A number of high-profile cases in recent years have pitted the demands of LGBTQ individuals and groups against the constitutional protection of religious freedom.
In one recent example, a federal court in Oregon ruled in favor of Christian colleges and the Department of Education, which faced a lawsuit by the Religious Exemption Accountability Project over a particular portion in Title IX of the Education Amendments originally passed in 1972.
Specifically, the group argued that its goal was to “end the sexual, physical, and psychological abuses perpetrated under the religious exemption to Title IX at thousands of federally funded schools, colleges, and universities across America.”
An analysis of the lawsuit revealed that REAP wanted to, among other things, establish the right of biological men to enter women’s locker rooms on Christian college campuses.
U.S. District Court Judge Ann Aiken ultimately dismissed the complaint, determining that the plaintiffs “have submitted no allegations of discriminatory motivation on the part of those enacting the religious exemption” and even “argue that when Congress enacted Title IX, protections for — or discrimination against sexual and gender minorities — were ‘of no concern.’”
Because REAP provided “no evidence” that the passage of the Title IX religious exemption was motivated by discrimination, the judge tossed out the case.
David Cortman, an attorney with Alliance Defending Freedom, helped represent the defendants in the case and described the complaint as “an unfounded assault on the religious freedom of faith-based educational institutions.”
The government can't withhold public benefits from some people just because it doesn't like their religious beliefs. @WNGdotorg ⬇️ https://t.co/KQTpb61HvM
— Alliance Defending Freedom (@ADFLegal) January 19, 2023
Of course, REAP sees it differently and issued a statement highlighting the fact that, in her ruling, Aiken “recognized the harm Plaintiffs have suffered.”
The group went on to assert that it is “sad to report that despite this, the Court held that they had not alleged a legal claim for which relief could be granted and dismissed their lawsuit,” claiming that as a result, “tens of thousands of LGBTQIA+ students across the country will continue to be discriminated against at universities receiving taxpayer money.”
While students on any campus deserve protection and personal liberty, PJ Media’s Lincoln Brown wrote that this case raises a few fundamental questions, including: “At what point does ‘pride’ become an entitlement?”
He went on to ask: “If religious schools and organizations do not have the right to force their values on LGBTQ+ students, do LGBTQ+ students have the right to force their values on the schools?”
