit students from being in homosexual relationships, for example.
Attorneys sued the United States Department of Education, but the Council of Christian Colleges and Universities was added as an intervenor in the case.
The Religious Freedom Restoration Act “does not protect taxpayer-funded actions that harm LGBTQ+ students,” attorney Paul Southwick, who led the failed effort, previously told The College Fix.
Judge Aiken disagreed. “The text of RFRA is clear that government granting exemptions does not constitute a violation, unless impermissible under Establishment Clause principles,” Aiken wrote. “Plaintiffs also fail to allege facts to demonstrate that it is Defendants—the government actor— that has burdened Plaintiffs religious beliefs,” she added.
Alliance Defending Freedom, which represented the Council of Christian Colleges, celebrated the decision.
“A federal district court today rightly rejected an unfounded assault on the religious freedom of faith-based educational institutions,” ADF attorney David Cortman stated in a news release. “Title IX, which applies to schools receiving federal financial assistance, explicitly protects the freedom of religious schools to live out their deeply and sincerely held convictions.”
“A group of activists asked the court to strip that protection away from schools that educate the next generation and advance the common good,” the attorney stated. “The court correctly concluded that Title IX’s religious liberty exemption doesn’t violate any of the plaintiffs’ claimed rights.”
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
Thank you, judge.
I just read through 40 pages of decision to come up with “Dismissed for failure to state a case”.
The key bits:
“Plaintiffs have submitted no allegations of discriminatory motivation on
the part of those enacting the religious exemption.”
“Plaintiffs have not alleged how the religious exemption fails intermediate
scrutiny.”
“substantive due process analysis must begin with a careful description of the asserted right […] The Court cannot ‘begin with a careful description’ when it is left to guess.”
I see zero indications that this was a pro se or pro per action, and plenty of “allies” boasting about how much they helped the complainant… so apparently they found a real live Lionel Hutz to plead this one.
Trying to eliminate their right to practice Christianity and substitute Progressivism in its place. Yeah, it’s definitely a “freedom of religion” issue. Glad to see it was thrown out.
No one is trying to eradicate Religious beliefs or force acceptance of anything. Move along.