Podcast appearances and mentions of Douglas Laycock

Over the past decade, the tension between First Amendment rights and public accommodations laws has grown, as wedding vendors have refused to serve same-sex weddings pursuant to their consciences. On June 30, 2023, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its decision in 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis, which held that the free speech clause prohibits a state from forcing a website designer to create messages with which the designer disagrees. That said, the Court has yet to issue a clear decision that resolves these issues under the free exercise clause, even though wedding vendors almost invariably object to providing services on religious grounds. Indeed, when the free exercise question was addressed in Masterpiece Cakeshop Ltd. V. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, the Court largely punted on the issue and resolved the case on very narrow procedural grounds.Wedding-vendor litigation continues to percolate throughout the country and raises important questions for First Amendment jurisprudence, including whether the Supreme Court should reconsider Employment Division v. Smith, whether the free exercise clause extends protection to wedding vendors in a similar way to the free speech clause, and whether the so-called “hybrid rights doctrine” is a viable theory for analyzing religious claims to exemptions. Please join us as we discuss these issues and others with some of the leading scholars and practitioners in this space.Featuring: Prof. Andrew Koppelman, John Paul Stevens Professor of Law, Northwestern University School of LawProf. Douglas Laycock, Robert E. Scott Distinguished Professor of Law Emeritus, University of Virginia School of LawJonathan Scruggs, Senior Counsel and the Director for the Center for Conscience Initiatives, Alliance Defending Freedom(Moderator) Austin Rogers, Chief Counsel at Senate Judiciary Committee

It's time for a crash course in the legal history of religious liberty! Can a "Satanic abortion ritual" trump pro-life legislation? How does religious liberty impact efforts to protect life in the womb? Kelsey Hazzard, founder of Secular Pro-Life, provides a valuable introduction to a new frontier in abortion litigation. Below are the legal opinions cited in the presentation. Employment Division, Department of Human Resources of Oregon v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872 (1990) Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc. v. City of Hialeah, 508 U.S. 250 (1993) Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., 573 U.S. 682 (2014) Prince v. Massachusetts, 321 U.S. 158 (1944) Jehovah's Witnesses in the State of Washington v. King County Hospital Unit No. 1 (Harborview), 278 F.Supp. 488 (W.D. Wash. 1967) In re Clark, 185 N.E.2d 128 (Ohio Ct. of C.P. 1962) Hoener v. Bertinato, 67 N.J.Super. 517 (1961) Learn more about Secular Pro-Life at secularprolife.org.   Transcript: Kelsey Hazzard: Hello everyone and welcome to Religious Liberty Justifications for Violence: a Legal Analysis. For those of you who don't know me, my name is Kelsey Hazard. I am the founder and president of Secular Pro-Life. SPL is an atheist led organization advancing secular arguments against abortion and uniting people of every faith and none to protect prenatal human beings. I'm really excited about this presentation. Although I am an atheist, I have always taken a strong academic interest in religion. My undergraduate majors were religious studies and psychology, and then I went to law school where I just devoured all things First Amendment. So I wanna thank Rehumanize International for giving me this wonderful opportunity to, to geek out with an audience. You have probably seen headlines about satanist groups and pro-abortion Jewish synagogues filing lawsuits against pro-life legislation planning that it violates their religious freedom. And maybe you've thought, well, that's ridiculous. You can't just kill somebody and say, Oh, but it's my religion. And if that was your reaction, Your intuition is correct. I am going to conclude that these lawsuits, these lawsuits ought to fail. But to discuss this issue intelligently beyond just our intuitive reactions requires understanding some key concepts of religious liberty law. So, this session is your crash course. I have five housekeeping matters before I begin. One, I have a lot of citations. You can find all of them in the most recent post at secular pro-life dot org slash blog. I've also dropped it in the chat, and if you're watching the later recording, there should be a link in the description. Two. A disclaimer. I am a attorney. I am not your attorney. This presentation is for general educational purposes only. It is not legal advice. If you need legal advice, you should contact a lawyer who's licensed in your jurisdiction to give you advice that's tailored to your situation. Number three, I realized that this conference attracts attendees. From around the world. In fact, I think I saw a poll earlier that about a quarter of you are from outside of the United States of America. I am focused here. This presentation is specifically about US law. Number four. If you have questions or comments, please put them in the Q and A tab. I'll circle back to them at the end if we have time. If you put them in the general chat tab, I might miss them. So please use that Q and A tab. Finally, number five. This session is going to touch on quite a few beliefs. Satanism Judaism, Native American Spirituality, Santeria, Evangelical Christianity, Jehovah's Witnesses. In the Immortal words of Stefan from Saturday Night Live, this club has everything. If you happen to belong to any of the religious communities I just mentioned, I apologize in advance for how cursory and surface level my comments are going. You could devote a lifetime of study to any one of the religions I mentioned, and many people have. We have 45 minutes. It is what it is. And I'm sorry. So all of those housekeeping matters are done. Let us dive in with a Native American church and the case of Employment Division, Department of Human Resources of Oregon versus Smith. That's mouthful. We usually just say employment division versus Smith. Mr. Smith ingested peyote for sacramental purposes during a Native American ceremony. Somehow his employer, a drug rehab center, found out about that and fired him. He applied for state unemployment benefits and he was denied. Oregon's position was using hallucinogens is illegal in our state. You used them. There is no religious exception, so it's your own damn fault you lost your job. We're not paying you unemployment. Mr. Smith argued that this violated his first amendment right to free exercise of religion. The case went all the way to the us Supreme Court, and the Supreme Court ruled against him. The court supported Oregon's position. Their reasoning, and I'm paraphrasing here, Was, what are you nuts? We can't start making religious exceptions to drug laws. Every heroin addict in the country is going to take advantage of that. Laws would mean absolutely nothing. It would be chaos . So he lost, he lost his case. And the legal standard that was announced in Smith was that if a generally applicable, incidentally burdens religious exercise that is not a First Amendment violation. The law will be upheld and the state does not have to create an exception or an accommodation for that religious person. So what does the Supreme Court mean by generally applicable law? The best way to illustrate that is with a counter. Let's talk about Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye versus city of Hialeah. I love this case, not just because it's fun to say, although it it definitely is Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye. I also just find it super interesting and my favorite law professor Douglas Laycock, happens to represent the church. So, first some background. This is where Santeria makes an appearance. And if your only familiarity with Santeria is the Sublime song, you have excellent musical taste. Don't practice Santeria ain't got no crystal ball — just don't pop a cap in Sancho, this is a consistent life ethic conference. By the way, I have no way of knowing if my stupid jokes are landing. So please, please be gentle. Santeria is most commonly practiced in Cuba. It arose from the interaction of African religions brought by enslaved people, and Catholicism brought by colonizers. When Cuban American refugees settled in South Florida, they brought Santeria with them. Santeria worship sometimes involves ritual animal sacrifice, which makes it a very foreign and objectionable, scenario to a white American audience. When a Santeria priest announced that he was opening the Church of the Lukumi Babalu in Hialeah, a Santeria congregation, it did not go over well. As the Supreme Court put it in its opinion, the prospect of a Santeria church in their midst was distressing to many members of the Hialeah community. And the announcement of the plans to open a santaria church in Hialeah prompted the city council to hold an emergency public session on June 9, 1987. That session and some later ones produced numerous resolutions and ordinances, which taken together prohibited the Santeria animal sacrifices. So this went up to the US Supreme Court. And the, the justice said the justices had no trouble figuring out that this was not a generally applicable law. It was a unanimous decision. The city argued, Hey, they we're just promoting animal welfare, and we have legitimate public health concerns as far as the animal remains go. But that was unconvincing because the ordinance. Were just riddled with exceptions for commercial meat production, for hunting, for pest control, and even for kosher slaughter. The court called it a religious gerrymander. I'll quote again from the opinion. The net result of the gerrymander is that few, if any, killings of animals are prohibited other than Santeria's s. Which is prescribed because it occurs during a ritual or ceremony, and its primary purpose is to make an offering to the Orishas, not food consumption. Indeed, careful drafting insured that although Santeria sacrifice is prohibited, killings that are no more necessary or humane in almost all other circumstances are unpunished. In other words, this law was discriminatory. And since the law was not generally applicable, The Smith's standard did not apply. Instead, the court used a much tougher standard, what we call strict scrutiny. There must be a compelling interest in support of the law, and the law must be narrowly tailored to advance that interest with the least religious burden possible. Remember that test: compelling interest, narrowly tailored. That's strict scrutiny. And there's a saying in the legal community: strict in theory, fatal in fact. Meaning hardly anything is going to pass the strict scrutiny test. Hialeah's anti sacrifice — anti sacrifice law, certainly did not, and the church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye emerged victorious. So at this point you might be wondering how this is relevant to anti-abortion laws. After all, we aren't targeting a particular religion. We didn't convene an emergency city — city council session to ban the satanic abortion ritual. We aren't trying to save only the babies conceived by mothers of a particular faith group. We wanna save as many babies as humanly possible. That's how pro-life laws are written. They're broad. They're generally applicable. Yes. Yes. That, that is right. However, The American public really did not like the outcome in Employment Division versus Smith. A lot of people on both sides of the aisle felt that Smith should have won that case, and it's not hard to see why. Right? He's a very sympathetic plaintiff. He wasn't hurting anybody. Native American use of peyote is thousands of years older than the United States itself. The war on drugs really has run a muck here. Why couldn't have Org — why couldn't Oregon have just made an exception for him? Don't we have freedom of religion in this country? And that was bipartisan sentiment at the time. So Congress passed a law called the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, or RFRA. And what RFRA did was take that compelling interest, strict scrutiny test that was used in Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye and say that's going to be the test for all religious freedom claims, including claims for an exception to a generally applicable law. Now, the federal RFRA only applies to federal laws, but almost half of the states enacted their own state level RFRA. That includes much of the south and also some deep blue New England states. The end result is that whether you are going to take more of a Smith approach or more of a church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye approach depends on where you live. I told you that RFRA was a bipartisan sentiment at the time. Not so much now. Over the years, increasingly high profile RFRA claims involve L G B T issues. For instance, conservative Christian florists seeking exceptions from anti-discrimination laws so that they can refuse to serve same sex weddings. RFRA itself didn't change, but it acquired this anti-gay connotation that left a lot of liberals with a sour taste in their mouths. And like so many other issues, opinions about RFRA grew more and more partisan, more and more polarized. And then the Supreme Court decided Burwell versus Hobby Lobby. This was a huge RFRA case. It was only eight years ago. It got a ton of press and I'm sure many of you already know all about it. But I'm gonna summarize it. So as part of the Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare, whatever you wanna call it, I don't care. Employers of a certain size were required to provide contraceptives — coverage for various contraceptives with no copay. Hobby lobby did not object to most of the contraceptive methods on the list, but it identified four that it said weren't really contraceptives, that that was a misnomer. These were really abortifacients. They weren't preventing conception, they were preventing a newly conceived embryo from implanting. Hobby Lobby considered that to be an early abortion, and the company owners' Evangelical Christian faith would not allow them to be complicit in funding their employees abortions. Hobby Lobby brought a case under RFRA. The Supreme Court used that two part strict scrutiny test. Remember: compelling interest and narrowly tailored. The court assumed that the government does have a compelling interest in ensuring access to contraception. It was that second part of the test whether the law is narrowly tailored to advance the compelling interests by the least restrictive means, which is where the contraceptive mandate failed. And that was largely because a religious exception already exists. The Department of Health and Human Services, HHS had created an exception, had had given accommodations to churches and religious non-profits that had a problem with funding contraceptives. In those cases, the government covered the cost without the employer's involvement, thus advancing the compelling interest in contraceptive access without a religious burden. So the accommodation was obviously possible. It was being done. It's just that HHS would not extend that accommodation to Hobby Lobby on the ground that Hobby Lobby was a for profit company. A slim majority of the justices, five to four, said that under RFRA, that doesn't matter. For-profit or nonprofit status doesn't matter. So Hobby Lobby got its exception from the contraceptive mandate. The mandate itself was not struck down, by the way. It's still in effect, albeit with greater, broader, religious exceptions than HHS wanted. Women are still getting their pills. Sky didn't fall, but plenty of people were convinced that the sky was falling and RFRA took another hit in the court of public opinion. So the religious liberty challenges to pro-life laws that we're seeing today are largely RFRA lawsuits. When you read the press about them, the narrative is basically, Ha ha ha, conservatives we're using your religion law against you. Like it's some kind of Gotcha. Hopefully by virtue of this presentation, you understand why that take is ahistorical. But forget the press. Let's take a fair look at the lawsuits themselves, starting with the Satanists. First of all, to correct a myth, Satanists, do not literally worship Satan or even believe in the existence of Satan. Satanism is a naturalistic system, but you do not necessarily need a deity to qualify as a religion under the First Amendment. Sincerely held Moral beliefs will suffice. For purposes of today, satanism is a religion, and Satanists provide a useful public service, in my view, keeping local governments in compliance with the establishment clause. I see you've, put up a 10 Commandments monument. Where do we apply to erect our statue to Baphomet? It's those, it's those guys. You, you've seen the satanists. One of the better known Satanist communities is the Satanic Temple, which follows seven tenets. The first tenet is one should strive to act with compassion and empathy toward all creatures in accordance with roots, in accordance with reason. Unfortunately, that noble tenant goes straight out the window when it comes to abortion. In that case, they emphasize the third tenet: one's body is inviolable, subject to one's own will alone. Classic sovereign zone. The Satanic abortion ritual involves reciting and contemplating that third tenet while getting an abortion. For the purpose of casting off guilt, shame, and mental discomfort that the satanist may be experiencing about the abortion. So the argument is not that abortion is a required part of Satanic practice. It's not like making a hodge. They're not sacrificing babies to earn points. That's not what's going on here. The argument is just that if a satanist is going to have abortion, this is the ritual that goes along with it. And by restricting abortion, you're also restricting the ritual. The Jewish lawsuits, by contrast, Argue that Jewish law actually requires abortion, at least in some circumstances. For instance, the complaint brought against Florida's 15 week ban, which is still pending. That complaint asserts that late term abortion is required under Jewish law, if necessary, to promote the woman's mental wellbeing, which obviously goes far beyond Florida's normal health of the mother exception. To be abundantly clear, that is not a universal interpretation of Jewish law. Those plaintiffs do not speak for all Jews. There are pro-life jews, and Jews are welcome at this conference. Let's assume that we are in a RFRA jurisdiction. If a state wants its pro-life laws to apply universally without granting an exception to anyone who claims a religious freedom to abort, remember what the state has to. One, the law is supported by a compelling interest. And two, the law is narrowly tailored to advance that compelling interest with the least possible burden to religious exercise. We all know what the compelling interest is. It's human life. The plaintiffs will say, Not to our religion, it's not. And I say, Bring on that debate. The science of life at fertilization is settled. And when you read the Dobbs opinion, I don't think you can escape the conclusion that the government now has a legally compelling interest in preventing abortions. Is there any way to promote that compelling interest without creating a religious clash? Not that I see. One day with the development of artificial, artificial wombs? Maybe. That, that would be great. But with current technology, no. So I believe that anti-abortion laws should survive a RFRA challenge. They survive strict scrutiny. The lawsuits will fail. But Kelsey, someone asks, What about strict in theory, fatal in fact? Thank you, person who has been paying attention. You should be skeptical. Can I point to any specific legal precedent that a state's interest in, in protecting human life, and in particular young human life, and preventing human death, can trump a religiously motivated medical decision? Well, folks, I promised you Jehovah's Witnesses, and I'm a woman of my word. Several bible verses prohibit eating blood and instruct Israelites to remove blood from their meat. Jehovah's Witnesses interpret those versions to prohibit not only eating blood through the mouth and digestion, but any consumption of blood, including taking blood intravenously. They oppose blood transfusions on that religious ground. This belief is very sincerely held. Many Jehovah's Witnesses would rather die than accept a blood transfusion. Many have proved it. Normally, we trust parents to make medical decisions for their children, but when Jehovah's Witness parents refuse to allow life saving blood transfusions for their kids, authorities often intervene. And when that happens, the parents go to court demanding vindication of their religious liberty. There's whole line of cases about this going back decades. And most of them cite this powerful quote from the Supreme Court case of Prince versus Massachusetts. Parents may be free to become martyrs themselves, but it does not follow that they are free in identical circumstances to make martyrs of their children. Oddly enough, Prince didn't involve blood transfusion or any other life or death issue. Prince was about a Jehovah's Witness who had her daughter, selling religious pamphlets late at night in violation of a child labor law. But the Supreme Court's rhetorical flourish about making martyrs of your children made it clear how it would come down in a blood transfusion case. And courts across the country took that unsubtle hint. For example, a Washington Court rejected a Jehovah's Witness blood transfusion lawsuit on the compelling authority of Prince. An Ohio Court wrote, no longer can parents virtually exercise the power of life or death over their children. Nor may they abandon him, deny him proper parental care, neglect or refuse to provide him with proper and necessary subsistence education, medical or surgical care, or other care necessary for his health, morals, or wellbeing. And while they may, under certain circumstances, deprive him of his liberty or his property, under no circumstances, with or without due process, with or without religious sanction, are they free to deprive him of his life. That same court went on to say the parents in this case have a perfect right to worship as they please and believe what they please. They enjoy complete freedom of religion, but this right of theirs ends where somebody else's right begins. Their child is a human being in his own right with a soul and body of his own. He has rights of his own. The right to live and grow up without disfigurement. Okay. You're thinking those were all born children. Okay. Allow me to introduce you to the New Jersey case of Hoener versus Bertinato. Mr. And Mrs. Bertinato were Jehovah's Witnesses. Mrs. Bertinato was pregnant with her fourth child. This was an issue of RH incompatibility. I am not qualified to explain that in any detail, so I'll just quote the court. Her first child was born without the necessity of blood transfusions and is a normal child. This accords with the medical testimony at the hearing that the mother's RH blood condition adversely affects the second and subsequent children, but rarely is harmful for the harmful to the first born. Second child needed a blood transfusion immediately. The parents refused and the baby's doctors filed an emergency petition. The court briefly placed that baby in state custody just long enough to accomplish the blood transfusion. The child survived, and the child was returned to the parents. I'll quote again. Gloria Bertinato's third pregnancy resulted in a baby who also — excuse me. Gloria Bertinato's third pregnancy resulted in a baby who admittedly also needed a blood transfusion to save its life, but defendants again refused to permit this on religious grounds. No legal proceedings were instituted to compel the transfusion. The infant died. For baby number four, the county would not allow that tragedy to be repeated. They were ready. Officials filed their lawsuit before the child was born, to ensure that a blood transfusion could occur. The lawsuit, quote, charges that the defendants, by their refusal to authorize the transfusions, are endangering the life of the unborn child, and are therefore neglecting to provide it with proper protection, in violation of New Jersey law. The court acknowledged that the parents' religious objections were sincere. But the parents' constitutional freedom of religion, although accorded the greatest possible respect, must bend to the paramount interest of the state to act in order to preserve the welfare of a child and its right to survive. The court cited Prince and various other Jehovah's Witnesses blood transfusion cases, and then it asked, should the outcome be any different because this child is still in the womb? And the answer was a resounding no. This was pre-roe. So the court embraced the science and stated medical authority recognizes that an unborn child is a distinct biological entity from the time of conception, and many branches of the law afford the unborn child protection throughout the period of gestation. Of course, in the Dobbs era, that protection is finally being restored. A pro-abortion American is free to embrace a religious belief that human life does not begin at fertilization, but she is not free to make a martyr of her child. That concludes my prepared remarks. I appreciate your time, and I look forward to answering your questions. Um, Elizabeth asked, what was the name of this case? I don't know which case you're referring to. All of the cases are in that citation, that link I gave at the beginning. And you should be able to, hold on. Are you talking about the most recent case I was talked? The, the last case I mentioned, Hoener, H O E N E R, versus Bertinato was the case with the, the unborn child of Jehovah's Witness. Love all the jokes in geek. Thank you, . I, I know that we, we cover some dark topics at the Rehumanize Conference. I'm a big believer in, trying to lighten the mood. I don't see much in Q and A tab, so I'm just gonna scroll back through the chat tab. Let me see if there's anything here. , As a fellow lawyer, I feel that caveat to my core. Yes. Thank you, Leah. Um, Oh my God. . Sorry. The poor, poor dog. Okay. Jews have been pro-life for millennia, so Yeah. I, I agree. Joey. Thank you, joey, for rick rolling us . Okay. Um. Ben says, these seem like really strong precedents, especially because some of them are arguably about letting die rather than killing and are thus even stronger than what you'd need in the abortion case. Excellent point, Ben. Yes, I, I certainly, hope that the courts see it the same way. The, the downside to the Jehovahs Witness precedence is that they are older and they are not Supreme Court precedents. But as I mentioned, the, the Supreme Court precedent in Prince, although not about blood transfusions, has, has largely been, taken up in that line of cases. And I think it would, still function in the same way in the unlikely event that one of these religious freedom abortion cases makes its way all the way to our highest court. How would you summarize this to say 240 characters? Like to tweet at Catholics for Choice? You might need a thread , or you can just, link to the eventual video of this presentation. I believe Rehumanize is going to make this footage available, and then we'll get the closed captions going and put it up on YouTube, hopefully within the next few weeks. But yeah, more, more generally, I think, the, I don't know, maybe I should start tweeting at Catholics for Choice about this. What are you seeing in the legal field regarding RFRA changing its function post Roe? I don't know that it's really changing its function necessarily. So some of the plaintiffs, and particularly the satanist plaintiffs, I think are bringing these lawsuits, not solely because they're pro-abortion, although they are — I think they would also, as a, as a strategic matter, like to push on RFRA. I think I, and I think that's why we're seeing the press around it that we're seeing. This is like — even if they were to lose and they, they have to know that they're likely to lose, this is, this is a press thing and this is a, a matter of, trying to, get, get some more public opposition to RFRA. So. I, I don't, I haven't seen a whole lot of traction on that front. I haven't seen any legislatures, taking RFRA off their books, but you never know. . David asks, How long, how do you do your legal prep? Sorry, I'm struggling to read this because other things keep popping up. How do you do your legal research and how long does it take? Did you know most of these cases offhand or did you have to look them up? So I knew some of the big ones offhand. I knew. Employment Division v Smith. I knew Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye. I knew Prince vs. Massachusetts. I knew Hobby Lobby. You know, like I, I refreshed my memory by rereading those opinions, but I knew that that was where I needed to start. And then I did have to do some additional research, when it came to the, the pen — the pending lawsuits, and also the Jehovah's Witness line of cases. I, I, because I am a practicing attorney, I have access to Westlaw, which is the, legal database. That was very helpful. And, you know, also just, I, you know, I started by just doing a general search for law review articles about Jehovah's Witness of blood transfusion that compiled some of the cases. And that was, that was a good start. And I, was definitely working on this presentation as late as last night. So , I'm glad it came together. I am a better procrastinator. But that's, yeah, that's how it all happened. Let's see. Ben asks, Apart from law, what do you think about the ethical argument from religious freedom or religious pluralism, that being pro-life depends on controversial slash contested views about the grounds of personal identity and dignity. And so no one view should be legislated for by a pluralist society. The problem is that your, your law is going to pick a line. That's what laws do. If. That, that that argument, that poor pluralism argument treats birth like it's a neutral line. It's not. The, the law is gonna pick a line and every line is gonna offend somebody . That, that's just, that's just life in a democracy. So I don't, I don't find that argument particularly, persuasive from our loyal opposition. My, I would go a step farther and say that the only neutral way to go about this is to say that, you know, human rights begin when human life begins. And that that has to be defined in a scientific way, rather than a philosophical way because, there, there's, you know, you all of these, different guideposts that are being posed. Bear a lot of resemblance to ensoulment, which would be an establishment of religion. I hope that makes sense. , Given your rationale, how would any abortion be legal without demonstrating an exceptional need such as life of the mother? I, I do oppose abortion other than for the life of the mother. Mother, excuse me. Under Dobbs, the state, it, it is still a state by state thing. I'm getting into — the 14th Amendment argument is definitely beyond the scope of what I can do in the next nine minutes. But the, so, the idea is that you're, you know, the people of a state, through their legislatures, demonstrate what the interests of the state are. Right? So Florida or, you know, let's, you know, take, take like Alabama, right? Alabama has, an active, pretty, pretty strong anti-abortion legislation post Dobbs. That is an indication that the state of Alabama has a compelling interest in preventing abortion and protecting human life. California obviously does not think that it has that compelling interest, so that — I, I don't know if I'm answering your question. But I, I hope, I hope that helps. How can interested people get involved with Secular Pro-life and what are your current needs? Yeah, definitely you can get involved in Secular Pro-life. We are always in need of volunteers. We, look for people to write guest pieces on our blog. We look for translators. We wanna get our message out in languages other than English. You can email me, info@secularprolife.org, or you can email our executive director Monica at Monica, secularprolife.org and, get connected to some volunteer opportunities that way. And you can also donate, via our website or our Facebook page. In Canada not long ago, an immigrant couple were convicted of the honor killing of their daughter. The couple sincerely believed that it was their moral duty to kill their daughter, but the majority in Canada, fortunately in the case of that issue, and unfortunately perhaps some other issues imposed their views on the minority. Sometimes it is good to impose views — not a question, a comment supporting something you said. I, yeah, that, that's an excellent example. I would stick with the Jehovah's witness example, just because it's a little less inflammatory. . I, I'm not in the habit of, comparing pro-choice people to supporters of honor killings if I don't have to. I think the Jehovah's Witness comparison is, more diplomatic and civil. But on principle, yes, you are correct. The the same reasons that, you shouldn't be able to, claim a religious exemption to commit an honor killing are, are the same reasons that you shouldn't be able to claim a religious exemption to have abortion. Um, Yeah, neutrality just seems impossible here. No neutrality when lives are on the line. Oh. Maria wrote, We will be publishing a handful of the session recordings on our YouTube in the coming weeks, but all attendees should have immediate access to all the recordings for rewatch and hopin on Monday, and that access will last for a full year. All right. Thank you. Maria. I don't. I'm, I'm guessing that's only for people who bought a ticket, though. I don't think Catholics for Choice bought a ticket. It's their loss. It's their loss. Okay, we've got about five more minutes together and I think I went through everybody's questions we might end earlier, which is, a secular miracle for a conference like this. I see Leah is on Team Westlaw. Yes, Westlaw all the way. I don't use Lexus. Never have. Um, oh. And Herb says, Thank you. All right. Herb, did you wanna come into the presentation and say anything? I was gonna do that, and then I just realized I'm in the same room as Kane who is on a panel right now, so nevermind. I'm leaving Yes, Secular Miracle would be a great band name, absolutely Ray. Hmm. Can you maybe conscience rights for physicians? Oh, can I comment on that? It's a big problem here in Canada. I unfortunately don't know much at all about Canadian law. I don't, to my knowledge, Canada doesn't have something like RFRA. So I am unfortunately not the person to ask. But, yeah, RFRA certainly can be used, for conscience protections in, in some situations. That wasn't within the scope of what I was researching, for this presentation, but I have seen that anecdotally. Um, the danger there, of course is that, you're treating, objection to abortion as inherently religious, which it isn't , but, Okay. Anything else? Always heard Canada is pretty bad for conference rights. Yeah. Yeah. That, that's what I've heard also. Oh, something in the Q and A. Thank you. What do you think of efforts to argue for pro-life conclusions within religions on specifically religious grounds? Eg. Do you think Catholic should be arguing against Catholic for Choice? Primarily just using general moral argument. To avoid creating the impression that it's really a religious issue, or do you think there's a role for intra religious debates to be more well religious? I, I think that if you are part of a religious community, and members of your community are out doing stupid things or unethical things, you should go get your guy. That's, I, I have no problem with you using a religious argument with someone that you know to be religious. Now if you're in a public Twitter argument with Catholics for Choice, then maybe consider that you're not so much trying to persuade them. You're trying to persuade the audience. So in that case you might take a more ve route, but yeah, individually, like in a one on one or small group setting, if you are speaking with co-religionists, I don't have a problem with you, using a religious argument. That's your business. I'm, I'm an atheist. That's, that's not my realm at all. So something came up in chat. Con — that's the problem we're having. Conscience is always being framed as religious, but conscience is not itself exclusive to religion. Yeah. And so that kind of gets back to my point earlier about, satanism being considered a religion. And you, you can see that also in, consci— conscientious objector rules for military, you do not have to be, religious to, to claim, an interest in pacifism. I read about a pastor who has a ministry flying women from places where abortion is illegal to get abortions legally. That's just gross. Okay. I think we are done. Thank you all so much for your time. I am going to maybe hang out a little bit at the Secular Pro-Life Expo booth if anybody wants to continue this conversation. And, yeah. Thank, thank you so much for, for dropping in. I really, and, and for, for asking such thoughtful questions.  

UVA Law professors Douglas Laycock and Julia Mahoney, and Scott Keller, partner at Lehotsky Keller and former solicitor general of Texas, discuss the 2021 U.S. Supreme Court term. The event was sponsored by the Federalist Society at UVA Law. (University of Virginia School of Law, Sept. 6, 2022)

In today's bonus episode of This Day in Miami History, Matthew Bunch speaks to Douglas Laycock, the Robert E. Scott Distinguished Professor at the University of Virginia School of Law and the lawyer who successfully argued on behalf of the Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye at the Supreme Court.Remember to follow This Day in Miami History Podcast on your preferred podcast provider, as well as Twitter and Facebook!And visit the This Day in Miami History shop on Spreadshirt for your "Elect Ralph Renick Governor" bumper sticker, t-shirt, and more, as well as TDMH-branded material!Animal sacrifice and Religious Freedom : Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye v. City of Hialeah by David M. O'Brien at Internet Archive: https://archive.org/details/animalsacrificer0000obriChurch of Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc. v. City of Hialeah at Oyez.org: https://www.oyez.org/cases/1992/91-948The Supreme Court's Assault on Free Exercise, and the Amicus Brief That Was Never Filed by Douglas Laycock (JSTOR login required): https://www.jstor.org/stable/1051259 Support this podcast at — https://redcircle.com/this-day-in-miami-history-podcast/donationsAdvertising Inquiries: https://redcircle.com/brandsPrivacy & Opt-Out: https://redcircle.com/privacy

In today's episode of Interactions, we discuss the ongoing court case of Kennedy v. Bremerton School District with Ira “Chip” Lupu and Holly Hollman. The case concerns a public high school football coach in Washington State who argues that he has the right to pray on the fifty-yard line of the field after each game—and that his high school players should be allowed to join in. Coach Kennedy argues that his “brief and quiet” prayer is private speech protected under the First Amendment and the Free Exercise clause. But his position as a football coach at a public school means that his prayer could actually be in violation of the wall of separation between church and state.  Ira, nationally recognized scholar in constitutional law, is professor of law emeritus at George Washington University and coauthor of https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.eerdmans.com%2FProducts%2F7079%2Fsecular-government-religious-people.aspx&data=05%7C01%7Ceythen.aaron.anthony%40emory.edu%7C6bf41ae639a44ff41d2b08da26cc9f9f%7Ce004fb9cb0a4424fbcd0322606d5df38%7C0%7C0%7C637864957535493840%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=ENOeKj5BJwyvRsCbCeATAjRd2CZVGDXe32gLv%2FdQsaM%3D&reserved=0 (Secular Government, Religious People). Holly is a leading expert on religious liberty and general counsel at Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty (BJC). She is also cohost of the Respecting Religion podcast with BJC executive director Amanda Tyler and adjunct faculty at Georgetown University. Is Coach Kennedy's prayer public or private speech? Does it violate the establishment clause? And should teachers be allowed to pray with students in public schools? Find out in today's episode of Interactions. Legal scholars to speak in support of Coach Kennedy were invited to the discussion but declined to participate. Follow Ira on Twitter https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Ftwitter.com%2Ficlupu&data=05%7C01%7Ceythen.aaron.anthony%40emory.edu%7C6bf41ae639a44ff41d2b08da26cc9f9f%7Ce004fb9cb0a4424fbcd0322606d5df38%7C0%7C0%7C637864957535493840%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=3lnXrXb71zD3CVnmxtzm78xhyGyVGeRg6BedeeWHJEQ%3D&reserved=0 (here), and click https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.eerdmans.com%2FProducts%2F7079%2Fsecular-government-religious-people.aspx&data=05%7C01%7Ceythen.aaron.anthony%40emory.edu%7C6bf41ae639a44ff41d2b08da26cc9f9f%7Ce004fb9cb0a4424fbcd0322606d5df38%7C0%7C0%7C637864957535493840%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=ENOeKj5BJwyvRsCbCeATAjRd2CZVGDXe32gLv%2FdQsaM%3D&reserved=0 (here) to purchase his book. Subscribe to Holly's podcast, Respecting Religion, on https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fopen.spotify.com%2Fshow%2F29IoVEN0fXxTdjhZgw9KMc%3Fsi%3Dd25c35376fca4a49&data=05%7C01%7Ceythen.aaron.anthony%40emory.edu%7C6bf41ae639a44ff41d2b08da26cc9f9f%7Ce004fb9cb0a4424fbcd0322606d5df38%7C0%7C0%7C637864957535493840%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=Cc2OoQCKGPZuo9xZMQ3awr9B4YrZRcI4OObeJFKJxL4%3D&reserved=0 (Spotify). Her amicus briefing, written in tandem with Christopher C. Lund, Douglas Laycock, and several denominational groups and referenced in today's episode, can be...

A public high school football coach is claiming a right to pray with students on the 50-yard-line immediately after the game while still on duty. What's the best way to protect religious freedom for everyone in this situation? Amanda and Holly talk about the Supreme Court case of Kennedy v. Bremerton, what's at stake, and how various groups are portraying what really happened. They go over BJC's brief, which works to find a solution for everyone that protects the rights of students to be free to make their own choices about what religious practices they want to do and when to do so. Amanda and Holly also discuss the lines between private practice and government speech, and the different rights of students – who are compelled to be at school – and government employees, who represent the government.    SHOW NOTES: Segment 1: What is going on in this case? Outlining the facts and setting the record straight (starting at 00:50) In episode 10, Amanda and Holly discussed Shurtleff v. Boston, the flag-raising case at Boston City Hall. BJC filed a brief in the Kennedy v. Bremerton case, defending students' rights to religious liberty. You can read the brief here, and read more about it on our website in this article: BJC urges Supreme Court to reject high school coach's defense of on-field prayers with students. BJC's brief was led by Holly and BJC Associate General Counsel Jennifer Hawks, and it was written by church-state scholars Douglas Laycock and Christopher Lund.   Segment 2: Previewing the oral arguments (starting at 16:30) Amanda and Holly mentioned several cases involving case law about the rights of government employees and the rights of the government as an employer: Pickering v. Board of Education (1968) Garcetti v. Ceballos (2006) They also mentioned cases about religion and public schools and speech that are relevant to this case: Good News Club v. Milford Central School (2001) Santa Fe v. Doe (2000) (another case involving prayer at public school football games) Tinker v. Des Moines (1969) You can read BJC's guidance on religion in the public schools – including consensus guidelines put together by diverse groups in decades past – by visiting BJConline.org/religion-public-schools-resources/.   Segment 3: Religion and sports in our lives today  (starting at 33:56) Amanda and Holly discussed this article by Kelsey Dallas, published by Deseret News: Trying to raise successful kids? Experts say you shouldn't forget about faith Respecting Religion is made possible by BJC's generous donors. You can support these conversations with a gift to BJC. 

On February 28-29, 1992, the Federalist Society held its eleventh annual National Student Symposium at the University of Texas School of Law in Austin, Texas. The subject of the conference was "The Legacy of the Federalist Papers." The third panel covered "Liberty and Constitutional Architecture."11:15 a.m.Panel III: Liberty and Constitutional ArchitectureProf. John S. Baker, Jr., Louisiana State University Law CenterProf. Douglas Laycock, University of Texas School of LawProf. Geoffrey P. Miller, University of Chicago Law SchoolModerator: Hon. James L. Buckley, U.S. Court of Appeals, DC Circuit*******As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speakers.

On February 28-29, 1992, the Federalist Society held its eleventh annual National Student Symposium at the University of Texas School of Law in Austin Texas. The subject of the conference was "The Legacy of the Federalist Papers." The symposium commenced with a panel on "Philosophical Foundations of 'The Federalist': The Nature of Law and the Nature of Man."6:30 p.m.Introduction and Opening RemarksProf. Douglas Laycock, Associate Dean, University of Texas7:00 p.m.Panel I: Philosophical Foundations of The Federalist: The Nature of Law and the Nature of ManProf. Richard A. Epstein, University of Chicago Law SchoolProf. Mary Ann Glendon, Harvard Law SchoolProf. Harold Bruff, University of Texas Law SchoolModerator: Hon. Thomas R. Phillips, Supreme Court of Texas

The Supreme Court today continues to vigorously debate the scope of religious exemptions—which allow individuals or organizations to be exempt from following certain laws that they say burden their religious beliefs—in high-profile cases such as Fulton v. City of Philadelphia (2021). This episode dives into the current and historic debates over religious exemptions in a panel featuring Douglas Laycock, author of the five-volume series The Collected Works on Religious Liberty; Vincent Phillip Muñoz, author of God and the Founders; and Kathleen Brady, author of The Distinctiveness of Religion in American Law. Jeffrey Rosen, president and CEO of the National Constitution Center, moderates. This program is presented in partnership with the University of Notre Dame's Center for Citizenship & Constitutional Government. Check out additional programming about religious exemptions at https://constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/media-library?amendment=14909 and below: We the People episode, "The Future of Church and State at SCOTUS" https://constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/podcast/the-future-of-church-and-state-at-scotus On Fulton v. City of Philadelphia (2021): We the People episode, "Religious Groups, Foster Care, and the First Amendment" https://constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/podcast/the-future-of-church-and-state-at-scotus Additional resources and transcript available in our Media Library at constitutioncenter.org/constitution. Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.

An LGBT Suit Seeks to Pull Christian College Funding--  Constitutional scholar Douglas Laycock, professor of law at the University of Virginia weighs in on the funding colleges receive, what would happen if LGBT advocates win their case, and a possible compromise.  

The post The Future of Religious Liberty in America: A Conversation with Law Professor Douglas Laycock appeared first on AlbertMohler.com.

This episode will discuss the Supreme Court’s decision in Liu v. SEC, both the Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and whether the Court’s reference to “equitable relief” includes the remedy of “disgorgement.” Douglas Laycock, who filed an amiscus brief in support of neither party, will lead this discussion.

The controversy over the contraceptive mandate was back at the U.S. Supreme Court this week. Amanda Tyler and Holly Hollman react to the live arguments in Trump v. Pennsylvania and give the history of the contraceptive mandate, including how the Hobby Lobby and Zubik cases led to this one. They also share audio clips from key moments in the arguments and discuss what's at stake for religious liberty when religious accommodations turn into “all-or-nothing” claims on both sides. Segment 1: The history of the contraceptive mandate (starting at 00:40) For more resources on the 2016 Zubik v. Burwell case (also known as the “Little Sisters of the Poor” case) and to read our brief written with Douglas Laycock, visit BJConline.org/Zubik.   Segment 2: Breaking down the arguments in Trump v. Pennsylvania (Starting at 21:33) To listen to the oral arguments in Trump v. Pennsylvania from May 6, 2020, visit this link from C-SPAN. The excerpts Holly and Amanda used in the podcast can be found at the following time in the oral arguments: The clip of Chief Justice John Roberts is from around 27:44 into the arguments The clip of Justice Stephen Breyer is from around 35:00 into the arguments The clip of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg is from around 32:44 into the arguments The clip of Justice Sonia Sotomayor is from around 40:00 into the arguments   Segment 3: What else is happening in our world (starting at 39:30) Next week's consolidated cases on the ministerial exception are known as Our Lady of Guadalupe v. Morissey-Berru. Amanda and Holly discussed the issue in episode 5 of this podcast series during the second segment. See BJC's page of coronavirus articles and podcasts at BJConline.org/COVID-19. To read stories we shared on Giving Tuesday Now from members of our community making a difference, visit BJConline.org/givingtuesdaynow-2020.

On March 14, 2020, the Federalist Society held its 39th National Student Symposium. The Symposium was originally scheduled to be held at the University of Michigan's Law School but was rescheduled as a digital conference. The fourth panel discussed "Originalism and Interstate Relations"The Constitution famously says very little about interstate relations. Writing for the Court in Franchise Tax Board v. Hyatt, Justice Thomas suggested that the Constitution “reflects implicit alterations to the States’ relationships with each other, confirming that they are no longer fully independent nations.” How much of the law of interstate relations is truly settled by the Constitution? As for the rest, what kind of law governs instead? Is it federal or state, general or international, written or unwritten? And what does it provide?This panel examines what originalism has to say, if anything, about questions of “horizontal federalism”—such as personal jurisdiction, choice of law, full faith and credit, extraterritorial regulation, state borders, sovereign immunity, and other areas of interstate dispute. How did the Founders understand these questions, either before the Constitution or after? What duties do the fifty states owe one another? And what are the roles of Congress and the courts in determining the answers?Prof. William P. Baude, Professor of Law and Aaron Director Research Scholar, University of Chicago Law SchoolProf. Douglas Laycock, Robert E. Scott Distinguished Professor of Law, University of Virginia School of LawProf. Stephen E. Sachs, Professor of Law, Duke University School of LawModerator: Hon. David R. Stras, United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit*******As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.

On March 14, 2020, the Federalist Society held its 39th National Student Symposium. The Symposium was originally scheduled to be held at the University of Michigan's Law School but was rescheduled as a digital conference. The fourth panel discussed "Originalism and Interstate Relations"The Constitution famously says very little about interstate relations. Writing for the Court in Franchise Tax Board v. Hyatt, Justice Thomas suggested that the Constitution “reflects implicit alterations to the States’ relationships with each other, confirming that they are no longer fully independent nations.” How much of the law of interstate relations is truly settled by the Constitution? As for the rest, what kind of law governs instead? Is it federal or state, general or international, written or unwritten? And what does it provide?This panel examines what originalism has to say, if anything, about questions of “horizontal federalism”—such as personal jurisdiction, choice of law, full faith and credit, extraterritorial regulation, state borders, sovereign immunity, and other areas of interstate dispute. How did the Founders understand these questions, either before the Constitution or after? What duties do the fifty states owe one another? And what are the roles of Congress and the courts in determining the answers?Prof. William P. Baude, Professor of Law and Aaron Director Research Scholar, University of Chicago Law SchoolProf. Douglas Laycock, Robert E. Scott Distinguished Professor of Law, University of Virginia School of LawProf. Stephen E. Sachs, Professor of Law, Duke University School of LawModerator: Hon. David R. Stras, United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit*******As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.

FR 20 - 01 - Espinosa Vs Montana Dept Of Revenue - Douglas Laycock - Rel Date 01 - 04 - 20 by Church State Council

07/15/2019 The Constitutional Threat of The(Sexual Orientation) Equality Act and The Looming Debt Crisis And Coming Debt Foregiveness(Jubilee) John Adams Quotes. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other. https://decisionmagazine.com/equality-act-clear-present-danger/ In July 2015, when the Supreme Court announced its ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges, which legalized gay marriage nationwide, then-Senior Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote in the majority opinion that the ruling posed no threat to constitutional religious freedoms. Kennedy even posited that gay marriages “involve only the rights of two consenting adults whose marriages would pose no risk of harm to themselves or third parties.” His colleague Samuel Alito, joined by justices Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia, begged to differ—sharply. Alito wrote in a dissent that traditionalists would presumably be allowed to “whisper their thoughts in the recesses of their homes,” but if they uttered their beliefs publicly, they would be labeled “bigots and treated as such by governments, employers and schools.” Alito’s retort has proven to be prophetic. In the four years since, the list of wedding vendors, business leaders, government leaders, students, campus ministries, judges, military personnel and counselors punished, silenced, sued or fined for Christian convictions concerning marriage and human sexuality has ensued just as Alito predicted, or worse. If that wasn’t enough, LGBTQ activists have relentlessly pushed for normalization of transgenderism, gaining footholds in psychiatry, medicine, news media, entertainment, education, government and social services, while demonizing any who question the new sexual dogma and labeling them haters or bigots. That momentum has carried over into national politics, with prominent progressive politicians embracing the LGBTQ movement’s playbook with unadulterated enthusiasm.   The Equality Act of 2019 is the latest, and arguably the most dangerous, example of this. After the House passed it this spring, Speaker Nancy Pelosi boasted to reporters: “I say tolerant … is a condescending word. This is not about tolerance. This is about respect of the LGBTQ community. This is about taking pride.” Tolerance is no longer enough. What Obergefell didn’t accomplish, the misnamed Equality Act of 2019 attempts to complete with the full crushing force of the federal government behind it.  Former Vice President Joe Biden, thought by some as the front-runner for the Democratic nomination for president, announced on June 5 that the Equality Act would top his list of priorities. “It will be the first thing I ask to be done,” Biden told an Ohio audience at a dinner sponsored by the Human Rights Campaign, the powerful LGBTQ lobbying group.  The Equality Act has come up before, but it prevailed in the House for the first time this spring, by a comfortable 236-173 margin. It is now with the Senate, which is unlikely to pass it. However, one election could change that. If the Equality Act becomes law, it would remake the landmark 1964 Civil Rights Act—which aimed to correct systemic and institutional racial discrimination—by establishing new federally protected categories of sexual orientation and gender identity in every sphere of society, including religious institutions. Alliance Defending Freedom, an organization that has argued notable cases for businesses that have been in the crosshairs of LGBTQ activists and progressive bureaucrats, explained in an email to Decision: “SOGI (sexual orientation and gender identity) laws like the Equality Act coerce obedience to one view of marriage, sexual morality, and what it means to be male and female. If it became law, the Equality Act would forbid churches, religious schools and other religious nonprofits from drawing their workforces from among those who are willing to abide by organizational standards on these subjects.” Kelly Shackelford, president and CEO of the First Liberty law firm, which helped argue in favor of religious freedom and free speech in the Obergefell case, agrees. “The Equality Act attempts to make sure that in all cases LGBT rights trump religious freedom—in every situation. It makes religious freedom a secondary freedom or right.”  Shackelford says the bill would have broad implications for people of faith; churches; faith-based institutions, including foster and adoption care entities, parents, students, medical workers and public employees; as well as private sector businesses and employees.  “The Equality Act attempts to make sure that in all cases LGBT rights trump religious freedom—in every situation. It makes religious freedom a secondary freedom or right.” —Kelly Shackelford, president and CEO of First Liberty The Equality Act explicitly states that the provisions in the 1993 Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA)—which aimed to ensure that “interests in religious freedom are protected”—cannot be used as a defense in cases in which sexual orientation or gender identity discrimination is in question. Additionally, it would override religious freedom restoration laws in the states, as well as application of the federal RFRA as it pertains to conscience protections for federal employees.  “They want to make sure there’s no religious freedom defense,” Shackelford says. “People can’t have a different belief and expect to live in peace. They can’t even make the argument for their beliefs, which is why this is so extreme. Even if you’re a nonprofit religious group, you can get sued for discrimination if you’re not following the new orthodoxy on LGBT rights, gender transition and gender identity, and everything else. And you have to open your showers, your bathrooms, etc., to the opposite sex. “In every scenario, whether you’re a parent, you’re a woman or a girl, you’re a nonprofit religious group, you’re an employer or you’re a medical professional—you name it—in all scenarios, religious freedom is now subsidiary and LGBT and gender-identity rights trump, in all cases, religious freedom and people’s right to conscience.” Even a liberal scholar like Douglas Laycock of the University of Virginia law school, a same-sex marriage supporter, has argued against the Equality Act, telling National Review that the bill “is not a good-faith attempt to reconcile competing interests. It is an attempt by one side to grab all the disputed territory and to crush the other side.” Some on the left have claimed religious conservatives are using scare tactics to drum up opposition to the Equality Act. Todd Chasteen, vice president of public policy at Samaritan’s Purse in Boone, North Carolina, says they are either disingenuous or woefully misinformed. “It’s not theory. This is reality. These things are happening,” he says.   The case of fired Atlanta Fire Chief Kelvin Cochran is a prominent example of where the Equality Act would take the nation, Chasteen says. Cochran, who has since won a lawsuit in federal court and received damages from the City of Atlanta, was fired in early 2015 for writing a Bible study for a men’s group he taught at his church. It briefly covered Biblical sexuality and God’s plan for marriage. “His book disagreed with the sexual orthodoxy of the left, and they went after him,” Chasteen says.  Chasteen also noted the $135,000 fine levied by the state of Oregon on Aaron and Melissa Klein, who operated a bakery that refused to design a cake for a lesbian wedding. The Kleins eventually had to close their storefront shop. In another case, an Ohio judge terminated the parental rights of a couple who had refused to support their daughter’s transgender hormone treatments. And in Anchorage, Alaska, a faith-based shelter is fighting for the right to prevent biological males from sleeping in a room reserved for women who have been victims of sexual assault or physical abuse. “None of this is theory,” Chasteen reiterated. “This is reality.” “The Equality Act is a federal act, which would mean that we would have to walk around hiding what our belief systems are in all 50 states if this thing ends up being approved.” Even some in the liberal feminist movement are concerned that the Equality Act could erode gains made for women over decades by making one’s biological sex meaningless in multiple arenas, and by creating an uneven playing field in women’s athletics. In Connecticut, for example, two biological males who are reportedly taking female hormones finished first and second in the high school girls state indoor 55-meter sprint, with the winner setting a state record. As Rep. Vicki Hartzler (R-Missouri) wrote in an opinion piece for The Hill: “Congress enacted Title IX for a reason—to provide an equal playing field for men and women. But by requiring that all federally funded programs ignore the biological differences between the sexes, the Equality Act dissolves decades of women’s achievements overnight.” “The Equality Act is a federal act, which would mean that we would have to walk around hiding what our belief systems are in all 50 states if this thing ends up being approved.” —Todd Chasteen, vice president of public policy at Samaritan’s Purse Medical entities and workers, from doctors to nurses to technicians, would be required under the Equality Act to provide, perform or participate in sex- or gender-related treatments, even if they claimed a sincerely held religious or professional objection, ADF says. And insurance plans would be forced to cover such treatments with no exemptions.  As already is the case in many educational settings, teachers and professors would be required by federal civil rights law to respect a person’s gender identity by using preferred pronouns, regardless of given names or biological reality. That would even extend to private institutions, where a statement of faith or belief would be subordinate to federal statutes.   Groups such as the Human Rights Campaign and individuals such as Denver software entrepreneur Tim Gill, who has reportedly spent $400 million pushing LGBTQ issues to politicians and influencers, wield enormous power in government, in corporate boardrooms, and in media and academia. “A pastor of a large church in Atlanta told me that many of his members work for significant global companies in that city,” Chasteen says, “and they walk around petrified by the thought that someone might find out what their beliefs are about marriage. Silencing speech and suppressing thought is un-American.” Andrew Walker, professor of Christian ethics and apologetics at The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary and a senior fellow at the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission, says any legislator with an appreciation for the importance of religious liberty must oppose the Equality Act.  “Or else,” Walker wrote in a post on the Gospel Coalition website, “with the stroke of a pen, pillars of human history—the ideas that marriage is a complementary union of a man and a woman, and that male and female are immutable, biological realities—would be thrown into the dustbin of history.”

How does one prepare, and what is it like to argue before the U.S. Supreme Court? In this episode, Douglas Laycock, an experienced Supreme Court advocate himself, moderates an insightful conversation between two prominent Supreme Court appellate lawyers. Former Solicitor General Seth Waxman of WilmerHale and former Assistant to the Solicitor General Nicole Saharsky of Mayer Brown share their personal experiences as well as their unique insight into the nation’s highest court.

Key players in the U.S. Supreme Court case Fisher v. University of Texas (2016) discuss its implications for the future of affirmative action policies in the United States. The panel features Scott Ballenger '96, a key player working on behalf of the University of Texas for Latham & Watkins, and UVA Law professors Douglas Laycock, George Rutherglen and Kim Forde-Mazrui. (University of Virginia School of Law, March 15, 2017)

In September, 2016, the United States Commission on Civil Rights released a report entitled Peaceful Coexistence: Reconciling Nondiscrimination Principles with Civil Liberties. In the report, the USCCR concluded that religious exercise is in tension with individual rights of certain subsections of the American population. It then went on to make a number of recommendations that suggest that that religious exercise must give way to civil rights protections when the two come into conflict: -- Narrow Tailoring of Religious Exceptions: Federal and state courts, lawmakers, and policy-makers at every level must tailor religious exceptions to civil liberties and civil rights protections as narrowly as applicable law requires. -- Protections of Beliefs Over Conduct: The recognition of religious exemptions to nondiscrimination laws and policies should be made pursuant to the holdings of Employment Division v. Smith, which protect religious beliefs rather than conduct. -- Amending the Religious Freedoms Restoration Act (“RFRA") (and State equivalents): Federal legislation should be considered to clarify that RFRA creates First Amendment Free Exercise Clause rights only for individuals and religious institutions and only to the extent that they do not unduly burden civil liberties and civil rights protections against status-based discrimination. States with laws similar to RFRA should similarly amend their laws. -- This panel will first explore whether the USSCR Report is correct that there is, in fact, an irreconcilable tension between religious liberty and civil liberties. And second, if there is a conflict between religious liberty and civil liberties, the panel will debate whether the recommendation by USCCR to limit religious exemptions is the best way to navigate such conflict. -- This panel was presented at the 2017 National Student Symposium on Saturday, March 4, 2017, at Columbia Law School in New York City, New York. -- Featuring: Prof. Bill Marshall, Kenan Professor of Law, University of North Carolina; Prof. Michael Paulsen, Distinguished University Chair and Professor, University of St. Thomas; Prof. Marci Hamilton, Fox Family Pavilion Distinguished Scholar, University of Pennsylvania; and Prof. Douglas Laycock, Robert E. Scott Distinguished Professor of Law; University of Virginia Law School; Professor of Religious Studies, University of Virginia. Moderator: Hon. William H. Pryor, Jr. U.S. Court of Appeals, 11th Circuit.

From the Free Exercise Clause to Zubik v. Burwell, questions about how religious rights fit into the legal framework have kept U.S. courts busy since the country’s founding. How did carving out a space for religious accommodation under the law become deafening calls for amnesty? What religious liberty cases currently traveling through the court system should we be keeping our eyes on? Moderator: Tim Townsend, Freelance. Speakers: Sarah Barringer Gordon, Arlin M Adams Professor of Constitutional Law & Professor of History, University of Pennsylvania; Marie Griffith, Director, John C. Danforth Center on Religion and Politics at Washington University; Douglas Laycock, Professor of Law and Religious Studies, University of Virginia Law School.

The history of protecting religious liberty at the courts is mixed, but there is hope. Douglas Laycock comments. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

UVA Law professors Douglas Laycock and Kim Forde-Mazrui discuss the implications of Obergefell v. Hodges, the U.S. Supreme Court case holding that same-sex couples have a right to marry under the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution. (University of Virginia School of Law, Oct. 8, 2015)

Today on The Gist, an interview from the new podcast Amicus, hosted by Slate’s Dahlia Lithwick. In the excerpt, Dahlia talks with University of Virginia law professor Douglas Laycock, who argued the case of Holt v. Hobbs. Plus, Sarah Koenig from the Serial podcast gives us the tiniest clues about where this phenomenal who-done-it series is headed. For the Spiel, screwy Scottish science. Get The Gist by email as soon as it’s available: slate.com/GistEmail Subscribe to the podcast in iTunes: itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/slate…id873667927?mt=2 Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

On Ep. 1 of Amicus, Slate’s Dahlia Lithwick discusses the opening of the Surpreme Court’s new term with Tom Goldstein, publisher of SCOTUSblog. Dahlia also welcomes Douglas Laycock, who argued the case of a Muslim prisoner who wants to grow a beard. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

On May 5th 2014, the Supreme Court decided Greece v. Galloway, a landmark case about the right of prayer in government assemblies. Both sides of the argument invoked the First Amendment to make their case, but who is right and why? On this episode of Lawyer 2 Lawyer, host Bob Ambrogi brings this issue to the forefront with opposing counsels Douglas Laycock, for the respondents, and David Cortman, for the petitioner. Together, they discuss the relative merits of their cases, the endorsement test, and the coercion test. Tune in to hear more about the future of legislative prayer and your First Amendment rights. Professor Douglas Laycock is a Robert E. Scott Distinguished Professor of Law Professor of Religious Studies at University of Virginia School of Law and one of the nation's leading authorities on the law of religious liberty. In addition to teaching for over 30 years, Professor Laycock has testified frequently before Congress and has argued many cases in the courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court. Professor Laycock is an accomplished author on the subject at hand and the 2nd Vice President of the American Law Institute. Especially pertinent to today's episode, Professor Laycock argued for Susan Galloway and Linda Stephens, the respondents, in the Supreme Court. David Cortman serves as senior counsel and vice-president of Religious Liberty with Alliance Defending Freedom at its Atlanta Regional Service Center in Georgia. He also heads litigation efforts to defend and reclaim the First Amendment rights of public school students across the country. Among his many media appearances, Mr. Cortman has been on CNN, MSNBC, and Fox News. Especially pertinent to today's episode, he served as counsel for the Town of Greece, the petitioner, in the Supreme Court. Special thanks to our sponsor, Clio.

   (link fixed)  Joseph Farah from World Net Daily  says our Constitution is broken.  Dr. Orly Taitz  is still challenging Obama's natural born citizenship.   Gay marriage redux.  Dr. Douglas Laycock  with "Same-Sex Marriage and Religious Liberty: Emerging Conflicts"...  can peace be achieved on the issue?