free exercise of religion

A Navajo inmate incarcerated in Wisconsin can wear a tribal headband and celebrate a tribal feast with wild venison following a ruling from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit last week, the Associated Press reports. Judge Frank Easterbrook ruled that the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act requires prisons to accomodate religious practices.

The Seventh Circuit has ruled that a $55 million cemetery trust fund isn't off limits from the creditors of the Archdiocese of Milwaukee, the Associated Press reports. Sex abuse victims and their lawyers argue that the trust fund was created to shield money from them. The archdiocese has filed for bankruptcy because hundreds of sex-abuse victims have filed claims against the archdiocese.

The archdiocese argued that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act protected the trust fund from a court-appointed committee the represents sexual assault victims and other creditors in bankruptcy court, but the court rejected that argument because creditors aren't the government.

Last year, a Colorado judge ruled that a baker violated Colorado law when he declined to bake a wedding cake for a same-sex couple, the Associated Press reports in an interesting profile of the deeply-felt beliefs of the couple that was refused service and the baker who refused them service becuase of his Christian beliefs. The judge ruled that the state law that forbids refusal of service based on sexual orientation was violated, the AP further reports. 

The U.S. Supreme Court appeared split on whether private for-profit companies have to provide insurance coverage for contraceptives to their employees, even if it violates their owners' religious beliefs, the Christian Science Monitor reports. Swing vote Justice Anthony Kennedy "asked skeptical questions of both sides, but one interaction with US Solicitor General Donald Verrilli might signal trouble for the Obama administration’s position. Kennedy asked Mr. Verrilli whether the administration’s position might mean that for-profit corporations could be forced to pay for abortions for their employees regardless of any religious objections of company owners. 'No,' Verrilli said immediately. A federal law prohibits such a government command, he said. 'But your reasoning would permit that,' Kennedy persisted."

Arizona Governor Jan Brewer, a Republican, vetoed legislation that would have allowed conservative religious business owners to refuse to provide services to same-sex couples regarding their marriages, such as wedding photography, wedding cakes and flowers, The Washington Post reports. In deciding to veto the legislation, Brewer said, "'I have not heard of one example in Arizona where business owners' religious liberty has been violated. The bill is broadly worded, and could result in unintended and negative consequences,'" The Post reports.

The legislation was created "in response to a ruling by the New Mexico state Supreme Court against a wedding photographer who declined to work for a couple's same-sex wedding," The Post further reports.

The chairman of the Kansas Senate Judiciary Committee has declared dead a bill that would have shielded business owners from being forced to service same-sex weddings if that would be against their religious beliefs, the Associated Press reports. The bill, which was passed by the House, would have barred governmental sanctions and anti-discrimination lawsuits in those circumstances.

As I noted in my prior post on this legislation, LGBT-rights advocates criticized the bill for allowing governmental workers to cite their religious beliefs in refusing to provide governmental services to gay couples.

As Kansas "braces for the federal courts striking down Kansas' ban on gay marriage," a House legislative committee has passed a bill that would shield business owners from being forced to service same-sex weddings if that would be against their religious beliefs, the Associated Press reports. The bill would bar governmental sanctions and anti-discrimination lawsuits in those circumstances.

LGBT-rights advocates criticized the bill for allowing governmental workers to cite their religious beliefs in refusing to provide governmental services to gay couples, the AP further reports. The bill requires "agencies to seek a work-around - if it isn't an 'undue hardship,'" according to the AP.

The U.S. Supreme Court's workload might reach a new low because the court will consider only half the usual number of cases when it convenes in March, The Washington Post's Robert Barnes reports. Yet the issues the court will consider are central to American society- whether corporations are entitled to religious expression, affirmative action and separation of powers between the presidency and Congress over the appointment of governmental officials, Barnes writes. “The court has had several cases implicating major issues of national debate each of the last few years. What that shows is that this is a court that’s not at all shy about tackling hot-button issues,” Supreme Court litigator Kannon Shanmugam told Barnes.

Even though the Third Circuit has held that "secular, for-profit companies aren't afforded religious protection and the constitutional rights of their owners don't pass through to the corporate entity," a district-court federal judge sided with employers that are challenging Obamacare's contraceptive-coverage mandate on the grounds that it violates their freedom of religion, The Legal Intelligencer, Pennsylvania's legal newspaper, reported. The Legal also reported that U.S. District Chief Judge Joy Flowers Conti of the Western District of Pennsylvania denied a request from the Obama administration for an indicative ruling on the application of the Third Circuit case when Conti had granted an injunction for a plaintiff from the contraception mandate.

The issue is being primed for the U.S. Supreme Court. A circuit split is present on the issue between the Third Circuit and the Tenth Circuit.
 

After the New Mexico Supreme Court ruled that a wedding photographer's refusal to photograph same-sex weddings violates the state's Human Rights Act, the photographer is seeking certiorari in the US Supreme Court. SCOTUS Blog reports that the photography business argues that complying with the law forces them to violate their Christian beliefs and violates their constitutional right to the free exercise of religion. If the court takes up the issue it could set the parameters on how far protections for gay Americans will extend.