A Christian student athletic club was thrown off campus in California because of its traditional stance on marriage. Members fought back and won.



A Christian student athletic club in California was denigrated, protested, then thrown off campus in 2019 on account of its traditional views on marriage. When the Fellowship of Christian Athletes and student leaders' requests to have their club reinstated fell on deaf ears, they took legal action with the help of the religious liberty group Becket and the Christian Legal Society.

In a major upset for LGBT activists and other cultural imperialists in the San Jose Unified School District, a federal court delivered the evangelical FCA a decisive win Wednesday, ordering the reinstatement of its chapter at Pioneer High School.

Rigo Lopez, the local FCA leader for Bay Area schools, responded to the victory for religious liberty, stating, "FCA is excited to be able to get back to serving our campuses. ... Our FCA teams have long enjoyed strong relationships with teachers and students in the past, and we are looking forward to that again."

Daniel Blomberg, vice president and senior counsel at Becket, said, "This is a huge win for these brave kids, who persevered through adversity and never took their eye off the ball: equal access with integrity."

"Today’s ruling ensures religious students are again treated fairly in San Jose and throughout California," added Blomberg.

No room for Christian beliefs

The Fellowship of Christian Athletes student club, founded in 1954, seeks to "lead every coach and athlete into a growing relationship with Jesus Christ and His church."

Despite meeting at San Jose Unified School District schools in California for over a decade without incident, the group was thrown off campus after a single social studies teacher at Pioneer High School denounced the organization during class time, claiming its views on marriage were "bulls***."

Peter Glasser, the teacher in question, had learned that while all students were welcome to participate in FCA events and to join its ranks, chapter leaders were required to affirm the group's statements of faith and sexual purity, reported the Washington Examiner.

Among the statements of faith, listed on the FCA's website, are the declarations that: the Bible is the word of God; there is "only one God who eternally exists in three persons"; Jesus Christ is God; and "acceptance of Jesus Christ and the corresponding renewal of the Holy Spirit is the only path to salvation."

The sexual purity statement required that leaders affirm that "sexual intimacy is to be expressed only within the context of marriage," defined as "exclusively the union of one man and one woman."

According to court documents, in April 2019, Glasser obtained these statements, posted them on the whiteboard in his first period class, and appended a note to them which read, "I am deeply saddened that a club on Pioneer's campus asks its members to affirm these statements. How do you feel?"

Extra to inviting criticism of Christian students' beliefs by other students, Glasser, who reportedly suggested the FCA's beliefs were tantamount to harassment, pressed principal Herb Espiritu to take action.

A school leadership committee, which included Glasser, met on April 30, 2019, determining the FCA's "pledge" clashed with the "core values" of the high school.

Espiritu brought the decision to the attention of SJUSD administrators, then two days later informed the student leaders of the Pioneer FCA that the district had stripped the group of its approval.

Within weeks, all three FCA student clubs in the district had been labeled as "discriminatory" and similarly booted off campus whilst identitarian groups, LGBT activist groups, and even the Satanic Temple Club remained unscathed, notwithstanding their own dogmatic views and rules.

Battle in the courts

Two students filed a lawsuit in April 2020, seeking to restore the club's equal access to meet on campus. A district court shut them down. They nevertheless persevered and appealed the decision.

On Aug. 29, 2022, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled in the Christian students' favor, concluding that the "plaintiffs [were] likely to succeed on their Free Exercise claims alleging that the defendants have selectively enforced their non-discrimination polices."

Accordingly, the Ninth Circuit Court reversed the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California's earlier denial of the FCA's motion for a preliminary injunction and directed the district court to order the group's reinstatement.

The San Jose Unified School District did not handle the decision well.

Rather than accept that it could no longer flout the First Amendment and the Equal Access Act by way of discriminating against the FCA's religious leadership standards, it shut down all student groups for the fall 2022 semester and appealed the decision.

Christian virtue prevails

On Jan. 18, 2023, the the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals agreed to hear the case before a panel of eleven federal judges.

In a 9-2 decision issued Wednesday, the court killed perhaps the SJUSD's last hope of boxing out the Christian group, ruling that the FCA and other such clubs do not have to surrender on matters of faith to enjoy equal access to campus.

"The District, rather than treating (the Fellowship of Christian Athletes) like comparable secular student groups whose membership was limited based on criteria including sex, race, ethnicity and gender identity, penalized it based on its religious beliefs," said the ruling.

The court stressed that "[i]ndividual preferences based on certain characteristics and criteria serve important purposes for these groups"; that just as the "Senior Women club" can have all-female members and various honor clubs can require benchmarks pertaining to members' moral character, "it makes equal sense that a religious group be allowed to require that its leaders agree with the group's most fundamental beliefs."

In her opinion, Judge Consuelo María Callahan noted that while anti-discrimination policies "serve worthy causes ... those policies may not themselves be utilized in a manner that transgresses or supersedes the government's constitutional commitment to be steadfastly neutral to religion."

Accordingly, "[u]nder the First Amendment's protection of free exercise of religion and free speech, the government may not 'single out' religious groups 'for special disfavor' compared to similar secular groups," wrote Callahan.

Judge Danielle J. Forrest called the SJUSD's treatment of FCA student members "shocking and fundamentally at odds with bedrock principles that have guided our Republic since the beginning."

Concerning the FCA's win Wednesday, Steve McFarland, director of the Christian Legal Society's Center for Law and Religious Freedom, said, "Public schools should respect every student's religious beliefs and treat every student with dignity. ... We are grateful the court has reaffirmed this foundational right of every student."

2022 FCA Presentationyoutu.be

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Lawsuit: Massachusetts refuses to allow couple to foster or adopt children because of their Christian faith



A Christian conservative couple in Massachusetts has been denied the ability to adopt or foster children because of the perception by state officials that "their faith is not supportive and neither are they" of the gender and sexuality of hypothetical "LGBTQIA+ youth."

Cognizant that the "discriminatory" standard applied to them would ultimately mean a prohibition on all families like theirs of various faiths, Catholics Mitty and Catherine "Kitty" Burke have taken the commonwealth to court with the help of the religious liberty group Becket.

Parents in search of a child

Mike Burke is an Iraq War veteran. His wife, Kitty, is a former paraprofessional for special-needs kids. They are both highly involved in their church, where they perform music for mass.

After long struggling with infertility, they resolved to share their gifts, home, and love with a vulnerable foster child.

Their proposed help and stability could go a long way. After all, according to the Massachusetts Department of Children and Families, there are well over 1,521 children currently without families who could benefit from a stable pair of doting parents.

The Burkes applied to become foster parents in 2022.

In addition to drawn-out interviews and various home assessments, they completed at least 30 hours of mandatory training to the satisfaction of their instructor, who reported to the DCF that Mike and Kitty Burke "have a solid understanding of how trauma can affect people, as Mike spoke openly about his PTSD as a Veteran. Both were active participants throughout MAPP and their comments often helped to enrich the training. It is anticipated that they will work cooperatively with DCF throughout their adoption journey."

Linda-Jeanne Mack of 18 Degrees, who had conducted their home interviews, centered a great deal of her focus on Mike and Kitty Burke's views about sexuality, court documents show.

The DCF indicated in its report for the third quarter of this fiscal year that 43% of recently processed children in the 3-17 age group identified as female; 45% identified as male; 3% were missing an identifier in their records; 4% did not wish to answer; and a handful, not amounting to 1% of the total, ascribed to some gender-dysphoric identity. The plurality of kids who volunteered an answer indicated they were straight.

When asked "how they'd feel if their child identified as Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Queer, or any other sexuality," Kitty reportedly said, "There's nothing wrong with it, I'm going to love you the same, but I believe you would need to live a chaste life."

However, both potential parents made clear that they did not reject biological sex and held fast to their religious convictions, unswayed by the ideological fads of the day.

Christians need not apply

Mack wrote in her report that the couple has "a lot of strengths ... and really seems to understand adoption/foster care," but expressed concern whether the Burkes' beliefs about gender and sexuality would permit them to be "supportive of LGBTQIA+ youth," adding, "Their faith is not supportive and neither are they."

The social worker is said to have further noted her "apprehension about recommending [the Burkes] as a resource family due to the couple's views related to people who identify as LGBTQIA++ . . . . They are heavily involved in their Catholic Church and cite their religious views as their primary reason for seeing LGBTQIA++ individuals in this way."

Whereas Mack highlighted her concerns about the Burkes' lack of woke bona fides but did not explicitly recommend that they should be barred from fostering, court documents show that officials linked to the DCF were more than happy to go the distance to crush the couple's dreams.

Like Mack, the Licensing Review Team, under the control and responsibility of the DCF, acknowledged the Burkes' many strong qualities, but ultimately denied their application, stating, "Issue(s) of concern for which the couple's license study was denied is based on the couple's statements/responses regarding placement of children who identified LGBTQIA."

The license study concluded, "Based on this families [sic] beliefs about children who identify as LGBTQIA+ and after a careful review of this assessment by the regional DCF licensing and training review team, the Department is unable to issue a license for them to foster/adopt at this time."

The Burkes said in a statement, "After months of interviews and training, and after years of heartbreak, we were on the verge of finally becoming parents. ... We were absolutely devastated to learn that Massachusetts would rather children sleep in the hallways of hospitals than let us welcome children in need into our home."

The Burkes' mention of children sleeping in hospitals appears to reference the claim by DCF workers last year that children had taken to sleeping on bed-less office floors, as reported by the Boston Globe.

Following the DCF licensing team's decision, the Burkes asked for an explanation for the ruling, then requested a fair hearing.

Upon seeing the allegedly "discriminatory" rationale behind the DCF's decisions, they determined they would have to take legal action.

Burke v. Walsh

Becket filed a federal lawsuit on behalf of Mike and Kitty Burke in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts on Aug. 8 "to ensure that families like the Burkes can offer loving homes to children in need amid the state's foster care crisis."

The religious liberty group noted, "This sad conflict was entirely avoidable. Massachusetts wants to maximize foster families and rightly protect potential foster parents from religious discrimination. Instead, Massachusetts turned its policies into a ban on certain religious beliefs. This is as unconstitutional as it is unnecessary."

The couple's lawsuit claims multiple violations of their First Amendment rights, particularly the Free Exercise Clause, and highlights how the DCF's decision reeks of religious hostility, categorical discrimination, religious gerrymandering, and compelled speech.

The suit states, "The denial of the Burkes' application to serve as foster parents substantially burdens their religious exercise because it forces them to choose between the opportunity to become foster and adoptive parents for children in need and maintaining their religious beliefs," adding that the DCF's decision was ultimately "based on an individualized assessment of their religious beliefs."

Furthermore, the suit alleges, "DCF has conditioned its approval of the Burkes' application on their willingness to affirm DCF's preferred view of gender and human sexuality."

Kate Walsh, secretary of the Massachusetts Executive Office of Health and Human Services, and Linda Spears, commissioner of the DCF, are among those named as defendants in the lawsuit.

Extra to pressing the federal court to prevent state officials from declining to confer a foster care license upon the Burkes, the suit seeks compensatory damages against the defendants along with attorney fees.

Lori Windham, vice president and senior counsel at Becket, said in a statement, "It takes the heroic effort of parents like Mike and Kitty to provide vulnerable children with loving homes through foster care."

"Massachusetts' actions leave the Burkes, and families of other faiths, out in the cold. How can they explain this to children waiting for a home?" added Windham.

The Catholic News Agency indicated that neither Spears' nor Walsh's offices have yet responded to requests for comment.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Christian university fights back: Seattle Pacific University sues Washington AG for violating its First Amendment rights



Seattle Pacific University, a Christian university affiliated with the Free Methodist Church, has filed a lawsuit against the attorney general of the state of Washington, Bob Ferguson, for intruding on its private religious convictions, private communications, and hiring practices.

On Wednesday, SPU filed a lawsuit at the U.S. District Court in Tacoma, Washington, alleging that Ferguson had violated its constitutional rights when he initiated an investigation into the school's hiring practices after receiving complaints that the school had discriminated against gay applicants.

Early last month, Ferguson had sent a letter to SPU's attorney, claiming that he had "learned of information that suggests that the University may utilize employment policies and practices that permit or require discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, including by prohibiting same-sex marriage and activity."

Ferguson then demanded that members of SPU provide to him all SPU documentation regarding its policies about sexual orientation, any instances in which gay applicants had been denied employment or terminated based on sexual orientation, any complaints lodged in connection to policies regarding sexual orientation, and the job descriptions of all positions at SPU, both faculty and staff.

Ferguson then gave SPU until June 22 to furnish his office with the solicited documentation. Rather than comply, however, SPU filed the federal lawsuit against Ferguson.

"As part of its religious commitment, Seattle Pacific expects its faculty, staff and leadership to agree with the University’s statement of faith and to live out that faith as a model for others, including by living according to the University’s religious teachings on marriage," the lawsuit states. "Seattle Pacific relies on its faculty, staff, and leadership to provide a Christian higher education by integrating faith and learning."

"Seattle Pacific holds to traditional Christian beliefs regarding marriage and sexuality, in alignment with the Free Methodist Church," the lawsuit also states.

The lawsuit expresses the hope that a federal court will affirm SPU's First Amendment rights to operate according to the dictates of its religious faith, issue an injunction against Ferguson and the state's AG office to prevent any future interference in the private practices of SPU, and prompt the AG's office to compensate SPU for legal fees associated with this case and any "such other and further relief as the Court deems equitable and just."

The legal organization Becket, “a non-profit, public-interest legal and educational institute with a mission to protect the free expression of all faiths,” is representing SPU in this case.

Becket issued a statement regarding Ferguson's inquiries and SPU's lawsuit:

"Seattle Pacific University is asking a federal court to stop Washington Attorney General Bob Ferguson from interfering in the religious decisions of a Christian university seeking to remain true to its faith and mission. Mr. Ferguson recently singled out Seattle Pacific because of its Christian beliefs, demanding information about the school’s religious hiring practices and employees. For years, American courts have been clear that external officials cannot dictate how religious institutions live out their faith commitments. Our laws protect religious universities from unlawful demands by governmental officials.”