Posted on 02/28/2023 9:35:16 AM PST by SeekAndFind
A Christian college in Missouri is asking the United States Supreme Court to halt a Biden administration directive that requires schools to allow male students to be housed in women-only dormitories or use the girls' showers.
College of the Ozarks filed a petition for a writ of certiorari on Monday asking the high court to block a U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development directive forcing the academic institution to open up gender-specific campus dorms to those of the opposite sex.
“The Directive requires the College to reverse its housing policies for 1,300 students,” read the petition, in part. “And, unless the Directive is enjoined, it makes the College cease statements of its policies, preventing it from following through on ongoing plans and communications for student housing consistent with its religious beliefs.”
“This jeopardizes the College’s ability to function, causes emotional harm to students who rely on the College’s housing policies, and dissuades Christian students from attending the College.”
Alliance Defending Freedom, a legal nonprofit that has successfully argued religious liberty cases before the Supreme Court, is helping to represent the Christian college.
ADF Senior Counsel and Vice President of Appellate Advocacy John Bursch said in a statement released Monday that “College of the Ozarks should be free to follow the religious tradition on which it was founded.”
“We hope the Supreme Court will take this case to halt the government’s inappropriate order targeting religious institutions and to respect the privacy, dignity, and safety of female students,” stated Bursch.
In 2021, President Joe Biden issued an executive order that required the Fair Housing Act antidiscrimination measures to include gender identity under the category of sex.
As a result of the change, the college filed suit against the federal government in April 2021, arguing that the new policy would force them to house male students in women’s dorms.
U.S. District Judge Roseann Ketchmark of the Western District of Missouri, an appointee of former President Barack Obama, ruled against the college in May 2021.
In July 2022, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit upheld the lower court ruling in a 2-1 decision, arguing that the HUD policy did not impact the college.
Judge Steven Michael Colloton, an appointee of former President George W. Bush, authored the majority opinion, concluding that existing religious freedom measures sufficiently protected the school.
"The College's alleged injury also lacks imminence because it is speculative that HUD will file a charge of discrimination against the College in the first place," Colloton wrote.
"Title IX provides that its anti-discrimination provision 'shall not apply to an educational institution which is controlled by a religious organization,' if applying the prohibition 'would not be consistent with the religious tenets of' the organization."
Colloton added that "even when HUD interpreted the Fair Housing Act to prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity between 2012 and 2020, the Department brought no enforcement action against the College."
Circuit Judge Leonard Grasz, an appointee of former President Donald Trump, dissented, arguing that the directive went against the proper process of federal guidance, such as allowing for public comments.
"An agency's issuance of a guidance document that fails to adhere to the proper administrative procedures may achieve compliance with the government's desired policy outcomes by in terrorem means, but it skirts the rule of law and undermines our values," wrote Grasz.
"This is especially true where regulated entities are placed under a sword of Damocles but are denied access to the courts because the sword has not yet fallen."
Last September, the college filed a request for a full court hearing before the 8th Circuit, however, the appeals court denied the rehearing request on Sept. 30, 2021.
Let me guess: The EO stays in effect for the 3-5 years it takes to wind its way through the courts?
That is not an Executive Order. That is a dictate from a tyrant.
“This jeopardizes the College’s ability to function, causes emotional harm to students who rely on the College’s housing policies, and dissuades Christian students from attending the College.”
Those things seem to be the goals of those imposing these policies.
Thee shouldn’t even be a Department of Housing and Urban Development in the first place.
Blow it off. Don’t let the ‘trans’ into the college. PERIOD.
The real solution is to stop accepting federal money and tell Biden where he can stick his mandate.
If there isn’t one ‘trans’ student on campus or in class, sort of becomes mute. If it’s Christian then make there be a admission standard based on those principles in the Bible and scripture. Kick ‘em out if they change from those admission parameters.
RE: The real solution is to stop accepting federal money and tell Biden where he can stick his mandate.
The problem is — THE COLLEGE OF THE OZARKS *already* does not participate in Federal loan programs. They, like Hillsdale and Grove City College, are one of the few that refuse to do so. Yet, here we are, Uncle Sam STILL interfering in their own policy.
See here:
https://catalog.cofo.edu/content.php?catoid=12&navoid=588
NOTE, THIS PARAGRAPH:
Educational Loans
College of the Ozarks strongly discourages student debt, and therefore does not participate in any federal, state, or private student loan program.
“..The real solution is to stop accepting federal money and tell Biden where he can stick his mandate....”
Any “religious” institution, charity, private school, etc. that takes federal money then falls under the jackbooted rule of a godless political regime. Don’t take the bait. regardless of how tempting.
Don’t let in a trans, yes, but also join this action to establish this directive is unconstitutional. And don’t be shocked if trans try to attend Christian schools for the sole purpose of suing them for “discrimination” and tying them up with lawsuits.
Do both things...
If I’m not mistaken, this all arises because democrats have expanded the definition of discrimination based on sex to include ‘gender identity’. Had this been included when the legislation was proposed back in the day, it would have never been voted out of committee, let alone passed by Congress.
Hopefully the SCOTUS will stomp on this madness.
I know someone attending College of the Ozarks. Students are required to work for to pay for their education, hence the motto ‘Hard Work U’
we are going to experience G_Ds wrath. We already know Joe and thew FBI aree targeting Catholics. All Christians will soon be in the crosshairs of Satan/Democrats soon.
God’s Wrath on Unrighteousness:
18For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, 19because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. 20For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, 21because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22Professing to be wise, they became fools, 23and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man—and birds and four-footed animals and creeping things.
24Therefore God also gave them up to uncleanness, in the lusts of their hearts, to dishonor their bodies among themselves, 25who exchanged the truth of God for the lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.
26For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. 27Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due.
28And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a debased mind, to do those things which are not fitting; 29being filled with all unrighteousness, sexual immorality, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, evil-mindedness; they are whisperers, 30backbiters, haters of God, violent, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, 31undiscerning, untrustworthy, unloving, unforgiving, unmerciful; 32who, knowing the righteous judgment of God, that those who practice such things are deserving of death, not only do the same but also approve of those who practice them.
When US citizens have US elections stolen from under their feet, it seems like courts feel that voters have “no standing”.
How the US Housing and Urban Development directive has any “standing” to tell this particular college how to run their dorms, I have no idea. Seems like any decent court would tell the feds to pound sand. But maybe the courts only say that stuff to US citizens, who don’t matter anymore.
Your comment is spot on. Gender identity had no part in the original discrimination listings. They are trying a lawless approach but they don’t care. It’s all about stirring everything up all the time as they try to demolish the basic underpinnings of American Society.
My grandson is a sophomore at that college.
Don’t accept any federal funds?
Tell them to pound sand.
Accept federal funds?
Say “yes sir, thank you, may I have another?”
“Hopefully the SCOTUS will stomp on this madness.”
Problem is, Obama did the same song and dance with expanding “sex” in the anti-discrimination laws to mean “sexual orientation”. And the SCOTUS had the opportunity to slap that down, and they declined. So I hold out very little hope they will rule differently on this.
Don’t accept any federal funds?
The fact that this directive comes from Housing and Urban Development, indicates to me that it is based on any discrimination in any housing based on ‘sex’, which now apparently includes ‘gender preference’ under the “Fair Housing Act of 1968”.
They could come after you as a landlord if you refuse to rent a man who pretends to be a woman even though you don’t accept any federal funding.
Sad,, that is a beautiful campus,, go eat there if you get the chance
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.