At issue in this case is a wedding photographer who seeks a religious exemption to Louisville's anti-discrimination ordinance for the purpose of denying wedding-related services to same-sex couples. ADL joined 14 other faith-based organizations in a brief led by Americans United for Separation of Church and State. The brief argues that the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment does not require granting the photographer a religious exemption to this neutral, generally…
6 Results
In Trans World Airlines, Inc. v. Hardison (1977), the Supreme Court held that an employer is required to allow a religious accommodation for an employee under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 unless doing so would constitute an “undue hardship” for the business. However, the Court defined an “undue hardship” as anything that imposes “more than a de minimis cost” for the employer — a very low standard that has made it difficult over the years…
At issue in this case is a business invoking the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment to seek a religious exemption from a New York State anti-discrimination law for the purpose of denying wedding photography services to LGBTQ+ couples. In opposing this claim, the legal brief joined by ADL asserts that such an exemption is not required by the Free Exercise Clause. Furthermore, New York’s public accommodations law does not coerce participation in religious activity. Finally,…
At issue in this case is a business that seeks a religious exemption from a state anti-discrimination law for the purpose of denying wedding-related services to LGBTQ couples. It, however, does not currently sell such services and there is no allegation that the business violated the law. ADL joined a legal brief filed by religious and civil rights organizations asserting that the business’ lawsuit is premature. Even if it was not, the requested exemption is not required by the Free…
At issue in this case is the constitutionality of a Pennsylvania House of Representatives policy barring nontheists from serving as guest chaplains to offer the Chamber’s daily invocation. ADL’s brief asserts that the policy is unconstitutional for two reasons. First, it violates longstanding Establishment Clause precedent prohibiting government from preferring one religion over others. Second, the House’s justification that historically nontheists have not given invocations…
At issue in this case is the constitutionality of a county commission policy prohibiting non-theists from offering the opening prayer at commission meetings. A lower ruled that the policy violated the Establishment Clause to the First Amendment. ADL filed a brief on behalf of a diverse group of religious and civil rights organizations. The brief asserts that policy is unconstitutional for four reasons. First, it plainly violates the U.S. Supreme Court’s non-discrimination requirement for…