Court fight pits religious group that doesn't want LGBTQ+ employees against WA law
(Photo by)
A Christian ministry in Yakima and the state of Washington are clashing in federal court over whether the religious group can decline to hire LGBTQ+ employees.
The Union Gospel Mission of Yakima runs a homeless shelter, addiction recovery programs and medical and dental clinics. The mission wants only to hire employees who follow the biblical notions forbidding sex outside of marriage and between anyone other than a man and woman.
State law forbids hiring practices based on sexual orientation, with limited exceptions for religious organizations.
Federal appeals court judges in Seattle heard arguments Tuesday in the case, which began in 2023.
The dispute serves as a First Amendment test of Washington's anti-discrimination law and could land at the U.S. Supreme Court, where conservative justices have signaled interest in interrogating the statute. At least two other lawsuits over the law are also underway.
'The First Amendment does not allow the government to force a religious organization to hire someone who rejects its faith,' said the mission's attorney Jeremiah Galus, from the conservative Christian law firm Alliance Defending Freedom.
The arguments at the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals came months after a federal judge in eastern Washington blocked the state from enforcing the law against the gospel mission. The attorney general's office has said it has no plans to take action.
The state appealed, leading to Tuesday's court hearing.
The three-judge panel in a Seattle courtroom sounded skeptical of the state's arguments. Judge Johnnie Rawlinson noted the courts' history of respect for the right to practice religion without government interference.
'It's really difficult to use a state law to negate those rights,' said Rawlinson, a Clinton appointee. 'It's a difficult challenge.'
The case began after the mission reportedly chose to take down two job postings focused on information technology and operations because of applicants with opposing beliefs on sexual orientation. The mission said the positions are 'ministerial,' in line with a state Supreme Court ruling exempting such employees.
The state agreed and argued that this makes the case moot.
But Judge Patrick Bumatay suggested the opposite is true. By saying it won't go after the mission for these employees, the state implies it could enforce the law when the group goes to hire for other positions, he said.
'It almost heightens the need for this pre-enforcement action,' said Bumatay, a Trump appointee who is openly gay.
Galus on Tuesday walked back the mission's previous argument, acknowledging the two specific employees aren't ministerial.
Washington deputy solicitor general Cynthia Alexander said the mission is trying to broaden the current exemption for ministers.
'They want to be able to discriminate in hiring for any position,' Alexander told the panel of judges.
Attorneys general from 20 states, including Florida, Idaho and Texas, have urged the court to rule in favor of the Union Gospel Mission. The American Civil Liberties Union has sided with the state, arguing the district court's ruling 'would effectively strip an enormous number of employees of critical antidiscrimination protections.'
'That would include not only employees of religious organizations but also the thousands of employees of the religiously affiliated hospitals that account for nearly half of the hospital beds in the state and all those who work for the myriad religiously affiliated charities, among others,' the ACLU and Americans United for Separation of Church and State wrote in a court filing.
The panel made no ruling after Tuesday's arguments. It could be months until they release one.
President Donald Trump appointed two of the three judges hearing the case, Bumatay and Judge Daniel Bress.
The Washington Law Against Discrimination prohibits employers from refusing to hire, firing or underpaying employees on the basis of race, national origin, sex, age, disability, sexual orientation, among other grounds.
The law exempts those with fewer than eight employees, as well as nonprofit religious organizations.
In 2021, the Washington state Supreme Court ruled that the religious exemption applies only to employees considered ministers.
In that case, Seattle's Union Gospel Mission asked the U.S. Supreme Court to take up the matter. The court declined, but Justice Samuel Alito took issue with the Washington decision, writing that it could conflict with the U.S. Constitution and 'warrant review' in the future.
'The day may soon come when we must decide whether the autonomy guaranteed by the First Amendment protects religious organizations' freedom to hire co-religionists without state or judicial interference,' Alito wrote.
'To force religious organizations to hire messengers and other personnel who do not share their religious views would undermine not only the autonomy of many religious organizations but also their continued viability,' the conservative justice continued.
Just over a year after the state Supreme Court ruling, Seattle Pacific University, a private Christian school affiliated with the Free Methodist Church, decided to keep its policy that employees follow the 'traditional view on Biblical marriage and sexuality.'
Then-Attorney General Bob Ferguson launched an investigation into Seattle Pacific University's hiring practices based on the new reading of the anti-discrimination law. In 2022, the school sued the state, arguing the probe from Ferguson, who is now governor, violated its constitutional right to religious freedom.
The following year, the Union Gospel Mission of Yakima got in on the action, filing its lawsuit against the state.
At first, a federal judge in Richland dismissed the mission's case, since the state had taken no action to enforce the anti-discrimination law against it. The 9th Circuit reversed that decision last summer.
A few months later, the same Richland judge, a Biden appointee, sided with the Yakima gospel mission, granting a preliminary injunction.
The Seattle Pacific University case is ongoing in federal court in Seattle, with a trial set for next April.
And that's not the only other case pending on this issue.
Two weeks ago, the 9th Circuit heard arguments in the case of another religious nonprofit, called World Vision, that rescinded a Washington woman's job offer after learning she was in a same-sex marriage. A federal judge in Seattle had ruled World Vision violated the state anti-discrimination law.
That appeal, before a different three-judge panel, is awaiting a ruling.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
23 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Supreme Court backs Catholic Charities' push to object to state taxes on religious grounds
The Supreme Court on Thursday cleared the way for a Catholic Charities chapter in Wisconsin to secure an exemption from certain state taxes in a decision that could expand the type of religious entities entitled to tax breaks under the First Amendment's protections for religion. It was the latest in a series of decisions from the Supreme Court in recent years that have sided with religious groups on everything from public funding for sectarian schools to allowing coaches to offer private prayers on the field after high school football games. 'It is fundamental to our constitutional order that the government maintain 'neutrality between religion and religion,'' Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote for a unanimous court. 'There may be hard calls to make in policing that rule, but this is not one. When the government distinguishes among religions based on theological differences in their provision of services, it imposes a denominational preference that must satisfy the highest level of judicial scrutiny,' she added. The Catholic Charities Bureau and four affiliate organizations had claimed that Wisconsin violated the First Amendment's religious protections by denying exemptions from the state's unemployment taxes. Churches already receive that exemption and so the question for the justices was, in essence, whether religiously affiliated entities that don't perform traditionally religious functions – such as services – should also qualify. The bureau describes itself as the 'social ministry arm of the Diocese of Superior' of Wisconsin and says that it carries out a 'wide variety of ministries for the elderly, the disabled, the poor,' and others. Wisconsin had argued that Catholic Charities had been participating in its unemployment insurance program without complaint since 1971. Forty-seven states and the federal government include exemptions from unemployment taxes for religious organizations similar to Wisconsin's, suggesting the court's decision could have an impact beyond the Badger State. The Trump administration sided with Catholic Charities, and it was concerned a broad ruling might affect the similar federal law. The Justice Department told the court it interprets federal law to exempt Catholic Charities and similar groups. Justice Clarence Thomas, a member of the court's conservative wing, wrote separately to argue in favor of a doctrine of 'church autonomy' that would further insulate religious institutions from taxes and government regulations. Thomas argued that the state court went too far by looking into how Catholic Charities was structured. 'The First Amendment's guarantee of church autonomy gives religious institutions the right to define their internal governance structures without state interference,' Thomas wrote. 'Perhaps the most important feature of today's ruling is that there was not a majority to take up the issue Justice Thomas wrote separately to underscore—whether regulations governing the tax-exempt status of religious organizations implicates, in Thomas's words, 'the First Amendment's guarantee of church autonomy,'' said Steve Vladeck, CNN Supreme Court analyst and professor at Georgetown University Law Center. 'By deciding this case (unanimously) on narrower grounds, the Court saves the much more fraught question of the extent to which the First Amendment does require church autonomy—and what that would mean for all kinds of local, state, and federal regulations—for a future case.' The majority concluded that Wisconsin's law, as interpreted by the state's top court, discriminated between religions because the groups performing the charity work did not proselytize – even though the group's faith bars practitioners from doing so. 'A law that differentiates between religions along theological lines is textbook denominational discrimination,' Sotomayor wrote for the court. 'Wisconsin's exemption, as interpreted by its Supreme Court, thus grants a denominational preference by explicitly differentiating between religions based on theological practices,' she wrote. Though technical, the case raised fundamental questions about the ability of courts to look behind the pulpit to assess the religiosity of certain organizations. Chief Justice John Roberts pressed the attorney representing Catholic Charities in March by asking whether a vegetarian restaurant might be entitled to an exemption from state taxes in the group's view if its owners claimed they were following a religious tenet against eating meat. Along those same lines, a question lurking behind the case was how it might apply to religiously affiliated hospitals. Approximately 787,000 employees work for six multibillion-dollar Catholic-affiliated health care systems, according to the Freedom from Religion Foundation, which filed a brief supporting the state. The Service Employees International Union, which also backs the state, estimated that more than a million workers are employed by religiously affiliated organizations. The conservative justices on the Supreme Court have in recent years blurred the line that once clearly separated church from state in a series of rulings siding with religious entities. They have done so in part on the theory that some government efforts intended to comply with the First Amendment's establishment clause have been overbroad and discriminated against religion. The court has expanded the circumstances under which taxpayer money may fund religious schools, for instance, it allowed a public high school football coach to pray on the 50-yard line and ruled that Boston could not block a Christian group from raising a flag at City Hall. But in this case, liberal Justice Elena Kagan signaled during the argument that she, too, had concerns with the idea that courts might take it upon themselves to second guess what sorts of activities might count as religious. It was clear in March that a majority of the justices were alarmed by the decision from the Wisconsin Supreme Court, which concluded that the work Catholic Charities performed was 'wholly' secular. 'Such services can be provided by organizations of either religious or secular motivations, and the services provided would not differ in any sense,' the majority wrote. In a dissent, two Wisconsin justices said that the court's decision 'looks through a seemingly Protestant lens to deem works of charity worthy of the exemption only if accompanied by proselytizing – a combination forbidden by Catholicism, Judaism, and many other religions.' By choosing which religions may benefit from the break, the dissent said, the state court's interpretation violated the First Amendment. Catholic Charities argued that its employees would continue to have unemployment coverage but that it would be provided by a church-affiliated entity rather than the state. The group's opponents say employees in other workplaces may not be so lucky and have noted that the state cannot guarantee that those plans will pay out when employees lose their jobs. This story has been updated with additional details.
Epoch Times
32 minutes ago
- Epoch Times
Supreme Court Rules 9-0 Wisconsin Violated First Amendment by Denying Tax Exemption to Catholic Charity
The U.S. Supreme Court on June 5 ruled unanimously that Wisconsin violated the First Amendment by not granting a Catholic charity an exemption from paying unemployment tax. Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote the 9–0
Yahoo
38 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Supreme Court sides with Catholic Charity in tax case
The Supreme Court sided with a Catholic charity in a legal dispute with Wisconsin state authorities over unemployment benefit taxes. Justice Sonia Sotomayor's opinion for the court cited the First Amendment's mandate of 'government neutrality between religions.' As framed by the charity, the legal question in the case was whether a state violates the First Amendment by 'denying a religious organization an otherwise-available tax exemption because the organization does not meet the state's criteria for religious behavior.' Catholic Charities Bureau argued that its exclusion by the state from a religious exemption was unconstitutional 'in at least three ways,' including for allegedly being discriminatory. A divided Wisconsin Supreme Court sided with the state last year. The court's liberal majority concluded that the charity isn't 'operated primarily for religious purposes' under state law, over conservative dissent that said the majority 'rewrites the statute to deprive Catholic Charities of the tax exemption, rendering unto the state that which the law says belongs to the church.' Reversing the state court on Thursday, the U.S. Supreme Court deemed this case an easy one, reasoning that the state court failed to apply the rigorous constitutional analysis required. 'When the government distinguishes among religions based on theological differences in their provision of services, it imposes a denominational preference that must satisfy the highest level of judicial scrutiny,' Sotomayor wrote for the court. 'Because Wisconsin has transgressed that principle without the tailoring necessary to survive such scrutiny, the judgment of the Wisconsin Supreme Court is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion,' she wrote, referring to the process of a higher court sending a case back to a lower court. The March 31 oral argument reflected bipartisan concern among Supreme Court justices in the charity's favor. The state had argued that the group didn't engage in 'distinctively religious activities' and didn't assert 'a religious objection to contributing to unemployment insurance.' Subscribe to the Deadline: Legal Newsletter for expert analysis on the top legal stories of the week, including updates from the Supreme Court and developments in the Trump administration's legal cases. This article was originally published on
