AU-Naples

Americans should have the right to believe (or not believe ) in God as the individual's right of conscience dictates. The government cannot compel anyone to attend, or refrain from attending, a religious service. In most cases, religious groups must abide by the secular law, although limited exemptions may be carved out in some cases. As advocates for religious freedom, we stand for the right of everyone to believe or not believe, but no one's religion should be an excuse to do harm to others. PROTECT THY NEIGHBOR is Americans United's campaign to prevent the use of religion to discriminate against and otherwise cause harm to individuals.

August 10, 2020

Commissioner Donna Fiala

Commissioner Andy Solis, Esq.

Commissioner Burt Saunders

Commissioner Penny Taylor

Commissioner William L. McDaniel, Jr.

Jeffrey Klatzkow

Re: Prayer at County Commission meetings

Dear Commissioners:

I am writing to you today representing the Board of Directors of the Greater Naples Chapter of Americans United for Separation of Church and State. We have received a complaint regarding the practice of the Collier County Commission opening its recent meetings with a prayer delivered by a commissioner. In all deference to Commissioner McDaniel, this practice sends the message that the Commission endorses religion, a clear violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

To be sure, the Supreme Court of the United States, in both Town of Greece v. Galloway (2014) and Marsh v. Chambers (1983) has allowed legislative prayer, but in both cases, the prayer was written and delivered by nongovernmental personnel. When a prayer is delivered by a member of the clergy, or even an atheist, citizens understand it to reflect the views of the clergy member, not the government. See Greece 572 U.S. at 588-89. But prayer by a lawmaker suggests that the government itself is advancing religious views.

For reasons similar to those set forth above, two federal courts addressed this issue and in Lund v. Rowan County, 863 F.3d 268, 280-86 (4th Cir. 2017), the court recognized, when the prayer-giver is a government official, the government is “elbow-deep in the activities banned by the Establishment Clause . . .” (281).

In our view, the Commission could comply with our First Amendment request and respect the religious diversity of Collier County’s citizens by instituting a moment of silence at the beginning of its meetings. If the Commission insists on opening its meetings with an invocation, it should adopt a policy that turns the delivery of invocations over to private citizens (clergy) selected on the basis of neutral criteria that do not discriminate against minority faiths or nonbelievers. We would be more than happy to help the Commission develop such a list.

We would appreciate a response to this letter within thirty (30) days that advises us how you plan to proceed. In addition, we would like a copy of the Commission’s invocation policy.

If you have any questions, please contact Bill Korson at 609-647-1343 or whkorson@aol.com.

Sincerely,

William (Bill) Korson

President

Greater Naples Chapter

Americans United for Separation of Church and State

Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that LGBTQ people cannot be fired simply for being gay or transgender. This decision is a landmark victory for the LGBTQ community, affirming that they finally have employment protections that allow them to live as their true selves. The 6-3 decision is a major step forward in living up to our Constitution’s promise of freedom and equality for all, and it builds upon the foundation laid more than 50 years ago by LGBTQ activists, including Black and Brown trans women who fought back against police brutality and discrimination. But it only goes so far.

There is still a fight to come to protect LGBTQ people from discrimination based on religious beliefs. Today, the Supreme Court left a loophole dangerous to LGBTQ rights, explicitly reserving the question of “how doctrines protecting religious liberty interact with Title VII” for “future cases.”

This means employers who want to discriminate against LGBTQ employees now have an even greater incentive to cite their religious beliefs as a legal justification. I can’t imagine a more critical moment than during a public health crisis to make clear that the government should ensure that all of us – no matter who we are or who we love – can make a living in this country, regardless of our employer’s religious beliefs.

We continue our vital work of defending religious freedom as a shield that protects, not a sword that licenses discrimination and harm to others. See AU's take.

https://www.au.org/sites/default/files/2020-06/SCOTUS%20Title%20VII%20%26%20religious%20freedom%20June%202020_0.pdf

Trump v. Pennsylvania — This case involves proposed Trump-administration rules that will allows employers and universities to invoke religious or moral beliefs to deny contraceptive coverage guaranteed by the Affordable Care Act. The decision will deprive countless employees and students of access to critical reproductive healthcare. See AU's take

* Birth Control: https://www.au.org/sites/default/files/2020-07/Supreme%20Court%20%26%20Birth%20Control%20Access%20Report%207.10.20.pdf

Our Lady of Guadalupe School v. Morrissey-Berru — Two fifth-grade teachers at private Catholic schools were fired for discriminatory reasons—one based on her age and the other after she was diagnosed with breast cancer. But their employers invoked the “ministerial exception,” a legal doctrine that excludes clergy and religious personnel at houses of worship and religious schools from the legal protections against employment discrimination. The decision gives broad license to treat hundreds of thousands of non-clergy employees as outside all the laws that protect workers against discrimination based on race, sex, disability, sexual orientation, and gender identity. See AU's take

* Ministerial Exception: https://www.au.org/sites/default/files/2020-07/Supreme%20Court%20%26%20Minsterial%20Exception%20Report%207.10.20.pdf

Espinoza V. Montana

SCOTUS Says that States Must Force Taxpayers to Fund Religious Education

In Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue, the court ruled 5-4 that voucher programs must fund religious schools. Chief Justice Roberts stated: “…once a state decides to (subsidize private education), it can not disqualify some private schools solely because they are religious.” Originally in 2018, the Montana Supreme Court struck down the state’s voucher program because it forced residents to pay for religious instruction. A national pro-voucher group appealed on behalf of three parents and SCOTUS agreed to hear the case.

In our opinion, forcing taxpayers to pay for private religious instruction is a violation of their religious freedom. Public funds should not be used for religious purposes – period! The Establishment Clause of the Constitution created, in Mr. Jefferson’s words, a “wall of separation between Church and State”.

Like Montana, three-quarters of the state constitutions, including Florida, have a provision called a No Aid Clause that is designed to protect taxpayers from funding religious practices. While the case did NOT challenge the constitutionality of the No Aid Clauses found in these 37 states, it came close to doing so. While this opinion is limited to this case, the extent of the opinion may apply to a broad range of other situations where religious freedom is asserted. The conservative justices complained that the origins of the No Aid Clauses were in the 19th century anti-Catholic movement (see Blaine Amendment). However, when states revised their constitutions, like Montana in 1972, they kept their No Aid Clauses.

In Florida, more than $1 BILLION of state funds flows indirectly to private schools, 84% of which are religious. We know that many of the schools, like 10 of the 12 religious schools in Montana, have discriminatory polices and promulgate religiously biased interpretations of science, civics and history.

Given this decision, it is more important than ever that we fight all private school voucher programs that divert desperately needed funds away from our public school system.

See AU's take: Espinoza: https://www.au.org/sites/default/files/2020-07/Religious%20Freedom%20After%20Espinoza%207.2.20_1.pdf

SBA Funds and Churches

Under the new Paycheck Protection Program of the Small Business Administration, businesses with fewer than 500 employees, including faith-based organizations, are eligible to receive loans of up to $10 million, with at least 75% of the money going to cover payroll costs. The loans are in large part forgivable, so churches and other houses of worship won't have to worry about paying all the money back.

Some advocates of Church-State Separation think this is wrong. American Atheists pushed back, calling it unconstitutional. “This is a clear violation of the Establishment Clause of the U.S. Constitution,” said Alison Gill, vice president for legal and policy at American Atheists. “The Supreme Court has been clear that the government cannot subsidize worship and other inherently religious activities.”

But others indicate that if churches are excluded, it would be an Establishment Clause problem. One noted ACLU attorney suggested that as long as the money was used for its statutorily intended purpose, churches are entitled to participate. If they used it for proselytizing, there might be a concern.

In the mid 1780’s, Patrick Henry, he of “Give Me Liberty or Give Me Death” fame (he lasted a long time), proposed, in a general assessment bill, that Virginians’ taxes pay the salaries of ministers. Jefferson and Madison objected with Madison wring his famous “Memorial and Remonstrance”. The bill was defeated and ultimately replaced with Jefferson’s Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom, ending religious establishment in Virginia.

So the issue of using public funds to pay religious clergy reappears with the SBA program. The attached letter, signed by AU as well as other groups, makes clear that SBA funds can not be used for religious purposes and that includes the salaries of the clergy.

TEXT OF LETTER TO SBA

Voucher Schools Discriminate

The voucher programs in the state of Florida send over $1 billion worth of public money to private, mostly religious schools that have no accountability. The Orlando Sentinel (1) recently found at least 156 Christian schools with anti-gay views educated than 20,800 students with voucher scholarships. More than 80 of those schools had blatant discrimination policies that deny admission to gay children, expel or discipline students who reveal that they are gay, and refuse to educate children of LGBTQ parents. One school that received $371,000 in state voucher money told a mother, a firefighter married to a US Air Force veteran, that her children were not welcome because the married couple were two females.

Trinity Christian Academy, in Deland, received more than $1 million last year in vouchers; yet it’s handbook indicates that a student can be expelled for admitting to be gay.

Some voucher schools do an excellent job, welcoming all children regardless of faith, ethnicity, origin, gender, disability, religion, sexual orientation or gender identity. They not only welcome LGBTQ students but teach that discrimination against anyone is wrong.

But the facts are the facts. Some of the major corporations that redirect their tax obligations to vouchers are starting to rethink their involvement. Rosen Resorts, Fifth Third Bank, and Wells Fargo have ended their contributions. A Wells Fargo spokesperson stated: “ . . . we oppose discrimination of any kind”. I tend to think that most of the contributors would feel the same way if they knew the facts!

Bills have been filed in the Florida Senate (S-56 Rouson) and Florida House (HB45 Eskamani) that would prohibit private schools that deny enrollment to students based on “race, ethnicity, national origin, gender, disability, religion, sexual orientation or gender identity” from participating in the voucher program. I spoke to all three members of the Collier County legislative delegation and two representatives told me that they would NOT support this bill.

What do we do?

Write our legislators that schools that receive PUBLIC funds should NEVER discriminate against any students based or sexual orientation or identity or any other reason.
Write to the companies that contribute to the voucher programs and educate them about the degree of discrimination.
Inform our school boards, and city and county officials of these discriminatory practices within the voucher program.

https://www.orlandosentinel.com/opinion/scott-maxwell-commentary/os-op-florida-voucher-schools-gay-discrimination-scott-maxwell-20200124-cayfkn2jurbq3crgbd5mhxoyhe-story.html

SCOTUS MASTERPIECE CAKE DECISION CONFUSING

The Supreme Court dodged the question "Can a baker refused to make a cake for a same-sex couple because of his religious beliefs". While the court ruled for the baker, the decision made it clear that discrimination based on religion was not acceptable. The decision was very narrow and limited to the specifics of the case. AU president and CEO Rachel Laser wrote that " . . . it does not change the long-standing rule that businesses open to the public must be open to all. As we have long said, religious freedom should act as a shield to protect religious exercise, not as a sword to harm and discriminate against others."

COLLIER COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD CHALLENGED TO ADD CREATIONISM TO SCIENCE CURRICULUM

AU fully supports the use of sound science in public schools and in public policy. We believe that the constitutional principle of church-state separation gives public servants and public school teachers the freedom to believe – or not believe – as they see fit while ensuring that public policy decisions and public school curricula are supported by scientific evidence.

We believe that public schools should educate students on issues such as evolution, climate change and sex education in a way that does not reference religious teachings. That’s why we continue to fight against attacks on sound science in the public education system. We track and oppose anti-science legislation, such as the bills that were proposed and died in the Florida legislature this year. And we challenge public schools that try to teach creationism as scientific fact.

NEW FLORIDA LAW (7055) ATTACKS CHURCH-STATE SEPARATION

On March 11, the governor signed into law an education bill that expanded existing vouchers, created a new voucher and requires public schools to display "In God We Trust". Hope Scholarships are vouchers offered to students who are "bullied, harassed or hazed"in the public schools to attend private and/or religious schools which do not have to accept them and offer no legal protections. The program does nothing with the bullies. This is another fake voucher scheme to take money away from the public schools.

The new law also expands the Tax Credit Scholarship scheme and creates an entirely new revenue stream. The total next year may exceed $1 BILLION. This scheme is clearly illegal but we have been told that we lack "standing" to challenge it.

Lastly, the law requires that every school in Florida display "In God We Trust". Given ruling on the Ten Commandments, how can this new display be Constitutional.

TRUMP CHANGES THE RULES FOR FAITH-BASED ORGANIZATIONS

Religious nonprofit organizations can receive contracts or grants from the government to provide social services, like running a homeless shelter or a foster care agency. We fight to make sure that when religious groups get taxpayer money, they're not allowed to use it to proselytize or discriminate against people. The rules have now changed and groups are much freer to proselytize.: https://www.au.org/issues/government-funded-discrimination

LIKE AND FOLLOW US ON FACEBOOK

Americans United website

TRUMP ADMINISTRATION REVERSES POLICIES

Guidance issued by Attorney General Jeff Sessions and the Department of Justice that purports to protect religious freedom is actually a license to discriminate. Religious freedom doesn’t give anyone the right to use religion as an excuse to harm others. But the Trump administration is giving the Religious Right exactly what it wants. The guidance is a roadmap for how to discriminate against most anyone, including women, LGBTQ people and religious minorities.

According to Sessions, religious organizations have a right to take taxpayer money and discriminate against employees and the people they serve. It could give federal government workers the right to use their religious beliefs as a reason to discriminate and deny services to other Americans.

The guidance will seriously undermine protections against discrimination and negatively affect the LGBTQ community and allows employers and universities to use religion as a reason to deny women employees and students health insurance coverage for birth control.

Federal Court Ruling Supports Religious Freedom, Strikes Down Florida County’s Prayer Practice

A federal court struck down a Florida county’s practice of denying atheists, humanists and other non-theists the opportunity to offer invocations at the start of the county commission’s meetings.

The U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida ruled the policy of Brevard County’s Board of County Commissioners to allow only monotheistic, overwhelmingly Christian invocations violated both the U.S. and Florida Constitutions – namely by the government showing favoritism for certain faiths.

“‘[T]he great promise of the Establishment Clause is that religion will not operate as an instrument of division in our nation,’” the court wrote (quoting another case). “Regrettably, religion has become such an instrument in Brevard County. The County defines rights and opportunities of its citizens to participate in the ceremonial pre-meeting invocation during the County Board’s regular meetings based on the citizens’ religious beliefs. …[T]he County’s policy and practice violate the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and Article I, Sections 2 and 3 of the Florida Constitution.”

Public Funds for Religious Instruction?

The Florida Tax Credit Scholarship channels tax payer dollars (perhaps $1 BILLION next year) to religious schoolsIs that OK? Well, in the 2012 election, a referendum item labeled Amendment 8 asked that very question – should public dollars be used for religious activities. The answer was a resounding and emphatic NO. The Florida Supreme Court also said NO. In 2006, it struck down the similar Opportunity Scholarship Program under Article IX of the Florida Constitution and left alone a lower court ruling that it also violated Article 1. The current Florida Tax Credit Scholarship simply relies on a different mechanism for channeling tax payer dollars to religious schools. The Florida School Boards Association, the Florida Congress of Parents and Teachers (PTA), the Florida Education Association, the Florida Association of School Administrators, the League of Women Voters of Florida, The Florida State Conference of Branches of the NAACP, a large number of Florida residents and “friends of the Court” oppose it. Just like Americans United for the Separation of Church and State. So the Florida voters said NO in 2012 and the Florida Supreme Court said NO in 2006. No public funds to support religious instruction! Keep Church and State separate! If you agree, follow and friend us on Facebook (AU-Naples) and visit our website (www.au-naples.org). You might even want to join.

Letter from AU to the Florida Legislature February 22, 2016 Senator Andy Gardiner Senate President Committee 409, The Capitol 404 S. Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-1100 Re: SB 110 – Allowing for Discrimination Against All Floridians Who Wish to Marry Dear Senator Gardiner: On behalf of its Florida members and supporters, Americans United for Separation of Church and State, urges you to oppose SB 110. We agree that the state should not and, under the First Amendment, may not force clergy, houses of worship, and similar religious organizations to perform or host marriage ceremonies with which they have religious objections. Indeed, the First Amendment already allows, for example, a rabbi to refuse to marry an interfaith couple or a priest to refuse to solemnize a marriage for a divorced person. Unfortunately, SB 110 goes well beyond the rights already provided in the First Amendment and would permit organizations that operate a place of public accommodation to discriminate against Floridians. Freedom of religion is a fundamental American value. It means that we are all free to believe or not as we see fit, but it does not mean that entities providing public accommodations can use their religion as a justification for denying the rights of others. Yet, this bill would allow organizations that are operated in connection to a religious organization to refuse to provide any marriage related services even if they are operating a place of public accommodation. There are clear differences between a house of worship that hosts the weddings of its members and wants keep it that way and a religious organization that runs a commercial wedding hall that is open to the public to make money. In fact, the Florida Civil Rights Act already provides religious institutions with a broad exemption with respect to public accommodations.1 SB 110 would allow, for example, a religiously-affiliated university or other religious organization, including a commercial wedding chapel, that rents a banquet hall or chapel to the general public for weddings, to refuse services on religious grounds to a couple because they are 1 See Fla. Stat. §760.10(9) “This section shall not apply to any religious corporation, association, educational institution, or society which conditions opportunities in the area of employment or public accommodation to members of that religious corporation, association, educational institution, or society or to persons who subscribe to its tenets or beliefs. “ 2 same sex, interfaith, previously divorced or of a particular faith. It is unfair to allow a commercial enterprise to reap the rewards of its business but then escape the nondiscrimination requirements placed on all other commercial businesses simply because it claims a religious affiliation. The Florida legislature should not pass legislation that allows entities that operate a place of public accommodation to discriminate. For the reasons discussed, we urge you to oppose SB 110. Thank you for your consideration on this important matter. Sincerely, Amrita Singh State Legislative Counsel

JOHNSON AMENDMENT UNDER ATTACK

The Johnson Amendment is a federal law that protects all 501(c)(3) tax-exempt organizations, including houses of worship, by making it illegal for them to endorse or oppose political candidates. It’s widely supported by religious and denomination organizations, faith leaders and other nonprofits, as well as the vast majority of Americans. Yet, President Donald Trump and a few members of Congress are taking steps to repeal and weaken the law. The language in the bill prevents the IRS from investigating houses of worship that violate the Johnson Amendment unless the IRS commissioner first signs off on the investigation and reports it to Congress. By adding administrative hurdles to the law, Congress is attempting to prevent any investigations into violations by houses of worship, therefore crippling the Johnson Amendment as it applies to those entities.

Editorial: Anti-bullying bill is smokescreen for expanding vouchers

SCOTT KEELER | Times Florida Capitol looking east, Tallahassee. FOR FILE.

Published: November 10, 2017

Updated: November 25, 2017 at 11:41 PM

It sounds good on its face: Give kids in public schools who are being bullied scholarships to transfer to private schools. But as a matter of education policy, this is a myopic idea that does nothing to address structural problems that allow bullying to persist. Nevertheless, it’s one of Florida House Speaker Richard Corcoran’s top priorities next year. Why? Because it creates a vehicle to further expand Florida’s voucher programs — to the detriment, as usual, of public schools.

The legislation, HB 1, filed by Rep. Byron Donalds, R-Naples, would require school districts to investigate incidents of bullying and inform parents of bullied children that their kids are eligible to change schools. The new "Hope Scholarships" would provide $750 to pay for busing to another public school, or a scholarship of about $7,000 to help offset tuition at a private school. The bill is rife with unanswered questions, such as how school districts are supposed to accommodate these individual busing needs. Or how a student who has been bullied would be better off in a private school where there is less state scrutiny and even less accountability. Or why it makes sense to deal with bullying by moving the victims and allowing the aggressors to stay.

Supporters say the bill would ensure that parents know their options. It spells out a time line for investigating incidents and notifying parents. But Florida law already requires school districts to have detailed policies for dealing with bullying, defining what it is, having a procedure for investigating incidents, referring victims and perpetrators for follow-up services and informing parents. The Jeffrey Johnston Stand Up for All Students Act, passed unanimously in 2008 in response to the suicide of a teen who had been bullied for years, even ties school districts’ funding to compliance. But that law doesn’t apply to private schools, meaning a bullying victim who has transferred out of his or her public school could potentially be left more vulnerable.

Simply enforcing existing law or strengthening it would forthrightly deal with bullying, but that isn’t this legislation’s real objective: expanding vouchers. HB 1 creates a whole new funding mechanism for vouchers, allowing people who are purchasing a vehicle in Florida to voluntarily contribute $20 to the scholarship fund that they would get back in the form of a sales tax credit. Scholarships would be available only until the money runs out. This is not intelligent policy. It’s crowd-funding education on a first-come, first-served basis.

Donalds, the bill sponsor, is building quite a track record of terrible proposals. He was behind a bill in this year’s legislative session to allow two members of elected boards to discuss public business in private. Thankfully, that didn’t pass. But his push to allow challenges to public school educational materials for any reason did become law. So now someone who finds Renaissance art too risque can force a school district to hire a hearing officer to determine if the complaint is valid. Donalds’ wife, Erika, is a member of the school board in Collier County and was appointed to the powerful Constitution Revision Commission by Corcoran. Her primary contribution on the commission so far is a proposal to allow public money to fund private or religious schools. At least that is a straightforward, frontal assault on public schools that can be contested directly rather than this smokescreen of combating bullying to expand vouchers.

To seriously address bullying, state leaders should start with a commitment to making all schools safe. This legislation could have the opposite effect: removing victims of bullying from public schools while leaving the bullies behind. That is the fallacy of vouchers — they ignore structural problems. Donalds’ bill is just a means of expanding that system, draining more money from public schools and funneling the dollars to private institutions that are not answerable to taxpayers.