Posted on 02/24/2025 9:27:35 AM PST by fwdude
A federal district judge has failed to dismiss a lawsuit brought by a fired worker who obtained a job at a religious school by promising to adhere to its biblical standards, even as he was already started on a campaign to embrace transgenderism.
The judge, Norman Moon, allowed the lawsuit by Jonathan Zinski against Liberty University to move forward by claiming that the school cannot "erect a shield against antidiscrimination laws by asserting that mere acceptance of a member from a particular group would impair its image."
Further, he said having the Christian school employ Zinski does not significantly burden its ability to maintain its views and does not affect its freedom of expressive association.
(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...
So much for expressive association.
It does violate the school’s freedom of religion your corrupt hack. Also he lied and lying for employment has always been a fireable offense.
So basically this judge is just another black robe hacktivist tyrant.
This is another version of “bake a cake”
I guarantee the judge would rule differently if it was a Muslim school, or if it was a school wanting to fire someone for wearing an NRA shirt.
Think the judge would keep a clerk who hid he was conservative?
Didn’t desire to get the siding in the Hobby lobby cases?
I thought that there were already USSC ruling on this subject. Protecting religious institutions from this very crap. If so then the judge should be removed.
Sodomites must get to young people. Even if blind…they will beat on the door…
“...who obtained a job at a religious school by promising to adhere to its biblical standards...”
Breach of contract by fraud. Ruling will not stand.
"... "erect a shield against antidiscrimination laws ..."
FR: Never Accept the Premise of Your Opponent’s Argument
Just like we see in other articles, the author doesn't clarify federal or state laws.
Assuming federal anti-discrimination laws, the BIG CONSTITUTIONAL PROBLEM with the institutionally indoctrinated judge's decision is this imo. It remains that the only sex-related protection that the states have amended the Constitution to expressly protect limits the federal government's power to police against such discrimination to voting-related problems, evidenced by the 19th Amendment.
"19th Amendment: The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.
Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation."
"From the accepted doctrine that the United States is a government of delegated powers, it follows that those not expressly granted, or reasonably to be implied from such as are conferred, are reserved to the states, or to the people. To forestall any suggestion to the contrary, the Tenth Amendment was adopted. The same proposition, otherwise stated, is that powers not granted are prohibited [emphasis added]." —United States v. Butler, 1936.
Otherwise, the states are free to discriminate on the basis of any criterion that they haven't amended the Constitution to expressly protect imo. States having different driving and drinking age laws are well-known examples.
One problem we're seeing with many examples of misguided (imo) judges is that they are using common law (case precedents) to effectively wrongly amend the Constitution imo.
In fact, note that St. George Tucker, a respected constitutional law expert in the time of the American Revolution, had lamented that the feds inappropriately applied common law in case decisions, effectively unconstitutionally expanding the fed's constitutionally limited powers with a domino effect by doing so (my words).
"If it were, in fact, an unconstitutional exercise of power in congress to pass a law establishing the bank, nothing can manifest the impropriety of over-stepping the limits of the constitution, more than the act which we have just noticed. It shows that the most unauthorised acts of government may be drawn into precedents to justify other unwarrantable usurpations [emphasis added]." —Article 1, Section 8, Clause 6, St. George Tucker, Blackstone's Commentaries 1:App. 262--64, 1803.
So Liberty University may be on the hot seat for allegedly breaking what may actually be a constitutionally indefensible federal law.
And here is another judge that needs to have his @$$ beaten until he screams for mercy or loses consciousness.
A lot of our sorry judges behavior would be corrected if it were legal to beat them senseless.
If Satan became a US judge, his decisions would likely differ little from what we see today.
Another passenger for “Air Augusto Helicopter Transportation Services Company” ...
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.