Several progressive Muslim organizations have signed an amicus brief supporting the same-sex couple in the Masterpiece Cakeshop case. This not only distorts Islamic teaching and anthropology, it also fuels the increasingly powerful movement of militant irreligious orthodoxy.
In their new book, Ryan T. Anderson and Sherif Girgis make a strong case for pluralism and ordered liberty, while John Corvino drafts a blueprint for a comprehensive despotism that would consume the preconditions and legal safeguards for ordered liberty. Part two of a two-part review essay.
Antidiscrimination laws are fully within the government’s authority—but only when the government is not using such laws as part of a campaign to compel people to express “by word or act” their support for a government-prescribed orthodoxy. The second in a two-part series.
The vendor-marriage cases are part of the centuries-old pattern in which governments have attempted to compel dissenters to publicly affirm and acquiesce in the dominant orthodoxy. The first in a two-part series.
A Seattle coffee shop owner’s refusal to serve “these people” stands in stark contrast to artists’ cases.
By preventing Charlie Gard from receiving further medical treatment, the United Kingdom is exceeding its legitimate authority, and violating the right of Connie Yates and Chris Gard to make an intimate and important family decision about how best to care for their sick child.
The Supreme Court recently agreed to hear the case of Jack Phillips, owner of Masterpiece Cakeshop, who declined to bake a cake for a same-sex wedding reception. There is no need to coerce artists to employ their abilities in ways contrary to their religious beliefs.
An article recently published in a prestigious medical journal argues that conscientious objection should be eliminated from the practice of medicine. The argument is unsound, its conclusion dangerous and inhumane.
Neil Gorsuch’s book on assisted suicide highlights the danger of judges who rely on the legal and philosophical principle of radical autonomy to legislate from the bench.
Sexual orientation and gender identity (SOGI) antidiscrimination laws are unjustified, but if other policies are adopted to address the mistreatment of people who identify as LGBT, they must leave people free to engage in legitimate actions based on the conviction that we are created male and female and that male and female are created for each other.
Waging war against those who cannot in good conscience help perform or facilitate abortions does little to improve access for women seeking abortions, damages the integrity of those who object, and harms civil society.
The war is far from over, but a recent battle in California shows that pluralism, religious liberty, and traditional values can be defended where there is a will to mobilize and resist.
Congress should pass the Conscience Protection Act to send a message to the entire nation that our freedom of speech and religious freedom are protected and valued.
A play in three acts, each consisting of a meeting between the CEO of a religious charity and the agent representing her health insurance company.
American history is rife with examples of conscientious objectors whose right to religious freedom was respected, even if it conflicted with governmental interests. The Little Sisters of the Poor deserve the same respect, and all Americans who value religious liberty have the duty to stand with them.
“LGBT rights” are being elevated above conscience rights when the two come into conflict—but this trend is to the detriment of human rights, which can stand the test of time only when they are grounded in transcendent, fixed authority.
Big Business and Big Law are using Big Government to impose their cultural values on small businesses and ordinary Americans. Indiana does not need to create new laws on sexual orientation or gender identity for people who identify as sexual minorities to be treated justly. The best way to protect all Hoosiers is for Indiana not to adopt a SOGI policy at all.
Democracy and common sense teach us to seek the truth by listening to one another. If we will not even provide a room for people who want to talk with one another because we do not like what they say, then democracy is impossible.
If law can declare certain reasons for a private business owner to refuse service—such as sexual orientation—invalid, then it can also designate other reasons as valid—such as religious convictions about the nature of marriage.
Antonin Scalia is one of the most brilliant, principled, sound, and thoughtful jurists ever to sit on the Supreme Court. But twenty-five years ago today, his legal skills utterly failed him.
It’s fine for people to express disagreement with the Indiana RFRA—if they know what’s in it. We must not allow ourselves to be manipulated by political propagandists into mob hysteria.
A shopkeeper who objects to sex-same weddings but who nevertheless provides services at such weddings generally acts in a morally permissible way if he acts to comply with a validly-enacted law, to preserve the goodwill of his business, and to make a just profit. Nevertheless, a law that in this way coerces a shopkeeper to cooperate with actions he reasonably believes immoral is gravely unjust.
James M. Oleske’s “review” of my new book is no review at all. It’s an intellectually dishonest hit piece.
The existence of objective moral truth that is knowable by reason does not imply that people generally, much less particular public officials, will in fact know and embrace that truth. Very often, they won’t, and that is why systematic limits on government power, such as the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, are good laws.
Provided agencies meet basic requirements protecting the welfare of children, they should be free to operate according to their values, especially their religiously informed beliefs about marriage. New legislation introduced this week would protect this right.