Fuller Theological Seminary is one of the world’s leading Christian graduate educational institutions. It is a highly regarded, international, and multiethnic seminary including numerous denominations. It strives to train global Christian leaders to fulfill their religious callings in Christian ministries. Upon entering the seminary, students agree to the standards of the school community, which are rooted in Christian values and morality. Included in this agreement is the fact that a sexual union must be made between a man and a woman, as God created marriage to be the permanent covenant of such (according to the Christian faith). Fuller Theological Seminary has the right to hold their voluntary members to the agreed-upon religious and moral conditions. However, in 2019, after agreeing to the terms of the contract, Joanna Maxon and Nathan Brittsan sued Fuller for being dismissed from the seminary due to violations of the community standards by entering same-sex marriages. Fuller refunded their tuition for all classes left incomplete at the time of dismissal. The federal district court dismissed the claims against Fuller in 2020, claiming the rights of religious educational institutions to uphold community standards. Later that year, Maxon and Brittsan appealed to the Ninth Circuit which unanimously affirmed the lower court’s decision.
The constitutional question at hand is whether a religious educational institution violates the Fourteenth Amendment in dismissing a student trainee for being involved in a same-sex marriage.
This case resembles Seattle's Union Gospel Mission v. Woods, which is currently pending under the Supreme Court of the United States. Like the above case, Maxon v. Fuller Theological Seminary entails a clear contention with minority rights and discrimination and the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment. Fuller Theological Seminary views marriage between a man and woman as essential to the Christian faith, and to violate such would reject the values for which the school stands. The mission of the school is to train individuals in the Christian faith to become leaders, and hence its students must understand and believe in the values of the religion. So, the school believes that a violation of the contract which enforces a certain Christian moral code is grounds for removal from the institution. Since the removal was based upon the sexual orientation of Maxon and Brittsan, there is a Fourteenth Amendment Title IX interest. As of 2021, Title IX protects against sex discrimination, but not sexual orientation. There is clear constitutional interest on both sides, as minority rights are important to protect, and currently being expanded. In 2020, Bostock v. Clayton County resulted in an expansion of Title IX to include discrimination based upon sexual orientation for employment only. It is very possible that this case may be the beginning to the expansion of protection of sexual orientation by more states and eventually the federal government. Moreover, the LGBTQ community faces prevalent discrimination in society and in law, as seen in Masterpiece Cakeshop Ltd v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission as well as the pending case, 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis. Hence, there is a compelling state interest in protecting the rights of this minority group.
Nonetheless, the current law does not protect the rights which the plaintiffs' are seeking. Fuller Theological Seminary is protected under the Title IX religious exemption which states "Title IX does not apply to an educational institution that is controlled by a religious organization to the extent that application of Title IX would be inconsistent with the religious tenets of the organization." In the 2012 case, Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School v. EEOC, the Supreme Court confirmed the principle of "ministerial exception" which allows churches to choose leaders absent from government interference. This exception upholds the separation of church and state as it prevents the government from becoming entangled in religious formation of ministers and leaders. To permit the government into this process would impose a violation on religious autonomy. As stated in Bouldin v. Alexander, the courts "cannot decide who ought to be members of the church, nor whether the excommunicated have been regularly or irregularly cut off." Similar remarks were established in Alcazar v. Corporation of the Catholic Archbishop of Seattle, which stated that this ruling applies even to those who are not yet ordained ministers. Hence, Fuller's dismissal of Maxon and Brittsan is within the rights provided under the Title IX ministerial exception.
The Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) further protects Fuller Theological Seminary in dismissing the plaintiffs. This act exempts religious institutions from exercises which burden their religious beliefs. The court claims that a substantial burden is enacted when religious groups are "coerced to act contrary to their religious beliefs by the threat of civil sanctions." By this meaning, there exists a substantial burden upon the seminary to go against what they deem a central Christian value in training individuals of same-sex marriages. The seminary teaches that same-sex marriage is against the doctrines of their faith. Hence, approving of such act would be in direct conflict with the mission of the institution, not to mention a violation of the contract to which the plaintiffs agreed upon.
Maxon and Brittsan signed a contract whereby they agreed to abide by a certain conduct of behavior. Upon violating such agreement, they were removed from the institution via the terms of the contract. I believe in this respect, the institution is fully within its rights. Moreover, the First Amendment Title IX exemption enables the same-sex limitation in the contract to begin with. The Fuller Theological Seminary is using the First Amendment right to Free Exercise to adhere to (what it believes as) an integral value to the Christian faith. For this reason, I see valid centrality of the religious belief. Ultimately, I believe that the actions of Fuller Theological Seminary are constitutionally permissible.
6 comments:
I agree with Bella and believe that the Fuller Theological Seminary should be allowed to dismiss Maxon based on their religious beliefs. Although personally I may feel differently, based on the law that there is and free exercise of religion, Fuller Theological Seminary should be able to make these decisions. One of the most compelling reasons that I believe they should be allowed to do this is because they are a religious institution. I would feel differently if it was an employer or school who was discriminating, for example. But in this case, if these are their religious beliefs, they should be able to uphold them and not have to act against them, when they are quite literally a theological seminary. However, again I will note that I would respond differently if this was regarding a different institution.
I agree with Hanna and Bella. The key here for me was that Fuller is a religious institution. Therefore, they are within their own bounds to make these decisions. Because the First Amendment Title IX exemption allows the same-sex limitation in the contract, I was convinced that this religious institution is within its rights. Additionally like Hanna said, if this was not Fuller institution specifically, I may feel differently. It is clear what religious views they have and associate with (as it seems those views have remained the same over time), which is another reason why I see a compelling interest in favor of Fuller.
This is a really complex situation, and Bella does a great job at breaking down the different aspects of it. I agree with the past comments that since it is a religious institution which explicitly says in the code of conduct that the plaintiffs signed what conduct was allowed and denied. Unfortunately, as compelling the state interest is for the state to stand against discrimination against sexual orientation, the Free Exercise Clause has much stronger law and precedent and Courts will most likely side with the school. The case of Bostock v. Clayton County, which protects LGBTQ discrimination in employment, as Bella mentioned, doesn't cover this case as it seemed to specifically draw the line right after employment and if this case favored the members, it would greatly expand that.
I also agree that in this situation, the Seminary's free exercise of religion comes before the rights of Maxon and Brittsan. Under the current law, the Fuller Theological Seminary can receive a religious exemption against the Title IX law outlawing discrimination. There is a substantial burden on the Seminary's religious beliefs if they have to allow those with same-sex marriage to be trained at the institutions. Although this does not seem fair, it is constitutional. Because it is a private religious institution, state interference can be considered unconstitutional. Maxon and Brittsan knew the rules when they were applying to the institution, so if they are against the rule, they should find an alternative option if they can. Fuller Theological Seminary was within its constitutional limits to dismiss them based on their free exercise of religion.
To me, I think the most important part of this whole case is the fact that the First Amendment Title IX exemption allows for the same-sex limitation in the contract that was signed. Because of this law alone, it makes complete sense that the religious institution was well within their rights. What I find to be interesting here is the idea of a substantial burden. Would it be that big of a burden on the Seminary to train those who partake in same sex marriage? Or even the other way around -- is there a substantial burden to those involved in a same sex marriage to go somewhere else? This is an interesting case but in the end I think I would have to agree with Bella's stance.
I agree with the previous comments that Fuller Theological Seminary was well within its constitutional rights as a religious institution. If this was a public institution or employer that was engaging in discriminatory practices based on sexual orientation I would feel differently. Not only were Maxon and Brittsan aware of the rules regarding the conduct of behavior, but they also signed a contract committing themselves to said rules while knowing that a violation resulted in removal from the institution. Further, a seminary is inherently religious, and to force religious institutions to go against their beliefs and educate people in same-sex marriages to become priests would be coercive. Although it may not be fair, there is no right to receive an education at a theological seminary or become a priest. Religious institutions are allowed to discriminate and continue to do so, especially against women. Although women are allowed to attend most theological seminaries, they are educated to "serve God through prayer and educate the next generation" rather than infringe on the "mens' role" of becoming priests. In terms of a substantial burden, I believe that there is a more compelling argument for Fuller. I think there is a more substantial burden on Fuller to go against its religious beliefs than the burden placed on Maxon and Brittsan to attend another educational institution.
Post a Comment