Supreme Court declines to intervene in gay marriage cases | Reuters
The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday declined to take up the hotly contested issue of gay marriage, a surprise move that will allow gay men and women to marry in five states where same-sex weddings were previously banned. By rejecting appeals in cases involving Virginia, Oklahoma, Utah, Wisconsin and Indiana, the court left intact lower-court rulings that struck down bans in those states. Other states under the jurisdiction of appeals courts that struck down the bans will also be affected, meaning the number of states with gay marriage is likely to quickly jump from 19 to 30.
Evangelical college's contraception lawsuit proves divisive | Al Jazeera America
“There’s this external, out-facing argument to the federal government that ‘we believe these to be abortifacients, and this is part of our core religious identity,’ ” Leah Seppanen Anderson, a political science professor, said. “As an insider at Wheaton, I feel like we have not had that conversation.” She and most of the women she spoke with agreed that in their own lives, they would probably err on the side of not using emergency contraception. But Anderson said she’s simply not comfortable with the college making that decision for her, let alone presenting it to the world as a definitive evangelical value. “It seems like people at best aren’t sure, so why are we drawing the line on the sand on this issue?”
How Serious Is the Supreme Court About Religious Freedom? - The Atlantic
This standard may sound familiar—RLUIPA is the sister statute to the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, or RFRA, the federal law which was at issue in Hobby Lobby. These laws apply to different laws implicating religious freedom—RFRA only to federal laws and RLUIPA to the land use and prison contexts—but both ask whether a religious burden is the “least-restrictive means” of accomplishing the government’s “compelling” goals.
A Prisoner’s Beard Offers the Next Test of Religious Liberty for the Supreme Court
The justices will apply a familiar legal test to decide the case. As in the Hobby Lobby case, they will consider whether the challenged government regulation placed a substantial burden on religious practices. If it did, the government must show that it had a compelling reason for the regulation and no better way to achieve it.