What Role Do Parents Have in Monitoring Their Children's Public Education?

        In the case of Tatel v. Mt. Lebanon School District, a set of parents are plaintiffs against the education they are receiving from a first-grade teacher, Megan Williams. The parents claim that Williams, with permission of the public school district, pursued an agenda outside of the curriculum showing the first-grade students videos, books, and transgender topics, without parental permission. As the parents were aware of the situation, they filed complaints against the school district where the school district backed Williams by the "de facto" policy where Williams did not need parental permission, and the parents were not able to opt their children out of transgender discussions. Williams has a transgender child who during the 2021-2022 school district, was in the first grade. Williams has strong views as a teacher as she claims she will teach the children what they need to learn, did not let her class recite the Pledge of Allegiance for 52 days, and denied a parent's request from exempting her child from watching a certain cartoon. The parents were not pleased with Williams' teaching methods, so they seek justice on five counts of constitutional justice on the First and Fourteenth Amendment against Williams and the School Board, as well as one count from Pennsylvania Code against the District. The questions of law that I will be focusing on this blog post is:  is Williams violating Fourteenth Amendment rights of the parents by infringing on the right to familial privacy? Is Williams violating the free exercise of religion rights of the parents by not following school curriculum and teaching first-graders about transgender topics as well as denying exemption from these topics? 

    The first factor in the case that needs to be considered is if Williams is violating the right to familial privacy with her teaching methods. In one instance, a set of parents were displeased with Williams as she told a boy that she had private discussions with a boy about the similarities between he and her transgender child, and that the boy could dress with a dress and hair like his mother. The defiance of parents was also seen as Williams denied a mother's ask to exempt her child from a cartoon due to it not being age appropriate. Williams teaches at a public school, where the parents' tax dollars are paying her salary, so it seems very unreasonable that she has the right to deny these wishes. Since Williams has broken school curriculum and is having private conversations with first-grade students about their sexual-orientation, it is natural to ask when can parents step in for the sake of their child? 

    The next aspect that I will consider is whether or not Williams actions as a teacher violate the parents rights of free exercise of religion. In order to adequately answer this question, one must observe the case of Lasche v. New Jersey. In this case, the Lasche's are foster parents. The Lasche's oppose same-sex marriage, and had their foster child removed and suspended their foster license removed due to their Christian views against same-sex marriage. The court eventually allowed to Lasche's to continue their case to the lower court. The opinion provided included the quotes, "...the Lasche's allege two forms of of constitutionally protected activity - one involving religious belief, and the other, action inspired by religious belief." The opinion given in this case shows similarities to the Tatel v. Mt. Lebanon School District case. The phrase of the ruling "action inspired by religious belief" shows how the parents should have the right to protect their children from learning about transgender topics at six years old by being allowed to opt out of this part of the instruction that Williams provides. This case, along with Wisconsin v. Yoder, show the parental right to instill the religious views into their own children and not from a public school district.

    I understand that Williams is allowed to have her own views on transgender topics, and that she also is protected under the free exercise clause to practice these as she pleases. However, she has assumed the right of a government worker through tax-payer dollars by having the profession of an educator. The court ruled against her and the School Board for denying the free exercise right of the parents to opt their first grade children form transgender topics in a public classroom, and I could not agree with the decision more. I see similarities to Stone v. Graham, where the Ten Commandments had to be removed from classrooms in Kentucky. Although this case was an establishment issue, the precedent that children have impressionable minds remains the same. Williams is entitled to have the views she wants about transgender issues, but she can not teach first grade kids these views in public school hours. without giving way for allowing parents to opt out of these lessons. 

Bibliography

CARMILLA TATEL, STACY DUNN and GRETCHEN MELTON, individually and as parents and natural guardians of their children, Plaintiffs, v. MT. LEBANON SCHOOL DISTRICT, THE MT. LEBANON SCHOOL BOARD, MEGAN WILLIAMS, DR. TIMOTHY STEINHAUER, DR. MARYBETH D. IRVIN, BRETT BIELEWICZ, JACOB W. WYLAND, VALERIE M. FLEISHER, TODD W. ELLWEIN, ANDREW D. FREEMAN, ERIN C. GENTZEL, CLAIRE B. GUTH, DR. JUSTIN D. HACKETT, ANAMARIA A. JOHNSON, and SARAH L. OLBRICH, (IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA October 27, 2022). 

Stone v. Graham, 449 U.S. 39 (1980). Justia Law. (n.d.). Retrieved October 31, 2022, from https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/449/39/

Yoder, K. (2022, October 27). Foster parents can share religious views with children, Appeals Court rules. Catholic News Agency. Retrieved October 31, 2022, from https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/250597/appeals-court-foster-parents-can-share-religious-views-with-children

Does the Florida Abortion Ban Violate the Establishment Clause?

     

Abortion is one of the most polarizing political issues in our country today, and this divide is only exacerbated when religion and constitutionality are added to the mix. With Roe v. Wade being overturned this summer, tensions have come to a height, and this severely divisive issue has come to dominate the political landscape. Recently, many conservative states have made headlines by enacting incredibly restrictive abortion bans. For instance, in Florida, Governor Ron DeSantis recently signed a bill into law dictating that abortions, other than to safe the life of the mother, would not be allowed after 15 weeks with no exceptions for rape or incest. This law also promises criminal prosecution for any involved in the process of an abortion, including counseling leading up to the procedure.

    This law has been met with significant backlash from progressives, and in response to its signing, clergy members of five separate religions have pursued lawsuits against the abortion ban, arguing that their free exercise of religion is being infringed upon. For the purposes of this blog post, I plan to hone in on one lawsuit in particular, that pursued by three Rabbis of Jewish faith. The
lawsuit argues that the three plaintiffs’ “religious beliefs, speech, and conduct are severely burdened by the state of Florida’s criminalization of abortion in many circumstances where the Jewish faith supports the decision to obtain an abortion on religious grounds.” The plaintiffs argue that under Jewish law, there are certain narrow circumstances in which a Jewish woman may be compelled to obtain an abortion because it is mandated by her religious faith. The plaintiffs then go on to assert the main argument of their suit: because the abortion ban will prosecute any involved in the procedure itself as well as the process leading up to it, clergy members of Jewish faith are unable to utilize their free exercise of religion as afforded to them in the First Amendment of the Constitution. The plaintiffs argue that as Rabbis, they have a responsibility to provide religious counseling to churchgoers, asserting that “The rabbinic relationship is designed to facilitate the foundational principle of all religious counseling: guiding the congregation, the broader community, and individual congregants to make decisions in their lives that are informed by the principles and, in some instances, requirements of their faith.” If religious counseling pertaining to abortion becomes criminally prosecutable by law, Rabbis are unable to uphold their clerical obligations, and thus a significant burden is being placed unto them.

    In terms of my own personal opinion on the suit, I think this lawsuit has a very valid argument and brings up an important conversation surrounding religion and abortion access. The recent bans on abortion along with Roe v. Wade being overturned are particularly troubling because they have begun to blur the line between church and state, given that generally, the pro-life movement is associated with evangelical Christianity. This is the most obvious and widespread critique of the recent more conservatively aligned legislation regarding abortion, but this suit brings up another critique that is less widely discussed. I completely agree with the plaintiffs in this suit, as there is clearly a substantial burden being placed on clergy members of Jewish faith if they are unable to uphold their religious duties because of this abortion ban. Additionally, the ban is inhibiting the free exercise of all Jewish individuals in certain cases, because as the Rabbis state in the suit, there are instances in which Jewish Law would encourage a woman to get an abortion. Additionally, if a state wants to reduce the amount of abortions occurring, there are certainly  less restrictive means to achieve this end goal that would not infringe upon the free exercise of Jewish individuals. On the more liberal side, there are many programs and institutions that could be implemented to reduce the amount of abortions happening, such as more affordable healthcare or reforms to the foster care system, but I recognize that this is likely not satisfactory in the eyes of conservative lawmakers. Even so, I believe there is still a conservatively aligned less restrictive means that could place limits on abortion access while not inhibiting the free exercise rights of others, for instance, discarding the part of the law that prosecutes individuals “aiding and abetting” others in the process of having an abortion. Therefore, I believe that a substantial burden has been placed on the plaintiffs in this suit, and that the Florida abortion ban infringes upon their right to free exercise.

Are Cathy Miller's Beliefs Sincere Enough to Deny a Same-Sex Couple a Wedding Cake Design?

In the past few years there have been many conflicting opinions of wedding vendors and whether or not it is unlawful they deny their services to same-sex weddings. On October 21st, 2022, Kern County Superior Court judge Eric Bradshaw stated that Cathy Miller’s freedoms of religion and speech were violated by the state when it decided it was unlawful she decline to design a cake for a same-sex wedding. Cathy Miller is the owner of Tastries Bakery and in previous decisions it was said she violated anti-discrimination laws by denying Eileen and Mireya Rodriguez-Del Rio of her services for their same-sex wedding celebration. The state Department of Fair Housing and Employment had sued the bakery for violating California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act. This act provides people protection from discrimination by all business establishments in California because of age, ancestry, color, disability, national origin, race, religion, sex, and sexual orientation (California Civil Code Section 51). California’s DFEH decided Miller had discriminated against the woman on the basis of their sexual orientation. The question at hand is whether or not Cathy Miller’s free exercise of religion under her First Amendment right is being infringed upon by being forced to produce a design that goes against her religious beliefs.

Bradshaw made the case that Miller has evidently shown that her sincere Christian beliefs are an undeniably huge component of her life and work. Bradshaw also went on to state that Miller, “established her shop’s design standards to conform to her Christian faith in the Bible and what she believes the Bible teaches regarding marriage” (Strode, 2022). Not only has Tastries stated they decline designing wedding cakes that “contradict God’s sacrament of marriage between a man and a woman,” but they also deny designing things that include “explicit or sexual content displaying anything offensive, demeaning, or violent” (Strode, 2022). These standards stem from the sincere religious beliefs that Miller holds. It is difficult to make an effort to argue against the sincerity of her religious beliefs when she not only has written standards denying designing cakes of anything related to same sex marriage, but of other things the bible does not support. 

Bradshaw also continues on to note that Miller and Tastries Bakery does serve and employ people no matter what their sexual orientation might be. In addition to this as long as custom order designs do not violate the shop’s standards of design listed above, they will fulfill the orders no matter what the customers sexual orientation is. This is not a bakery that refuses their services to all people who might engage in same-sex relationships. This evidence shows that Miller does not discriminate based on sexual orientation when serving customers, she just refuses to make some designs that contradict her beliefs. According to Bradshaw she also fully served Eileen and Mireya by referring them to another bakery when she could not make the design they requested. In Bradshaw’s decision he concluded that Miller did not intentionally discriminate based on her customers sexual orientation, but evidence shows that “Miller’s only intent, her only motivation, was fidelity to her sincere Christian beliefs” (Strode, 2022). 

While we have yet to fully review the case, Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v Colorado Civil Rights Commission, it is important to note as it is almost the exact same scenario as Cathy Miller and Tastries Bakery. The question asked in this case is whether Colorado’s public accommodations law to compel a cake maker to design and make a cake that violates his sincerely held religious beliefs about same-sex marriage violate the Free Speech or Free Exercise Clauses of the First Amendment. In this case the Supreme Court noted how Jack Phillips, the bakeries owner, did not receive neutral treatment of his religion that his First Amendment Rights requires. The Commision reflected hostility towards Phillip’s religious beliefs. Overall however, it was decided that forcing Phillip to make a cake that went against his religious beliefs violated his First Amendment Rights, in addition to the hostility he received about his beliefs. When looking at Cathy Miller’s bakeshop and the situation she was put in it is important to refer back to a ruling like this one. It is unlawful to discriminate on the basis of one’s sexual orientation, but it is not unlawful to deny to design something that goes against one’s sincerely held religious beliefs.

In my opinion, in regards to Cathy Miller’s situation, the sincerity of her religious beliefs and the standards she holds her bakeshop to make it so that she was rightful to deny the designing of Eileen and Mireya’s cake request. She does not discriminate on the basis of people’s sexual orientation, as seen through the evidence that shows she normally employs and serves people who engage in same-sex relationships. She did not serve this couple as the design of the cake that she would have to produce went against her sincere religious beliefs. Her First Amendment Rights of free exercise and speech allow her the ability to do this and to not create or express designs that go against her religious beliefs. It is difficult to make an effort to argue against the sincerity of her religious beliefs when she not only has written standards denying designing cakes of anything related to same sex marriage, but of other things the bible does not support. 

While the state works to prevent discrimination through calling out Miller for not serving the two customers, there would have been a substantial burden imposed on Miller’s free exercise of religion. There is a less restrictive means to achieve the state’s objective of preventing discrimination according to Eric Bradshaw, which I agree with. If Miller was constantly denying the service and employment based on one’s sexual orientation, this would be a different case and the state might have a stronger compelling interest to get rid of this discrimination by suing Miller. However, the state does not have a compelling interest here that makes the issue of discrimination more important than the infringement on Miller’s First Amendment free exercise rights.

https://www.christianitytoday.com/news/2022/october/california-baker-same-sex-wedding-ruling-religious-liberty-.html

https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2022-10-24/judge-rules-for-california-baker-refuse-gay-wedding-cake

https://www.dor.ca.gov/Home/UnruhCivilRightsAct

Are There Certain Limitations to Free Exercise?

In the court case, Morgan vs. Swanson, a student, Jonathon had a winter-break Christmas party in his third-grade classroom. During this Christmas party, students were allowed to have a gift exchange. As part of Jonathon’s contribution, he wanted to hand out candy cane ink pens that held a religious message. The religious message that was encapsulated with his gift was about the “Legend of the Candy Cane.” The message explained the “J” shape for Jesus and turned upside down was the shepherd's staff. The message explained the colors of the candy cane that represented the purity of Jesus and his blood that was shed for the sins of the world. The flavor of the candy cane was mentioned in Jonathon’s message as peppermint that was used in the Old Testament of the Bible for purification and sacrifice. Basically, the overall message of Jonathon’s candy cane gifts were, “So, every time you see a candy cane, remember the message of the candy maker: Jesus is the Christ!”

Additionally, As evangelical Christians, the Morgans state that their faith “strongly emphasizes the personal nature of personal evangelism and dissemination of religious viewpoint material.” 

After Jonathon’s parent’s heard from other parents that school officials would not allow Jonathon to distribute his gift, the parents set up a meeting with the principal. Principal Swanson confirmed the other parents' suspicions that Jonathon would not be able to distribute his gift in class, but he could leave it in the library table as an alternate spot, or offer non-religious items in the classroom.The school district verified the principal's decision by emailing the parents stating PISD’s policies which prohibited distribution of “any written material, tapes, or other media, over which the school does not exercise control and that is intended for distribution to students” without prior approval from the school. Therefore, students were not able to hand out their gifts in bags. With that being said, the district denied that only religious gifts were being forbidden. However, students in Jonathon’s class still handed out goodie bags. Based on this, the Morgans stated that Jonathon was the only student forbidden from distributing his gift due to the religious aspect of his gift. 

Although the basis for this case could be argued in terms of Free Speech, is there a notable religious aspect that has to also be considered. That being said, did Principle Swanson violate Jonathon’s Free Exercise of Religion by refusing to distribute his gift because of the religious aspect to it? 

In terms of free exercise, I believe that the principle did violate his free exercise because the gift was specifically eliminated because of the religious aspect. Looking at Lamb’s Chapel v. Center Moriches Union Free School District, a similar aspect of a religious affiliated activity was called into question because a religious group wanted to show a movie that was religious oriented. It was held at a public facility during non-school hours. The Supreme Court sided with Lamb’s Chapel because the school could not deny the forum based on a religious viewpoint. From this, I applied this concept to Jonathon’s case because he merely had a gift that came from his religious viewpoint. Since Jonathon was trying to give his religious gift also during non-school hours, or in his case winter-break, there would be a less compelling argument in the school’s need to interfere in worrying of violating the Establishment clause. 

There is a lack of viewpoint neutrality within Jonathon’s case. All of the other students were allowed to bring in gift bags, except Jonathon’s gift because of the religious aspect. Therefore, the principle single-handedly discriminated against his religious viewpoint. This could also be considered constitutional discrimination, of free speech and under free speech is religous free speech. In another case, Tinker v. Des Moines, a student wore black armbands at school in order to protest the Vietnam War. The principal at this school heard about the armbands and if the students wore them, they were to be suspended. The students’ parents sued the school for violating their right to free speech. The Supreme Court defended the students saying that neither students nor teachers “shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate.” The only exception would be speech that could potentially disrupt the learning environment. Applying this case to Morgan vs. Swanson, I believe that Jonathon’s freedom of religious expression through his means of giving gifts of religious orientation at school was violated when the principal denied him the right to do so. Also, Jonathon’s religious views do not magically disappear when he arrives at school, and the Supreme Court says that his expressions and beliefs should not have to. If a part of Jonathon’s religion “strongly emphasizes the personal nature of personal evangelism,” then his evangelical gift should have been allowed. I also believe that there would be no potential harm in letting Jonathon bring his gift because there could be no potential disruption of the learning environment because Jonathon’s Christmas party takes place outside of school hours and on winter break. 

Do you agree that Principal Swanson violated Jonathon’s Free Exercise, and if so, to what extent? Was Swanson clearly discriminating on the basis of Jonathon’s religon in not allowing him to distribute the religous message that his gift was based upon?

https://www.legaldigest.com/was-the-elementary-principal-entitled-to-immunity-from-the-parents-first-amendment-claims/

https://www.uscourts.gov/educational-resources/educational-activities/facts-and-case-summary-tinker-v-des-moines

Is allowing Religious ideas in advertisement more Constitutional than none at all?

         Young Israel of Tampa is an Orthodox Synagogue located in Tampa, Florida. The Synagogue hosts many events for the various Jewish holidays and celebrations, including Hanukah festivities and Passover dinners. These events are made to celebrate the Jewish religion and share the Synagogue's teachings with anyone in the community who would like to join. In the winter of 2020, the Synagogue put on its Hanukah celebration, which was titled Hanukah on Ice. The description of the event was that it was a family-friendly event with Ice skating music, food, etc. Hillsborough Area Regional Transit Authority, or HART, is a local transit station for the Synagogue. Rabbi Rivkin sought to advertise for the event Hanukah on Ice on HART's transit line. HART had a policy that would not run any ads on their buses that included "alcohol, tobacco, illegal drugs, obscenity, nudity, pornography, politics, and religion." Due to this policy, HART told Rabbi Rivkin and the Synagogue if they wanted to run the ad, they must remove the menorah from the design as this fell under the category of religion. The Synagogue believed removing the aspect of the menorah from the ad was undoable as the lighting of the menorah is a key aspect of the Hanukah celebration and a central aspect of this family event and there for found this request offensive. The Synagogue refused to remove the menorah; therefore, HART refused to run the ad. The Synagogue then filed suit against HART as the Synagogue felt this violated their protection under the First Amendment.

        The issue presented is this advertisement the Synagogue is asking to post blatantly for religious purposes or is this about a family event that just includes religion? In the suit, the council states that this is blatant discrimination based on the group's viewpoints. The case also says that the policy itself must come into question as there are no proper written guidelines to what HART considers "religious," which is one of the subjects the company does not run advertisements on. There is a strong case based on this alone, as without written guidelines to what is and what is not religious is a very slippery slope into biases. This also opens the door to the question of what advertisements can HEART consider religious or just include the concept of religion in the bigger picture. To wrap up the argument in the suit, they explain that discrimination against the idea of religion violates the First Amendment's Free Exercise Clause. The policy is not neutral toward religion; instead, the policy directly targets religion by not allowing any mention of it all. The policy burdens religious groups as they are disadvantaged compared to non-religious groups permitted to run ads about family-events through HART.

        A significant question brought up in this is does HART count as a non-public, public forum, or limited forum? The Synagogue argues that although HART is classified as a non-public, this should not be the case. In terms of this point, I must side with the Synagogues argument as the Transit line is exposed to the public forum daily. An example the council used where the transit public forum was exposed was the streets and sidewalks. The council finishes this argument that even if the court sided with HART on the fact they are a non-public forum, there is still religious discrimination which violates the First Amendment. The Federal district court found that HART violated the First Amendment as there was clear discrimination toward religious groups and that the ban itself had no proper standards to judge what and what was not religious. The court ordered that HART removes its religious ban on its advertisement 

     In such cases, it is essential to look back on prior rulings that encompass similar topics as what we see in HART. A recent case with a similar issue was the Archdiocese of Washington against the District of Columbia region's mass transit system. In this case, the Archdiocese of Washington was trying to post an advertisement for their Christmas Charity called Find a Perfect Gift. The District of Columbia region's mass transit systems policy was they would not post any advertisements that promoted or talked poorly about any religious activity; therefore, they denied the Archdiocese of Washington's ad request. The district courts found that The District of Columbia region's mass transit policy did not violate the constitution. This case was heavily criticized as the Supreme Court was unable to hear this case. This is because Justice Kavanaugh was on the district court at the time of this case before a decision was made, so the Justice removed himself from the review of the appeal. Justice Gorsuch and Justice Thomas both state that the Supreme Court can not hear this case as they do not have all of the Justices. The Justices also state that if this formality were not in place, this would be a prime candidate for an appeal. In their statements, the Justices state that not allowing for mention religion in advertisement is clear discrimination and is not neutral. The Justices say that this does not leave The District of Columbia region's mass transit without options to make this less restrictive as the transit system can eliminate all advertisements in general, which would be the only way to make this policy neutral to religious and non-religious groups alike.

        

        Although the Archdiocese of Washington against the District of Columbia region's mass transit system case is vital to look at, the Supreme Court never reviewed this case. For this reason, I believe it is essential to research a case the Supreme Court has reviewed which is another similar case of Good News Club v. Milford Central School. In this case, the Milford Central school allowed residents of the area to use the school after school hours for permitted activities. The Good News Club was a Christian group for children run by county residents who wanted to use the school's facilities for the club. The school denied this based on its religious nature, and the residents filed suit. The Supreme Court ruled that denying the club's request was unconstitutional as it was viewpoint discrimination. The school could not simply deny them access to non-religious groups because of the club's views. I believe this is very important when looking at the case of Young Israel of Tampa v. Hillsborough Area Regional Transit Authority because they share similar dilemmas. The court ruled the school could not hold meetings in the school's building because of the club's religious nature, just as HART said the Synagogue might not run its family-event advertisement due to its religious nature. It is essential to show that both groups' viewpoints were discriminated against by not letting them do something any non-religious group had the opportunity to do just because the action happened to involve the group's religious views. 

         Looking at this case's facts, I must side with Young Israel of Tampa. This was a very intriguing case to me as there is no "silver bullet" to make an opinion on this case. You must break down the different aspects of how the policy could be unconstitutional. When looking at if the policy is neutral, I believe it is not. Although HART believes this is neutral because they have this policy to avoid controversial topics such as religion and politics, I do not think the policy can be justified in banning any mention of religion. As Justice Gorsuch and Thomas stated in the statement regarding the appeal review of the Archdiocese of Washington against the District of Columbia region's mass transit system, the only way to make this neutral would be to allow all advertisements for family events or none at all. Then you must look at the prior ruling of the Supreme Court case of the Good News Club v. Milford Central School and how this case shows that the court will allow for groups to participate in other opportunities non-religious groups have even if the action being done has a groups religious values or beliefs included. You then must look at whether this policy discriminates towards religious groups, which I believe it does, as it favors non-religious groups over religious groups. I say this because allowing a non-religious group to post an advertisement of a family event while not letting a religious group do the same based on the fact it includes religious aspects is clear discrimination. When it comes to what forum category the transit company falls under. I believe this could be argued as many options, but I do not think this matters for the outcome as if there is religious discrimination, the forum would have less weight in the outcome. I believe this case is more an issue of Freedom to exercise religion, and I think, based on these reasons, the policy does violate the First Amendment making this policy unconstitutional.

Work Cited:

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/19pdf/18-1455_9h68.pdf

https://www.becketlaw.org/case/young-israel-tampa-v-hillsborough-area-regional-transit-authority-hart/

https://cathstan.org/news/local/supreme-court-will-not-review-lower-courts-ruling-against-archdiocese-of-washingtons-legal-challenge-to-metros-prohibition-of-religious-ads

Preschool Teacher Fired Due to Religious Beliefs

Nelli Parisenkova, a former preschool teacher at Bright Horizons Children’s Center, was fired due to her religious beliefs contradicting the mandatory pro diversity, specifically pro same sex marriage, stance the preschool held. When the preschool decided to start incorporating pro same sex marriage into the preschool’s curriculum four years ago, Nelli was able to get a verbal, unoffical, accommodation. However when the current administration found out about Nelli’s religious beliefs being unaccepting of the LGBTQ+ community, Nelli was called to the human resource office where she was yelled at for not being accepting of diversity and was then escorted out of the building. Since Bright Horizons was unwilling to give Nelli an accommodation, and Nelli’s religious beliefs stopped her from being able to teach supportive LGBTQ+ lessons, Bright Horizons fired her.

This case demonstrates the issue of infringement of one’s First Amendment rights specifically, the Free Speech Clause. Therefore raising the question: Is Bright Horizons Children’s Center infringing on Nelli Parisenkova’s First Amendment right of Free Speech by denying her a religious exemption for the diversity lesson plans? And if yes, is this an example of viewpoint discrimination?

 

By not granting Ms.Parisenkova an exemption from reading aloud the children’s books that are explicitly accepting of same sex marriage, the preschool would be placing a substantial burden on her by forcing her to teach diverse views that counter her religious beliefs. The belief that men and women are supposed to get married and not same sex couples, is a central belief to the Christian religion. Although these arguments are valid, counter arguments can also be raised. Such that, Bright Horizons Children Center feels it has a compelling interest to ensure that all of their preschoolers receive a well rounded, inclusive learning environment which includes learning about the LGBTQ+ community. If this is one of the main goals of the preschool: to ensure a well rounded education, including learning about diversity, and Ms. Parisenkova’s beliefs stop her from being able to give this type of education to the children, due to the fact that the school is private and not public, the school can fire her.

 This article reminds me of the Good News Club v. Milford Central School in that both of these cases bring up the issue of viewpoint versus subject discrimination. In the Good News Club, the main issue was that a Christian club was initially denied the use of public school property after hours because Milford Central School was worried about infringement of the  Establishment clause. However the courts found that there would be no infringement of the Establishment clause since it is obvious the club isn’t being endorsed by the public school. Furthermore the courts found that it was clear the school district was being discriminatory towards the club’s religious viewpoint when the club was denied access to the limited public forum. 

In the Bright Horizons Children’s Center case, it is clear the preschool is being discriminatory towards Ms. Parisenkova’s religious viewpoint since when the higher administration found out about her religious beliefs and how they counteracted with diversity, the school immediately took action against her. Therefore it is clear Bright Horizons is favoring a viewpoint that is anti-religious (unless the religion is supportive of same sex marriages). 

A key difference between these two cases, as I stated previously, is that Bright Horizons Children’s Center is a private preschool whereas Milford Central is a public middle school. Viewpoint discrimination is unconstitutional in public settings where the government endorses the institution. In Bright Horizons Children’s Center, although it may be clear that the school is being discriminatory towards Ms. Parisenkova’s religious viewpoint surrounding diversity, Ms. Parisenkova was aware that the preschool environment encouraged and fostered a sense of diversity. 

In my opinion, I side with Bright Horizons Children’s Center. I don’t think it was right of Ms. Parisenkova’s boss to allow her an unofficial exemption if a core part of the preschool is to foster a sense of diversity, this exemption would obviously give Ms. Parisenkova a false sense of hope in keeping her job without furthering one of the main missions of the school. However since it was an unofficial exemption and the higher administration was, as it seems, unaware of the exemption I would say her being able to get away with not teaching the diversity literature for four years isn’t a strong argument. If the higher administration had known she wasn’t teaching the diversity books, they would’ve called her out sooner. Additionally private institutions, like Bright Horizons, are allowed to make rules that help foster certain environments. If the staff at private schools cannot help foster the environment the school is aiming for, the school is allowed to fire the staff. Ms. Parisenkova knew about the schools goal to foster a sense of acceptance towards same sex marriage, and if her religion stopped her from helping to foster that environment she should’ve quit. In my opinion, the burden placed on Ms. Parisenkova of choosing between employment or her religious beliefs is less than the burden that would be placed on the institution if the institution was forced to keep staff members that didn’t align with their goal of furthering an inclusive education environment.  

What’s the point of having policies within an institution if staff members don’t support and further those policies? Wouldn’t Ms. Parisenkova want to work in an environment that aligns more with her personal beliefs? Would you want to work in an environment that openly supports communities / ideas that contradict with your personal beliefs? Do you believe Bright Horizons has the right to fire Ms. Parisenkova if her religious beliefs stop her from furthering the type of environment the school is trying to provide for its children?  

1.    https://thomasmoresociety.org/bright-horizon-childrens-center-sacrificing-workers-over-woke-agenda-in-disregard-of-religious-beliefs/ 

2.    https://www.oyez.org/cases/2000/99-2036

 

Roman Catholic Diocese of Albany v. Emami

A collection of religious organizations have come together and filed this case in light of a 2017 New York law stating that all employers have to include abortion of medical necessity in their employee health insurance plans. The religious groups, including Roman Catholic dioceses, Anglican nuns, Baptist churches, Lutheran churches, and Catholic ministries, are suing on the basis of religious freedom.  The religious groups are suing under the notion that this violates their deep beliefs about the sanctity of life. Relevantly, a group called the Little Sisters of Poor went to the Supreme Court in the case Little Sisters of the Poor Saints Peter and Paul Home v. Pennsylvania and won in relation to the government requiring contraceptives unless they want to pay a large fine. The Supreme Court stated that it violated the nuns religious freedom to force them to provide these medications. The New York law, although it provides a religious exemption, has the petitioners arguing that the exemption is too narrow. The exemption states that those who “employ and serve primarily people of the same religion” will be granted an exemption, but those whose goal is a “broader religious mission” will not receive an exemption. The main question at the core of this case is: can New York require abortions to be covered under employee health care or is that a violation of the religious freedoms of religious organizations outside of the exemptions in place?

The Supreme Court decided to send this case back down to the lower courts in light of Fulton v. Philadelphia. Fulton v. Philadelphia was a unanimous decision which established that the state of Pennsylvania could not discriminate against Catholic Social Services by barring them from placing foster children because they do not allow any children to go to same-sex individuals or couples based on their religious beliefs. This is setting up religious freedom to be of the utmost importance when looking into cases like this, trumping discrimination. This obviously brings back into light the notable Employment Division, Department of Human Resources of Oregon v. Smith. This case involved Native American men who were not provided with unemployment benefits after their termination because they were using peyote, an illegal hallucinogenic drug, during a ritual. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Department of Human Resources in this case, citing a slippery slope of allowing illegal activities under the guise of religion, so the compelling state interest was more salient than allowing an exemption for the men. The ruling was based upon the fact that there are neutral and general applicable laws which happen to burden religion. This ruling of neutral and generally applicable also was established in the decision in Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc. v. City of Hialeah. 

Looking back at Fulton v. Philadelphia, the Philadelphia anti-discrimination law only allowed exemptions at the discretion of the Commissioner and also placed a direct burden on Catholic Social Services by violating their right to religious free practice, whereas the Department of Human Resources had a neutral law which did not need an exemption because it was an indirect burden on the Native American men. The Court ruled that there was a direct burden on Catholic Social Services. This led to the decision that the City of Philadelphia must work with Catholic Social Services. 

Under the recent decision made in Fulton v. Philadelphia in 2021, the Supreme Court thinks that Roman Catholic Diocese of Albany v. Emami should be looked at again by the lower courts. This means that the Supreme Court most likely believes it has now set enough of a precedent in Fulton v. Philadelphia to value religious freedom over any state law in place, even if there are exemptions in place under the law. The neutral and generally applicable establishments of Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc. v. City of Hialeah and Employment Division, Department of Human Resources of Oregon v. Smith are important to understanding how Roman Catholic Diocese of Albany v. Emami will be decided. 

Overall, I personally believe that based on the ruling of the Supreme Court in Fulton v. Philadelphia the lower courts will rule in favor of the religious organizations. I do believe that the law that Philadelphia passed is discriminatory against Catholic Social Services and additionally believe that forcing religious organizations to cover abortions under their health coverage is in violation of their religious freedoms. Religious organizations should not have to provide access to abortions based on their religious beliefs and in order to have religious freedom, they need to be able to have an exemption from this law. The Supreme Court has ruled in favor of religious groups on the basis of contraceptives and so I do not believe that they will stray from this logic with abortions if it does make it to the Supreme Court after being reconsidered. This case is important because it is under a Supreme Court which favors religious freedom and exercise above other state interests. This raises the question for me of if LGBTQ+ discrimination is not important enough of a compelling issue to rule against discrimination, where is the line drawn?

https://erlc.com/resource-library/articles/explainer-u-s-supreme-court-vacates-ruling-requiring-insurance-plans-to-cover-abortions/ https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/roman-catholic-diocese-of-albany-v-lacewell/ 

https://www.becketlaw.org/case/diocese-of-albany-v-emami/ 

Pre-School Teacher Fired For Stance On Same-Sex Marriage

            Ms. Nelli Parisenkova is a devout Christian woman who has worked in the child-care and teaching field industry for a number of years. Beginning in April of 2018 (roughly the past four years), Parisenkova had been employed with the Bright Horizons Children’s Center in Studio City, California, caring for young children between the ages of one to five. Her duties ranged from providing for the everyday physical needs of children like feeding, diaper changes, and putting them to sleep, to things like documenting developmental progress and communicating to parents, providing stimulating age-appropriate educational activities in the areas of literacy, along with sensory activities and fine motor skills. One of the tasks among these numerous job requirements specifically involved reading books to children. Similarly to many other Christians, Parisenkova strongly believes that marriage is a sacred covenant that is instituted by God to signify a lifelong union between a man and a woman. The room at Bright Horizons where Parisenkova worked has children’s books on the shelf that promote and celebrate same-sex relationships and marriage, but Ms. Parisenkova’s strong religious beliefs indicate that it would be sinful for her to personally promote any messages that are contrary to her beliefs regarding the sacred covenant of marriage. This would include any messages surrounding the promotion of sexual experimentation before marriage, same-sex marriage, and polyamorous relationships or polygamous marriages. So, when Ms. Parisenkova first started working for Bright Horizons, her supervisor at the time provided her with a kind of informal accommodation stating that she would not have to read the books that promote same-sex marriage to the children.   

Four years later, in April 2022, the director of Bright Horizons’ Studio City location where Parisenkova worked, Katy Callas, learned of her religious beliefs and reported Parisenkova to the human resource department for violating company policy requiring all staff to celebrate and promote “diversity,” including same-sex marriage. Ms. Callas, identifying as a lesbian herself, took obvious personal offense towards Ms. Parisenkova’s religious beliefs as well as her direct disobeying of the company’s vision. Ms. Callas essentially told Ms. Parisenkova that if she did not want to celebrate and respect diversity, this is not the place for her. Parisenkova now formally asked for a religious accommodation so that she could be allowed to return to work. Her request was denied. 

The salient issue at stake is whether or not Ms. Parisenkova is being discriminated against because of her religious beliefs. The lawsuit specifically outlines how Bright Horizons made no attempts to determine if a reasonable accommodation could be reached. Ms. Parisenkova could not return to work without an accommodation, so, Bright Horizons terminated her employment. An important aspect of this case lies within the acknowledgement of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. This act protects employees and job applicants from employment discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex and national origin. According to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, employers are required “to reasonably accommodate employees whose sincerely held religious beliefs, practices or observances conflict with work requirements, unless the accommodation would create an undue hardship.” Undue hardship refers to if it is costly, compromises safety within the workplace, decreases workplace efficiency, infringes on the rights of other employees, or requires other employees to do more than their share of potentially hazardous or burdensome work.  

This is an extremely difficult case, but I am inclined to side with Ms. Parisenkova. Bright Horizons supposedly prides itself on being a center that promotes diversity, equity, and inclusion, however, a commitment to "diversity" is a commitment to respecting differences among people, and how can they claim this if they are not willing to tolerate differences in religious views surrounding marriage. Ms. Parisenkova has no personal objection to working with individuals who engage in this kind of lifestyle and insists that she “treats all people with respect and love regardless of their lifestyle choices, and teaches children to also treat all people with respect and love,” however, she maintains that she cannot personally engage in acts that promote such lifestyles.

Ms. Parisenkova has been a loyal worker at Bright Horizons for the past four years with no complaints. She deeply cares about these children and even though a certain lifestyle is in direct contrast to Ms. Parisenkova’s religious beliefs, she has never actively engaged in or displayed any negative messages regarding same-sex relationships. Furthermore, it isn’t like there aren’t other staff members who could read these books to the children. All Ms. Parisenkova wanted was to be excused from having to read books that promote same-sex relationships because they conflict with her strongly held religious beliefs. In accordance with Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, granting Ms. Parisenkova an accommodation, similar to the one she previously had, would not create any undue hardship. By withholding this reasonable accommodation and ultimately terminating Ms. Parisenkova, this is an obvious demonstration of religious discrimination.