Muslim School's Zoning Challenge Dismissed Without Reaching Merits

In Muslim Community Association of Ann Arbor v. Pittsfield Charter Township, (ED MI, March 20, 2015), the Michigan Islamic Academy claimed that Pittsfield Township violated the substantial burden, anti-discrimination and equal terms provisions of RLUIPA, as well as the Establishment Clause and the Equal Protection Clause, in denying it zoning authorization so it could build a Muslim school. The court dismissed the RLUIPA claims on the basis that plaintiff had no legally cognizable interest in the property.  It merely had a promise from the owner to donate 5 acres for the school if zoning approval was obtained. The court went on to hold that plaintiff's RLUIPA and constitutional claims are not ripe because plaintiff never went beyond the Planning Commission and Township Board to the Zoning Administrator and Zoning Board of Appeals. The court held that plaintiff could continue or refile the suit if these defects are cured. (See prior related posting.).

Recent Articles of Interest

From SSRN:

• Andrew Koppelman & Frederick Mark Gedicks, Is Hobby Lobby Worse for Religious Liberty than Smith?, (St. Thomas Journal of Law and Public Policy, Forthcoming).
• Annabelle Lever, Democratic Equality and Freedom of Religion: The Dilemma of Public Service Provision, (Forthcoming in Philosophy and Public Issues (July 2015)).
• James Lindgren, Measuring Diversity: Law Faculties in 1997 and 2013, (March 20, 2015).
• James E. Fleming, Introduction to the Symposium on Ronald Dworkin's Religion Without God, (94 Boston University Law Review 1201 (2014)).
• David S. Cohen & Krysten Connon, Living in the Crosshairs: The Untold Stories of Anti-Abortion Terrorism, (Oxford University Press, 2015).

From SSRN (LGBT Rights and Same-Sex Marriage):

• Nan D, Hunter, Pluralism and its Perils: Navigating the Tension between Gay Rights and Religious Expression, (2015).
• Nelson Tebbe, Religion and Marriage Equality Statutes, (Harvard Law & Policy Review, Vol. 9, No. 25, 2015).
• Zachary Robert Herz, The Marrying Kind, (Tennessee Law Review, Vol. 82, 2015).
• Suja A. Thomas, Text-Bound Originalism (And Why Originalism Does Not Strictly Govern Same Sex Marriage), (March 16, 2015).

From SSRN (Non-U.S. Law and Society):

• Stephanie Farrior, Equality and Non-Discrimination under International Law, (in Equality and Non-Discrimination Under International Law, Stephanie Farrior, ed., Ashgate Publishing, 2015).
• Zulkarnain Muhamad Sori, Shamsher Mohamad & Mohamed Eskandar Shah, Shariah Governance Practices in Malaysian Islamic Financial Institutions, (March 16, 2015).
• Yinka Olomojobi, Islam: Between Peace and Violence, (March 17, 2015).
• Marc Lane Roark, Retelling English Sovereignty, (British J. Am. Legal Studies, Forthcoming).
• Manjeet Sahu, Preferential Treatment of Hindus Under Indian Tax Law: Emphasizing on Grant of Tax Benefit to Hindu Undivided Family, (April 21, 2014).

From SmartCILP:

• Martin Wishnatsky, The Disincorporation Proclamation: Emancipating the Establishment Clause from the Fourteenth Amendment, 5 Faulkner aw Review 259-307 (2014)

College Admission Denial Because of Religious References In Interview Supports Establishment Clause Claim

In Jenkins v. Kurtinitis, (D MD, March 20, 2015), a Maryland federal district court permitted an unsuccessful applicant to a community college radiation therapy program to move ahead with his Establishment Clause claim, while dismissing his free speech and state free exercise claims. Plaintiff Brandon Jenkins claimed that the program director Adrienne Dougherty denied him admission to the program in part because during his interview in answering a question about the thing most important to him, Jenkins replied "My God."  In an e-mail to Jenkins, Dougherty told him that "this field is not the place for religion."  The court held that:

Jenkins has alleged sufficient facts to state a claim for relief [under the Establishment Clause] because, given the posture of the case, I cannot determine whether defendants acted with an impermissible [religious] purpose.

However, rejecting Jenkins' free expression claim, the court said in part:

the Free Speech Clause does not protect speech expressed in an admissions interview from admissions consequences in a competitive process....

Recent Prisoner Free Exercise Cases

In Bolds v. Cavazos, (9th Cir., March 20, 2015), the 9th Circuit held that the district court properly dismissed an inmate's free exercise claim because he failed to allege facts showing that the confiscation of his television substantially burdened the practice of his religion.

In Rojas v. Heimgartner, (10th Cir., March 20, 2015), the 10th Circuit upheld a prison policy barring Native American inmates from wearing colored bandannas outside of group religious worship services.

In Prim v. Jackson, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 32004 (SD OH, March 16, 2015), an inmate alleged he was prevented from celebrating the Passover seder, that inadequate security in the Chapel for female staff caused it to be closed from Friday night to Saturday night, and he was denied kosher meals.  A federal magistrate judge recommended dismissing some of the claims against certain of the defendants.

In Marshall v. Pennsylvania Department of Corrections, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 32773 (MD PA, March 17, 2015), a Pennsylvania federal magistrate judge upheld a prison's refusal to provide separate congregate religious services for Nation of Islam adherents, limiting them to worshiping with Sunni Muslims.

In Brock-Butler v. Parker, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 33402 (WD KY, March 18, 2015), a Kentucky federal district court, in a case primarily about the use of excessive force against an inmate, permitted plaintiff to also proceed with a free exercise claim that he was forced to shave his head to treat a gash that resulted from his being Tasered.

In Williams v. Wilkinson, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 34172 (ED OK, March 19, 2015), an Oklahoma federal district court dismissed, for failure to exhaust administrative remedies, an inmate's complaint that Muslim communal religious services were suspended. It dismissed on the merits plaintiff's complaint that he had been denied a kosher diet.

In Shepherd v. Fischer, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 33110 (ND NY, March 18, 2015), a New York federal district court adopted a magistrate's recommendation (2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 34238, Feb. 23, 2015) and permitted a Rastafarian inmate to proceed against certain defendants on his complaint regarding several interferences with his religious practices.(diet, dreadlocks, religious services).

In Rogers v. Dart, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 34464 (ND IL, March 19, 2015), an Illinois federal district court permitted an inmate to proceed with his complaints regarding religious diet and auditing of his commissary purchases as retaliation for filing a grievance.

Court Rejects RFRA and Religious Belief Defenses In Forced "Get" Case

In United States v. Epstein, (D NJ, March 19, 2015), a New Jersey federal district court, in a 53-page opinion, explained various rulings the court had made on religious-based defenses raised by defendants who were being tried on charges of kidnapping and conspiracy for using coercive tactics to Force Orthodox Jewish husbands to give their wives divorce documents ("get").  The court rejected defendants' contention that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act required dismissal of the indictment against them.  The court held:

I conclude that the Government’s decision to prosecute Defendants does not constitute a substantial burden on Defendants’ religious exercise. Further, even if a substantial burden does exist, I find that the Government has a compelling interest in preventing crimes of violence, and moreover, the arrest and prosecution of individuals who violate such criminal laws is the least restrictive means of enforcing that interest.

Defendants had argued that freeing an agunah (woman who was refused a get) is a mitzvah in Jewish law. The court responded:

[I]f Defendants had acceptable religious alternatives -- instead of resorting to violating the criminal laws -- I find that the Government’s application of the kidnapping laws to Defendants here does not substantially Defendants’ religious exercise.  Nevertheless, even if Defendants had exhausted all other available non-violent means of coercing a husband to give his wife a get, and the only remaining method of coercion, as argued by Defendants, is through violence or force, i.e., kidnapping, I remain convinced that would not amount to a substantial burden. This Court has not found any authority condoning the use of violence under the guise of religion, and more importantly, no case has found the Government’s application of violent crime laws to certain religious practices is a substantial burden.

The court also ruled that defendants' religious beliefs do not negate the element of specific intent required for a conviction.  The court said in part:

According to Defendants, by signing the ketubah, an Orthodox Jewish husband promises to be bound by the laws of Moses and Israel, both to the authority of the beth din and to the halakhic, or the Jewish religious law, process of the “forced” get as the term is described by Maimonides.  Therefore, taken together, Defendants insist that because of their religious beliefs and because of their beliefs that the victims have consented to the coercive acts, i.e., kidnapping, Defendants lack the intent to commit the crimes as charged. The Court rejects this theory of defense.

Establishment Clause Challenge To Church Directional Sign Moves Ahead

In Tearpock-Martini v. Shickshinny Borough, (MD PA, March 20, 2015), a Pennsylvania federal district court refused to dismiss an Establishment Clause claim against a municipality whose borough council (of which plaintiff was a member) voted to allow a church to install a sign on rights of way bordering plaintiff's property over her objections. Borough street workers and one of the council members installed the sign which read "Bible Baptist Church Welcomes Your" and had a directional arrow with "1 block" written on it. In allowing plaintiff to move ahead, the court said:

The complaint makes sufficient allegations that the government placed the sign on the public right of way. The sign points in the direction of the church and contains a Bible and a cross. The circumstances surrounding the sign are very fact sensitive. For example, according to the plaintiff’s brief, the township does not permit other directional signs and denied the request of the local post office to place a sign. Depending on the facts that are revealed by discovery, a reasonable observer who is familiar with the history and context of the display may perceive a governmental endorsement of religion.

(See prior related posting.) Citizens Voice reports on the decision.

6th Circuit Rejects Good News Club's Fee Waiver Claim

In Child Evangelism Fellowship, Inc. v. Cleveland Metropolitan School District, (6th Cir., March 20, 2015), the U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals in a 2-1 decision affirmed the denial of a preliminary injunction in a suit by Child Evangelism Fellowship (CEF) which had claimed that it was entitled to a waiver of fees for use of school facilities for its Good News Club meetings. CEF claimed that the school system engaged in viewpoint discrimination by waiving fees for the Boy Scouts but not for CEF. The majority said:

As the district court concluded, CEF’s evidence in support of its request for injunctive relief did not adequately show that the District had a fee-waiver policy. To the contrary, at this early juncture, the record supports the District’s position that it merely accepted in-kind payment in lieu of monetary fees.

Judge White dissented, saying that the in-kind contributions by the Boy Scouts to participating students did not amount to compensation to the school district, and thus amounted to a fee waiver.  She said:

I agree that CEF failed to “show[] that a fee-waiver policy even exists.” ... CEF has shown, however, that a fee-waiver practice existed between the District and the Boy Scouts and that despite repeated requests, the District did not provide CEF with a similar arrangement....

(See prior related posting.) [Thanks to Tom Rutledge for the lead.]

Justice Ginsburg Co-Authors A Passover Essay

Religion News Service reported yesterday on the essay written recently by U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg along with Washington, D.C. Rabbi Lauren Holtzblatt as part of American Jewish World Service’s Chag v’Chesed (“Celebration and Compassion”) series in anticipation of Passover. Titled The Heroic and Visionary Women of Passover, the essay focuses on several women in the Passover story who defied Pharaoh to save Moses' life as an infant. Rabbi Holtzblatt's husband is one of Justice Ginsburg's law clerks.

Canada's Supreme Court Says Quebec Catholic School Should Be Allowed Modified Religious Culture Program

In Loyola High School v. Quebec (Attorney General), (Sup Ct Canada, March 19, 2015), Canada's Supreme Court  held that the Quebec Minister of Education's refusal to grant an exemption to allow Loyola, an English-speaking Jesuit high school, to adopt an alternative to the mandated Program on Ethics and Religious Culture (ERC) infringes the school's religious freedom more than is necessary to carry out the objectives of the ERC requirement.  The mandated ERC program has 3 components: religious culture, ethics and dialogue. The government insisted that all these parts be taught from a neutral perspective.  Loyola wanted to offer an alternative course taught from the perspective of Catholic beliefs and ethics. As summarized by the Court, the majority of 4 justices held that the case should be remanded to the Minister of Education in light of the following principles:

In the Quebec context, where private denominational schools are legal, preventing a school like Loyola from teaching and discussing Catholicism from its own perspective does little to further the ERC Program’s objectives while at the same time seriously interfering with religious freedom. The Minister’s decision suggests that engagement with an individual’s own religion on his or her own terms can be presumed to impair respect for others. This assumption led the Minister to a decision that does not, overall, strike a proportionate balance between the Charter  protections and statutory objectives at stake in this case.

That said, the Minister is not required to permit Loyola to teach about the ethics of other religions from a Catholic perspective. The risk of such an approach would be that other religions would necessarily be seen not as differently legitimate belief systems, but as worthy of respect only to the extent that they aligned with the tenets of Catholicism. This contradicts the ERC Program’s goals of ensuring respect for different religious beliefs. In a multicultural society, it is not a breach of anyone’s freedom of religion to be required to learn (or teach) about the doctrines and ethics of other world religions in a neutral and respectful way. In a religious high school, where students are learning about the precepts of one particular faith throughout their education, it is arguably even more important that they learn, in as objective a way as possible, about other belief systems and the reasons underlying those beliefs.

Three justices in a separate opinion argued that the Court should grant the exemption and fashion a remedy, saying:

Loyola’s teachers must be permitted to describe and explain Catholic doctrine and ethical beliefs from the Catholic perspective. Loyola’s teachers must describe and explain the ethical beliefs and doctrines of other religions in an objective and respectful way. Loyola’s teachers must maintain a respectful tone of debate, but where the context of the classroom discussion requires it, they may identify what Catholic beliefs are, why Catholics follow those beliefs, and the ways in which other ethical or doctrinal propositions do not accord with those beliefs.

 Orangeville Banner reports on the decision.

New Resource On Legality of Same-Sex Unions Around The World

American Lawyer reported this week the the Jones Day law firm has launched a new website that provides information on the legal treatment of same-sex relationships in some 300 jurisdictions around the world. The website describes its coverage:

This guide is intended to provide a resource to help answer questions regarding whether particular jurisdictions throughout the world afford legal recognition to same-sex couples. For all U.N. recognized countries, including their constituent parts such as each U.S. State, and Taiwan, the guide answers whether legal recognition of same-sex couples is granted and, if so, provides answers to various follow-up questions, such as whether marriage or some other status is afforded same-sex couples, whether foreign same-sex marriages are recognized in the jurisdiction, and the manner in which same-sex couples may dissolve their relationships.

The website is also now listed under "Resources" in the Religion Clause sidebar.

FBI Approves Revised Hate Crime Data Collection Manual

On Feb. 27, the FBI approved a revised version of its Hate Crime Data Collection Guidelines And Training Manual.  The new version adds definitions and scenarios for categories of hate crimes on which data is to be collected for the first time beginning this year-- anti-Sikh, anti-Hindu and anti-Arab hate crimes. (See prior posting.) [Thanks to Michael Lieberman for the lead.]

Utah Enacts LGBT Anti-Discrimination Law With Extensive Religious Exemptions

As reported by JDSupra, on March 12, Utah Governor Gary Herbert signed S.B. 296,  Antidiscrimination and Religious Freedom Amendments to Utah's laws banning disrimination in employment and housing.  The bill reflected a compromise backed by the Mormon Church, as well as by supporters of LGBT rights, to ban discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity while giving broad religious exemptions from the anti-discrimination requirements. (See prior posting.)  Here is the full text of the religious exemptions:

  34A-5-102. Definitions -- Unincorporated entities
(i)(ii) "Employer" does not include:
(A) a religious organization, a religious corporation sole, a religious association, a religious society, a religious educational institution, or a religious leader, when that individual is acting in the capacity of a religious leader;
(B) any corporation or association constituting an affiliate, a wholly owned
subsidiary, or an agency of any religious organization, religious corporation sole, religious association, or religious society; or
(C) the Boy Scouts of America or its councils, chapters, or subsidiaries...

   34A-5-111. Application to the freedom of expressive association and the free exercise of religion.
       This chapter may not be interpreted to infringe upon the freedom of expressive association or the free exercise of religion protected by the First Amendment of the United States Constitution and Article I, Sections 1, 4, and 15 of the Utah Constitution....

    34A-5-112. Religious liberty protections -- Expressing beliefs and commitments in workplace -- Prohibition on employment actions against certain employee speech.

(1) An employee may express the employee's religious or moral beliefs and commitments in the workplace in a reasonable, non-disruptive, and non-harassing way on equal terms with similar types of expression of beliefs or commitments allowed by the  employer in the workplace, unless the expression is in direct conflict with the essential business-related interests of the employer.

(2) An employer may not discharge, demote, terminate, or refuse to hire any person, or  retaliate against, harass, or discriminate in matters of compensation or in terms, privileges, and conditions of employment against any person otherwise qualified, for lawful expression or  expressive activity outside of the workplace regarding the person's religious, political, or personal convictions, including convictions about marriage, family, or sexuality, unless the expression or expressive activity is in direct conflict with the essential business-related interests of the employer....

  57-21-3. Exemptions -- Sale by private individuals -- Nonprofit organizations --Noncommercial transactions....

(2) This chapter does not apply to a dwelling or a temporary or permanent residence  facility if:
(a) the discrimination is by sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, or familial status for reasons of personal modesty or privacy, or in the furtherance of a religious institution's free exercise of religious rights under the First Amendment of the United States Constitution or the Utah Constitution; and
(b) the dwelling or the temporary or permanent residence facility is:
(i) operated by a nonprofit or charitable organization;
(ii) owned by, operated by, or under contract with a religious organization, a religious association, a religious educational institution, or a religious society;
(iii) owned by, operated by, or under contract with an affiliate of an entity described in Subsection (2)(b)(ii); or
(iv) owned by or operated by a person under contract with an entity described in
Subsection (2)(b)(ii).

... (4) (a) (i) Unless membership in a religion is restricted by race, color, sex, or national origin, this chapter does not prohibit an entity described in Subsection (4)(a)(ii) from:
(A) limiting the sale, rental, or occupancy of a dwelling or temporary or permanent residence facility the entity owns or operates for primarily noncommercial purposes to persons of the same religion; or
(B) giving preference to persons of the same religion when selling, renting, or selecting occupants for a dwelling, or a temporary or permanent residence facility, the entity owns or operates for primarily noncommercial purposes.

       (ii) The following entities are entitled to the exemptions described in Subsection (4)(a)(i):
(A) a religious organization, association, or society; or
(B) a nonprofit institution or organization operated, supervised, or controlled by or in conjunction with a religious organization, association, or society.

... (7) This chapter does not prohibit a nonprofit educational institution from:
(a) requiring its single students to live in a dwelling, or a temporary or permanent residence facility, that is owned by, operated by, or under contract with the nonprofit educational institution;
(b) segregating a dwelling, or a temporary or permanent residence facility, that is owned by, operated by, or under contract with the nonprofit educational institution on the basis of sex or familial status or both:
 (i) for reasons of personal modesty or privacy; or
 (ii) in the furtherance of a religious institution's free exercise of religious rights under the First Amendment of the United States Constitution or the Utah Constitution....

Seventh Day Adventist Entitled To Unemployment Benefits After Being Fired For Saturday Absences

In Lester v. Butler, (GA App., March 17, 2015), a Georgia state appeals court held that a Seventh Day Adventist who refused to work on Saturdays for religious reasons cannot be denied unemployment benefits when she was fired for excessive absences.  The fact that she became a Seventh Day Adventist some three months after she took her job does not change the result.

Defamation Suit Between Ukrainian Orthodox Church Factions Dismissed

In Nykoriak v. Bilinski, (MI App., March 17, 2015), a Michigan appeals court dismissed a suit that apparently grew out of the rivalry in a Michigan parish between the Ukrainian Orthodox Church controlled by Moscow, and the Ukrainian Orthodox Church-Kyiv Patriarchate that was created to be independent of Moscow. [See prior posting for background]. The suit was brought by Bishop Paisiy and a deacon who apparently decided to embrace the Moscow Patriarchate.  They sued the Kyiv Patriarchate in the United States and Canada and its leaders.  Bishop Paisiy asserted that the defendants

released a press release on March 23, 2013, which falsely alleged that plaintiff Bishop Paisiy resigned as bishop; he transferred to the Moscow Patriarchate; he could no longer serve as bishop; ... and that ... St. Andrew Church [in  Hamtramck, Michigan] was placed under the direction of the [Kyiv] Vicariate. Plaintiffs also alleged that on March 24, 2013, ... defendants arrived at St. Andrew and behaved in an unruly manner, used profanity, interrupted services, took pictures of plaintiffs, called them, "The Devil, Criminal Thief, and other inappropriate, immoral and unlawful terms," and then distributed the [Kyiv] Vicariate's press release to the congregation.

The court held first that defendants' alleged conduct did not rise to the level of intentional infliction of emotional distress. As to the defamation claim, the heckling in which plaintiffs were called devil and criminal could not reasonably be understood a stating actual facts.  The remaining defamation claims, the court held, are barred by the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine:

In order to adjudicate plaintiffs’ claims, a court would have to engage in an impermissible excursion into their religious doctrine pertaining to ordination, the religious authority needed for succession of their church leaders, and the organization and form of their church government.

Recent Prisoner Free Exercise Cases-- Installment #2 For the Week

In Hall v. Martin, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 29585 (WD MI, March 11, 2015), a Michigan federal district court adopted a magistrate's recommendation (2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 30572, Feb. 18, 2015) and denied summary judgment to a Messianic Jewish inmate who was suing because he was denied a strict vegetarian diet.

In Haynes v. Hedgpeth, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 30673 (ND CA, March 12, 2015), a California federal district court refused to dismiss some of the claims by a Muslim inmate complaining that he was denied access to group Jumu'ah prayer. The court referred the case for settlement proceedings.

In Chaparro v. Ducart, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 30912 (ND CA, March 9, 2015), a California federal district court permitted a Jehovah's Witness inmate to proceed with his complaint that under prison policy he was not permitted to attend religious services for 30 days because he failed to attend a service that he had been authorized to attend.

In Fluker v. Davis, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 31140 (SD MS, March 13, 2015), a Mississippi federal magistrate judge dismissed a Muslim inmate's complaint that while in restrictive custody he could not attend Jumu'ah services outside of his unit.

In Williams v. Miller, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 31296 (WD OK, March 12, 2015), and Oklahoma federal district court adopted a magistrate's recommendations (2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 30419, Jan. 27, 2015) and dismissed a Muslim inmate's complaint that he lacked access to a Qur'an during Ramadan and that prison officials failed to remove from Ramadan participation inmates that failed to honor the Ramadan fast.

Suit Over Mismanagement of Maryland Church Dismissed

A Maryland federal district court has dismissed a lawsuit growing out of a longstanding dispute over control and operation of the Landover County, Maryland-based Jericho Baptist Church Ministries.  Most of plaintiff's claims were brought as a derivative suit alleging mismanagement and breach of fiduciary duty that caused congregational membership to drop from 15,000 to 30. The suit also alleges that defendants hired themselves at high salaries to operate the church.  In Franklin v. Jackson, (D MD, March 13, 2015), the court held that the derivative claims should be dismissed because plaintiffs failed to make demand on the board to take corrective action before filing the suit in the name of the corporate entity.  The sole non-derivative claim-- an asserted vested right to vote for trustees-- was dismissed on the merits.

9th Circuit Hears Oral Arguments In Tribe's Attempt To Protect Medicine Lake Highlands

On March 12, the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals heard oral arguments (video of full oral arguments) in Pit River Tribe v. Bureau of Land Management, (Case No.13-16961).  Appellants' brief in the case asserts:

This case may well decide the fate of the Medicine Lake Highlands, a place of deep religious significance and spiritual renewal for countless generations of Native Americans. This remote forested landscape is tucked into the far northeastern corner of California just south of Lava Beds National Monument....

Among the issues raised on appeal is whether tribal members' spiritual, environmental, recreational, and economic interests in protecting the Medicine Lake Highlands give plaintiffs standing to assert claims under the Geothermal Steam Act. Counter Punch has more on the arguments and the background of the case.

5th Circuit Affirms School's Rejection of Jesus Tattooed Jumbotron Ad

In a brief opinion in Little Pencil, L.L.C. v. Lubbock Independent School District, (5th Cir., March 13, 2015), the U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed a Texas federal district court's dismissal (see prior posting) of free speech and free exercise claims by an organization that unsuccessfully sought to display a religious ad on a high  school football field jumbotron. The ad depicted a tattooed Jesus and a website URL, and was part of a marketing concept using a new way to share the Bible's teachings.  KAMC News reports on the decision.

Suit Challenges School System's Refusal To Give Teachers Good Friday Off

In Cranston, Rhode Island, this year for the first time the school committee eliminated Yom Kippur, Rosh Hashanah and Good Friday as school holidays.  Instead, it negotiated a collective bargaining agreement that allows teachers to take up to two days off each school year if they are required to attend religious services during the school day.  AP reports that on Monday the union filed suit because the school system has denied requests from some 200 teachers to take Good Friday off, even though they allowed teachers who requested it to take Rosh Hashanah off last fall. School Superintendent Judith Lundsten  says that the Good Friday requests are not covered by the collective bargaining agreement because Good Friday does not require attendance at religious services during school hours.  According to the Cranston Patch, the suit claims that the discriminatory denial of religious leave here is a breach of the collective bargaining agreement and a violation of the state Religious Freedom Restoration Act.  [Thanks to Tom Rutledge for the lead.]

Burmese Court Gives 30 Month Sentences To Bar Owner and Manager For Buddha Facebook Ad

BBC News reported yesterday that a court in Myanmar has found the manager of the upscale VGastro Bar in Yangon (a New Zealander), along with the bar's owner and a colleague (both Burmese), guilty of intentionally plotting to insult religious belief by uploading to Facebook an ad that depicted a psychedelic mock-up of the Buddha wearing DJ headphones.  The ad promoted a cheap drinks night. The bar owner claimed the posting was the responsibility of the bar manager. The three men have been in jail since they were denied bail last December. (See prior posting.)  Each was now sentenced to two-and-one-half years in prison, apparently 6 months longer than the prescribed maximum sentence under Myanmar Penal Code Sec. 295A. [Thanks to Scott Mange for the lead.]