The Washington Examiner explained the judge ordered, “The court holds that the Religious Business-Type Employer Class, and All Opposing Employer Class, are permitted to create and maintain codes of conduct that regulate the sexual conduct of their employees, to the extent that those policies do not target solely homosexual or transgender activities.”

A federal judge has ruled that for-profit businesses when they operate on sincerely held religious beliefs are protected from liability for claims of discrimination by those who choose the LGBT lifestyles.
The company that filed the action, Braidwood, “has established Title VII places a substantial burden on its religious exercise, and defendants fail to meet the burden to show a compelling interest,” wrote the judge. “But even if their broad formulation of their interest in ‘preventing all forms of discrimination’ were sufficient, defendants have not selected the least restrictive means.
“Forcing a religious employer to hire, retain, and accommodate employees who conduct themselves contrary to the employer’s views regarding homosexuality and gender identity is not the least restrictive means of promoting that interest, especially when defendants are willing to make exceptions to Title VII for secular purposes.”
Bloomberglaw reported the case was decided just days ago by U.S. District Judge Reed O’Connor in Forth Worth.
The report explained the judge’s decision starts the process of resolving multiple questions left unaddressed by the Supreme Court’s decision in its Bostock case, where the justices granted anti-bias protections for sexual orientations and gender identity.
That decision was reached based on the belief that decades ago, when Congress was writing nondiscrimination law, the members, when they cited “sex,” intended that word to be understood to include transgenderism, gender identity and such.
Read More

Written by J.V. Fesko |
Wednesday, July 10, 2024
As you consider the Old Testament, do not press the narratives into the service of application apart from Christ. First consider how Christ is organically connected to the text. How does the New Testament authoritatively explain the particular Old Testament text before you? Through the light of the revelation of the gospel of Christ, you are equipped to recognize clearly Jesus in the shadowlands of the Old Testament.

In the wake of the death and resurrection of Christ, a number of Jesus’ disciples failed to receive word that their Lord and Savior had risen from the dead. Under the impression that Jesus was dead in his tomb, the disciples walked on the road to Emmaus until a visitor joined them along the way:
That very day two of them were going to a village named Emmaus, about seven miles from Jerusalem, and they were talking with each other about all these things that had happened. While they were talking and discussing together, Jesus himself drew near and went with them. But their eyes were kept from recognizing him. And he said to them, “What is this conversation that you are holding with each other as you walk?” (Luke 24:13-17)
This visitor eventually revealed himself as the risen Messiah, and Jesus began to teach them about his ministry from “the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms” (Luke 24:44). In other words, Jesus taught his disciples exclusively from the Old Testament.
In fact, the phrase that Luke uses, the Law, Prophets, and Psalms, refers to the three major divisions of the Old Testament. Another way of stating Christ’s point is, “The whole Old Testament points to me—Jesus!” If the Old Testament is about Jesus, then how does this affect the way we read it?
The Old Testament isn’t merely about morals, ethics, or leadership.
All too often people read the Old Testament as if its narratives set forth principles merely about morals, ethics, or leadership. Moses is an example for leadership in how he led a rebellious people through the wilderness—these “life lessons” can then be applied to a host of workplace conflicts.
Read More
Related Posts:

Based on history and the shaping of cultural and market forces, I could easily speculate about what the future might hold, but I don’t plan for a specific future, nor do I work to hit specific growth targets. Having lived Opportunity Leadership for many years now, I know that when I look back to consider what I might have anticipated five or ten years ago, today’s reality will look nothing like the future I could have imagined at the time.

Leaders are expected to have a vision for the future, articulated with measurable outcomes. But is that really the best way to lead?
“Where do you expect the university to be in five or ten years?”
As the president of a university, this is a question I am asked regularly. That’s a very natural question to ask of any CEO because society expects leaders to have a ‘vision’ for the future. And we’ve been schooled to believe that we must lavishly articulate that vision in measurable outcomes.
When asked that question, my response is—and this is the absolute blunt answer which I’ve even shared in television news interviews—’I have no idea. But I do know that the best plan we could come up with around conference tables pales in comparison to the plan that God has in store for us.’
Candidly, I don’t know what our future as a university looks like. We may have more students five or ten years from now, or fewer students. I don’t know what new academic programs we might add or cut. I don’t know where we might open new campuses or close some. I don’t plan the future. Our destination is totally dependent on God bringing us opportunities. And so, not only do I not plan for the future, but even more importantly, I don’t worry about it.
Based on history and the shaping of cultural and market forces, I could easily speculate about what the future might hold, but I don’t plan for a specific future, nor do I work to hit specific growth targets. Having lived Opportunity Leadership for many years now, I know that when I look back to consider what I might have anticipated five or ten years ago, today’s reality will look nothing like the future I could have imagined at the time.
Opportunity Leadership is grounded in waiting in anticipation for God-given opportunities to develop that mesh seamlessly with our mission, gifting, and capacity—propelling us to destinations that are heavenly ordained. As a result, we become leaders who hone traits that enable us to become highly sensitive to the wind of God and create an organizational culture that allows us to respond to new opportunities with urgency, adeptness, and energy.

Instead of destination planning, what we must plan well is the execution of our implementation agenda. At my university, we teach history, hold chapel services, play football, provide food service, pay the bills, and complete all the other functions that go into running a small city on a campus. We plan and work hard to ensure those activities are robust, efficient, seamless, and effective. It is good stewardship to plan well what we know we are responsible for doing, and I believe God won’t entrust us with more if we don’t use well what we already hold in our portfolio.

This type of implementation planning must be developed as locally as possible, with the people in the trenches carrying out the specific work. In contrast, comprehensive visionary plans are often drawn up by boards, CEOs, and strategic task forces. Then those leaders spend the following months or years in frustration because the frontline implementers can’t move the changes forward with the same seamlessness envisioned by the planning team.
As leaders, we find our true calling when we break free from a traditional planning process anchored in structure, stability, and control. Instead, we focus on being attentive, informed, and flexible enough to capture opportunities.
The Negative Effects of Destination Planning
The church has learned to build organizations that often mirror the impressiveness of those constructed by the business world. But unlike secular institutions, our eternal focus values the quality of the journey, not simply establishing new beachheads. Structured destination planning not only limits what we might accomplish, but the nature of the process creates five by-products that pollute a ministry’s organizational culture.
1. Destination planning rarely produces the most significant outcomes in our ministry.
Look back on the last decade of your ministry. What was the most significant outcome? Was it drawn out in a plan?
Read More