Progressive parents in Oklahoma offer blueprint to mess with MAGA censorship; Salon, July 2, 2025

AMANDA MARCOTTE , Salon; Progressive parents in Oklahoma offer blueprint to mess with MAGA censorship

"Alito, who is as intellectually dishonest as he is self-pitying, tried to pretend the decision was a “compromise.” He repeatedly misrepresented the content of the books with hysterical language. As legal analyst Mark Joseph Stern explained at Slate, Alito “reframes these utterly innocent children’s books as insidious propaganda designed to brainwash children.” The goal here is not only to reinscribe blatant homophobia into the law, but also to minimize the impact of the decision by implying it only impacts “gay” books. But it’s far broader than that, as Vox legal journalist Ian Millhiser notes. The ruling empowers “parents who object to any form of classroom instruction on religious grounds” to demand opt-out rights — or the school to censor the material entirely. Stern continues:

The problem with this request is that schools cannot possibly know, in advance, which religious views are held by which parents, and which books or lessons those parents might find objectionable. In the past, parents have sued school districts objecting, on religious grounds, to lessons that touch on topics as diverse as divorce, interfaith couples and “immodest dress.” They’ve objected to books which expose readers to evolution, pacifism, magic, women achieving things outside of the home and “false views of death.”"

Supreme Court decides whether to allow parents to shield children from LGBTQ books in school; Fox News, June 27, 2025

Ashley Oliver , Fox News ; Supreme Court decides whether to allow parents to shield children from LGBTQ books in school

"The Supreme Court held Friday that a group of Maryland parents are entitled to opt their children out of school lessons that could violate their beliefs in a case centered on religious freedom. 

The justices decided 6-3 along ideological lines in Mahmoud v. Taylor that parents can exclude their children from a Maryland public school system's lessons that contain themes about homosexuality and transgenderism if they feel it conflicts with their religious faith."

Presiding bishop defends decision not to resettle Afrikaners, calls church a ‘bulwark against injustice’; Episcopal News Service (ENS), May 21, 2025

David Paulsen, Episcopal News Service (ENS); Presiding bishop defends decision not to resettle Afrikaners, calls church a ‘bulwark against injustice’

"“The problem with any kind of Faustian bargain like that is that the devil always wins,” Rowe said. “We knew that if we did this, we were going to be asked to do something else we couldn’t do. This was the line that we had to draw. And we’ll continue to do that. We’ll continue to tell the truth and be on the side of moral decision-making, and that’s what this is about. Just because the Trump administration and others have lost their way doesn’t mean the church has.

Malavé’s organization is a plaintiff with The Episcopal Church and 25 other groups seeking to restore “sensitive locations” protections that the Department of Homeland Security previously had granted to houses of worship, before Trump took office in January 2025. The plaintiffs have argued that ending those protections from enforcement actions have hindered congregations’ efforts to welcome and minister to immigrant communities.

“We must, as followers of Jesus, be faithful to our call,” Malavé said. Christianity offers “a world view in which every human being is loved, accepted and cared for.”

Rowe agreed, adding that The Episcopal Church and other plaintiffs are “making pretty conservative arguments” based in constitutional principles of religious freedom, freedom of speech and the rule of law.

At the same time, The Episcopal Church has not joined a separate lawsuit contesting the Trump administration’s suspension of the refugee resettlement program. Rowe explained that the church needs to be strategic and “can’t be part of every lawsuit” but will continue to take faith-based stands as a “bulwark against injustice.”

“This is not about party politics. This is about moral decision-making,” Rowe said. “This is not about being a Republican or Democrat. This is not anti-Trump. … This is about our baptismal covenant and respecting the dignity of every human being.”"

Federal Judge: Religious Liberty Includes a Right to Fire LGBTQ Employees; Slate, 8/18/16

Mark Joseph Stern, Slate; Federal Judge: Religious Liberty Includes a Right to Fire LGBTQ Employees:

"It finally happened.

On Thursday, U.S. District Judge Sean F. Cox found that Hobby Lobby’s broad guarantee of “religious freedom” to businesses exempts religious employers from the federal ban on workplace sex discrimination. Cox ruled that, under the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act, for-profit corporations may claim a legal right to fire employees for being transgender. His decision marks the first time a court has used Hobby Lobby’s holding to abridge LGBTQ employees’ rights under nondiscrimination law—an extension of “religious liberty” that anti-LGBTQ advocates insisted would never occur...

Cox’s decision, then, will almost certainly be overturned. But it is still a useful reminder of Hobby Lobby’s power in the hands of anti-LGBTQ judges. There’s a reason states rushed to pass mini-RFRAs in Hobby Lobby’s wake: A right-leaning judiciary can always cite “religious liberty” to abridge others’ rights, and LGBTQ people are usually first on the chopping block. For years, conservative activists have sworn that the new campaign for religious freedom is not a Trojan horse designed to legalize anti-LGBTQ discrimination. Judge Cox just proved them wrong."