Bob Unruh

Judge Makes Stunning Ruling for Businesses with Religious Beliefs

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

Doctor Brags of Breaking New Law, Gets Serious Surprise for His Medical License

“Because Braid publicly admitted guilt in violating Texas law by killing a baby whose life was protected by that duly enacted law, Operation Rescue has filed a complaint with the Texas Medical Board seeking an immediate emergency suspension of Braid’s Texas medical license,” said Operation Rescue President Troy Newman. “The emergency suspension is necessary to prevent him from further illegal conduct and to ensure the protection of innocent lives.”

A Texas abortionist, Alan Braid, went to the Washington Post to boast in a commentary over the weekend that he broke Texas’ new pro-life law banning abortions after about six weeks.
Now he’s finding himself on the wrong end of a campaign calling on the state to suspend his medical license.
NPR reported Braid bragged of breaking the law which was allowed by the U.S. Supreme Court to stand.
It is unique is that most pro-life requirements are enforced by a government. But not Texas’ S.B. 8, which allows that anyone who aids anyone else in getting an abortion “runs the risk of being sued for at least $10,000,” NPR said.
Braid, in the article, boasted he performed an abortion despite the state law on Sept. 6, which prompted the pro-life Operation Rescue organization to file a complaint with the Texas Medical Board.
Read More

Impressive Victory for Transgender-Resisting Christian Teacher

The judge noted that any loss of First Amendment freedoms, “for even minimal periods of time,” is “irreparable,” and that “similarly situated employees” in the district already have been “chilled from speech” because of the administrators’ actions.

The Virginia Supreme Court on Monday affirmed a lower court’s decision to reinstate Tanner Cross, a physical education teacher at Leesburg Elementary School, to his position after Loudoun County Public Schools suspended him for expressing his views on the board’s transgender agenda.
The district has been ground zero in America for the fight over transgender mandates in public schools in recent weeks, and just days ago formally adopted a policy demanding adherence to the socio-political agenda.
The lower court had ruled Cross’ suspension was likely unconstitutional as it was because of his speech, which is protected by the First Amendment. The school then appealed to the high court.
“Teachers shouldn’t be forced to promote ideologies that are harmful to their students and that they believe are false, nor should they be silenced for commenting at a public meeting,” Tyson Langhofer, counsel for Cross. “The lower court’s decision was a well-reasoned application of the facts to clearly established law, as the Virginia Supreme Court found. But because Loudoun County Public Schools is now requiring all teachers and students to deny truths about what it means to be male and female and compelling them to call students by their chosen pronouns or face punishment, we have moved to amend our lawsuit to challenge that policy on behalf of multiple faculty members. Public employees cannot be forced to contradict their core beliefs just to keep a job.”
The board’s new dictate forces all school district students and staff to refer to “gender-expansive or transgender” students using whatever pronouns they can choose.
In response to the board’s adoption of the mandate, several other teachers are being added to the case as plaintiffs.
When the lower court ordered Cross reinstated, the district near Washington, D.C., decided to double down on its punishment, filing the now-unsuccessful appeal.
Read More

Scroll to top