Tuesday, May 6, 2008
On Wedesday, May 28th, the California Supreme Court heard oral arguments on what Advocates' General Counsel, Robert Tyler, calls "one of the most important cases in the nation."
In 2001, Dr. Christine Brody and Dr. Doug Fenton, doctors specializing in women's reproductive health at North Coast Women's Medical Group, found themselves defendants in a lawsuit when a lesbian patient accused them of discrimination based on her sexual orientation. As a Christian, Dr. Brody would not artificially inseminate the patient, as her religious convictions precluded her from doing so for any unmarried woman. Despite the fact that the patient was referred and then successfully inseminated elsewhere, she sued the doctors and the health center.
Now, nearly seven years after the initial filing of the lawsuit, the California Supreme Court convened to hear arguments regarding the question the court posited to counsel last year: "Does a physician have a constitutional right to refuse on religious grounds to perform a medical procedure for a patient because of the patient's sexual orientation, or [does state law] preclude such discrimination in the provision of services notwithstanding the physician's religious beliefs?" In other words, what is the State of California more interested in protecting: an individual's right to religious expression or an individual's sexual orientation?
Much is at stake in this precedent-setting case. Seven exhaustive years have passed, and now California's Supreme Court has been called upon to determine the hierarchy of values in the State of California and whether or not a person can exercise his or her faith in the workplace.
The court will issue a decision by late August.
Tuesday, April 22, 2008
On April 16, 2008, the U.S. Third Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia unanimously reversed a New Jersey District Court's ruling that had permitted Marcus Borden, a high school football coach, to bow his head or kneel with students as they engaged in student-led team prayer.
The New Jersey District Court judge, Hon. Dennis Cavanaugh, had reasoned in his 2006 Opinion that not to allow the coach to bow his head and "take a knee as a sign of respect for his players' actions and traditions...would be a violation of his (the coach's) rights." The Federal Appeals court disagreed, however, and said that because the coach had led prayer at past school events, his deferential posture during the players' prayer would be interpreted as endorsement of religion.
In efforts to show respect for God and his country's laws, Coach Borden has agreed to abide by the Appeals court's ruling. Constitutional scholars sympathize, however, that the Appeals court has placed him, and others like him, in a precarious position. It is difficult to imagine a posture the coach can assume during student-led prayer that does not either portray him as either endorsing religion or being disrespectful of it. If he does not bow his head and take a knee with the players, for example, what options is he left but to distance himself from the group or engage in some other activity? Judge Marianne Trump Barry, one of the Appeals court judges who agreed with the opinion, expressed concern over this very issue, indicating that if he were to "turn his back or stand and walk away" during the team's prayer, he might be perceived as evincing "hostility to religion".
Advocates exists to protect religious liberties in the courts. Public schools are increasingly the venues of religious liberty issues, and, unfortunately, it is often the case that Christians' rights are ultimately infringed upon. Take, for example, the case of sophomore Chad Farnan. His public school teacher, a paid representative of the state, has almost daily not only demonstrated hostility toward religion, but openly mocked people of faith, declaring them to be ignorant and ridiculous. A reasonable person has to wonder whose freedoms our nation is interested in upholding when one school district would allow this kind of behavior to continue for more than fifteen years, but another would forbid a football coach simply from bowing his head and kneeling out of respect to his team's student-led prayer.
Please stand with us as we seek to ensure protection of our constitutionally-guaranteed religious liberties in our public schools. YOU can make a difference!
Want to read the Third Circuit's Opinion? See below. http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/063890p.pdf
Monday, March 31, 2008
As a result of the prayers of Christians from all across the Nation, the California court of appeals will re-hear its February 28, 2008, ruling in which it stated that the parents of children enrolled at Sunland Christian School, a private homeschooling program, could be held criminally liable under California law for choosing to educate their children at home.
The ruling stated further that a teaching credential is required in order for parents to educate their children at home. Our prayers have been answered, however, and the ruling has been vacated. The court has decided to re-hear the case.
Advocates for Faith and Freedom and our allies will file a "friend of the court brief" regarding the constitutionality of California's homeschooling laws with the court of appeals. It is crucial that the court understand that the initial ruling ignores the fundamental right of all parents to make educational choices for their children. Please continue to pray for wisdom for all the attorneys involved in this case!
Read more:
http://origin.mercurynews.com/education/ci_8477915
http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/documents/B192878.PDF
http://www.mercurynews.com/valley/ci_8712957?nclick_check=1
