Suchergebnisse

The United States Constitution : originalism v. living document -- The establishment clause : ally or adversary of religious liberty? -- Religious liberty : the free exercise clause -- Religious freedom as Freedom of Speech -- Religious liberty and the legalization of same-sex marriage -- Religious liberty in the age of LGBTQ rights -- Freedom, equality, discrimination, and involuntary servitude -- Two iconic religious liberty v. anti-discrimination cases -- Photographs, cakes, and pizzas -- Federal government animus toward religion -- Some important victories for religious liberty -- Big government and its danger to freedom -- Concluding remarks on the battle for religious liberty.

AbstractThe European Court of Human Rights (ECHR), in a trilogy of cases involving Muslim claimants, has granted state parties to the European Convention on Human Rights a wide margin of appreciation with respect to the regulation of public manifestations of Islam. The ECHR has justified its decisions in these cases on the grounds that Islamic symbols, such as the ḥijāb, or Muslim commitments to the shari'a — Islamic law — are inconsistent with the democratic order of Europe. This article raises the question of what kinds of commitments to gender equality and democratic decision-making are sufficient for a democratic order, and whether modernist Islamic teachings manifest a satisfactory normative commitment in this regard. It uses the arguments of two modern Muslim reformist scholars — Yūsuf al-Qaraḍāwī and 'Abd al-Ḥalīm Abū Shuqqa — as evidence to argue that if the relevant degree of commitment to gender equality is understood from the perspective of political rather than comprehensive liberalism, doctrines such as those elaborated by these two religious scholars evidence sufficient commitment to the value of political equality between men and women. This makes less plausible the ECHR's arguments justifying a different treatment of Muslims on account of alleged Islamic commitments to gender hierarchy. It also argues that in light of Muslim modernist conceptions of the shari'a, there is no normative justification to conclude that faithfulness to the shari'a entails a categorical rejection of democracy as the ECHR suggested.

The 160,000 LGBT adults in Missouri would benefit from an expanded state non-discrimination law that includes sexual orientation and gender identity. There is currently no Missouri law protecting LGBT people from discrimination in housing, employment, and public accommodations. A uniform state-wide law would maximize protection for Missouri's LGBT population, and provide them the same recourse available to their non-LGBT counterparts. Media reports and lawsuits document that a number of Missourians have faced discrimination in housing, public accommodations, and the workplace because they are LGBT. Complaints have been filed against hotels, landlords and retail stores; and teachers, law enforcement, truck drivers, and attorneys have filed workplace discrimination complaints. Eighteen Missouri localities currently provide protection from sexual orientation discrimination by local ordinance, sixteen of which also provide protection against gender identity discrimination, but the ordinances are inconsistent, and less effective than a state-wide law would be. In many cases, the local ordinances do not fully cover public and private employment, housing, public accommodations, and government services, and Missouri state law provides stronger remedies, and a private right of action that many of the local ordinances do not provide.