Yes, here we go again. The first time I read through this Washington Post story — “Firing of gay Catholic school teacher could test latest Supreme Court ruling” — I thought it was another botched mainstream press story about a case in which a doctrinally defined academic community (in this case a Catholic school) fired a teacher who could not affirm the school’s doctrines (think Catholic Catechism).
That’s part of what is happening here. Once again, the journalists involved in reporting and editing this story failed to mention whether the school did or did not require teachers, staff and students to sign a covenant in which they affirmed Catholic teachings or, at the very least, agreed not to take public actions that rejected them.
That’s a classic “ministerial exception” case. The key issue is whether administrators have clearly stated the role that a doctrinal covenant plays in the life of their school. Hold that thought.
But this story has another goal — which is to fire distress rockets that the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent 303 Creative decision could strengthen the case of religious school leaders that want to employ faculty members and staff who affirm the teachings of their faith. The key word here is “bolster,” as in this secondary definition: “support or strengthen; prop up.” Look for that in the Post overture:
When Lonnie Billard announced on Facebook in October 2014 that he was engaged to his partner of 14 years, he knew not everyone in his social circles would celebrate the news. Same-sex marriage had only been legal in his home state of North Carolina for two weeks.
“If you don’t agree with this,” he wrote, “keep it to yourself.”
He received only congratulations in reply. But two months later, while the substitute teacher and his fiancé were celebrating Christmas with one of his colleagues at Charlotte Catholic High School, Billard mentioned that he hadn’t heard from the school about filling in during her post-holiday vacation.
That’s when Billard learned he was no longer being employed by the Catholic school because he was marrying a man. Billard sued the school for sex discrimination and won in 2021. That decision is being challenged by a nonprofit firm involved in multiple high-profile fights on behalf of religious conservatives, which says last month’s U.S. Supreme Court decision in favor of a web designer who did not want to work for gay couples bolsters its case.
In other words, the 303 Creative case might strengthen the already established First Amendment right of doctrinally defined religious institutions — think voluntary associations and private schools — to hire and fire personnel based on doctrinal standards. That would be bad. There is no need for the Post to consider how these First Amendment cases would defend the rights of progressive believers.
The Becket Fund simply cited 303 Creative in support of the other established legal concepts relevant to this case. Thus:
Luke Goodrich, who is litigating the case for the Becket Fund, says it was the first time the group cited the Supreme Court decision known as 303 Creative.
“There’s a long series of Supreme Court decisions protecting religious freedom and freedom of speech in various contexts,” he said. “303 Creative just feeds in to that.”
Key phrase: ““303 Creative just feeds in to that.”
In other words, this latest SCOTUS decision, from the point of view of the Post, simply made a bad situation worse. Readers know that the Post team understands that 303 Creative isn’t pivotal in this long-simmering Charlotte case. This can be seen in this material located way down in the story.
The Supreme Court has already ruled that discrimination laws don’t apply to employees of a religious institution who engage in ministerial work — even if they have other duties as well. The Becket Fund was also involved in that litigation. But Charlotte Catholic has not argued that Billard’s job was ministerial. He had been a drama teacher for a decade before becoming a substitute in retirement. While classes began with a prayer, the teacher did not have to lead it, according to the court record; secular teachers at the school do not have to be Catholic and were discouraged from engaging students on theology.
Later on, there is this additional reference:
The Catholic school is also arguing that another exception to federal anti-discrimination law, which lets religious organizations hire exclusively “individuals of a particular religion,” allows for broader discrimination against anyone who doesn’t adhere to the group’s religious beliefs. A district court in Texas has agreed with that interpretation; the same court ruled that for-profit businesses run by religious people can similarly discriminate under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (RFRA), which prohibits “substantially burdening” someone’s exercise of religion unless it is the only way to advance a “compelling government interest.”
This Post story offers all kinds of material from those who fear the “bolsters” language linked to 303 Creative.
That’s fine. But what this story does NOT give readers is information about whether Charlotte Catholic leaders have established a doctrinal covenant. The story does note that “secular teachers at the school do not have to be Catholic and were discouraged from engaging students on theology.” That doesn’t automatically mean that non-Catholic teachers didn’t sign a covenant in which they agreed not to take public stands that clash with centuries of Catholic teachings.
Does the school have a covenant of any kind? If so, when was it created? These are key questions for Billard’s legal team.
If there is a new issue here, it is whether posting news on social media about a same-sex marriage and communicating it to the community outside the school constitutes a “public stand” against the faith. See this Post passage:
Ira Lupu, a professor at George Washington University Law School who studies First Amendment-related religious jurisprudence, is skeptical that the Supreme Court would take a position that would imperil thousands of secular employees at faith-based institutions.
“The very fact that he is in a same-sex marriage and that he’s identified that on Facebook, not on campus, not in his job — you cannot attribute that expression to the school,” he said.
Had this teacher been open about his gay marriage — on campus? That’s a crucial question that is not addressed by the Post report. You have to know this will be discussed in the trial.
Let’s end with an attempt to look at this specific case in a mirror, looking at how this might apply to a doctrinally defined institution on the religious and doctrinal left.
America contains more than a few Episcopal Church schools. Let’s say that, at one such school, a teacher who has been openly gay in the past takes a public stand — Facebook, messages to friends (inside the school and out), etc. — in which he declares himself healed of his homosexual orientation.
After this, he takes public stands that clash with the school’s Episcopal doctrines teaching that homosexual orientation and sexual activity in same-sex relationships is part of God’s good creation. These doctrines are stated in the Episcopal school’s charter, which teachers affirm as part of their employment (or they agree not to make public stands opposing these doctrines).
Can Episcopal school administrators dismiss this teacher, citing the “ministerial exception”? I would think that the answer is “yes.” Would the progressive groups quoted in this Post story agree?
Stay tuned. You know that these cases will continue to be filed, as the religious liberty wars continue.
FIRST IMAGE: Uncredited photo from the LGBTQ+ ministry page for The Episcopal Church.