A religious Jewish university in New York City just filed an emergency application to the Supreme Court asking Justice Sonia Sotomayor to help it operate in accordance with its religious beliefs.
What led to this?
A group of students attending Yeshiva University wanted to create an LGBT club. The school refused, citing its stringent beliefs. Per the emergency application: “Yeshiva has determined, based on consultation with its Roshei Yeshiva — who opine on Jewish law for Jews all over the world — that an official Pride Alliance club, as described by Plaintiffs and as understood by the culture at large, would be inconsistent with Yeshiva’s religious environment and Torah values.”
Despite the fact that Yeshiva is a Jewish university that is dedicated to forming students in the Jewish faith, a trial court in New York placed an injunction on the school and said it had to follow New York City’s Human Rights Law and recognize the Pride Alliance club. Judge Lynn Kotler decided Yeshiva was “secular” despite every shred of existing evidence about Yeshiva arguing it’s not only religious but uber-religious.
Hence the emergency application to the Supreme Court. If the Supreme Court does not intervene, Yeshiva will be forced to accept the club.
The application and fact that the school refuses to accept the LGBT club have caused outrage online, including among some in the Jewish community. These critics are labeling Yeshiva as bigoted, discriminatory, or homophobic. But there have also been plenty of bids of support for Yeshiva’s religious freedom.
The intersection of interests on the part of the LGBT community and those of religious freedom have collided many times before. Still, this case highlights a debate that won’t die down: Where is the line drawn between nondiscrimination laws and religious autonomy? Can an institution, or a person, uphold religious beliefs and reject something or someone without being discriminatory or bigoted? From baking cakes to LGBT clubs in schools, will both “sides” ever be satisfied?
Attorneys in the Yeshiva case from the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty argue that this unique Jewish school is not bigoted for upholding traditional beliefs that go back centuries. They insist that the First Amendment protects these beliefs. “When secular authorities try to tell Yeshiva University that it is not religious, you know something has gone terribly wrong,” said Eric Baxter, senior counsel at Becket, in a statement. “The First Amendment protects Yeshiva’s right to practice its faith. We are asking the Supreme Court to correct this obvious error.”
If the Supreme Court ignores Yeshiva’s application and allows the previous injunction to continue, what will become of devout religious institutions, Jewish or otherwise, and their ability to operate in accordance with their faith and, most importantly, to pass on their faith to the next generation?
The Supreme Court should intervene in Yeshiva’s favor.
Nicole Russell is a contributor to the Washington Examiner’s Beltway Confidential blog. She is a journalist in Washington, D.C., who previously worked in Republican politics in Minnesota. She is an opinion columnist for the Fort Worth Star-Telegram.
