Blog Home » Archive by category 'Religious Freedom' (Page 5)

Cities, towns, villages, and hamlets across the country often permit a wide array of signs—especially political signs—to be placed within their borders.  Yet all too often these local governments apply different, and far more restrictive, rules to signs placed by churches.  In legal terms this is called “content-based discrimination,” and it is forbidden by the First Amendment.

Alliance Defending Freedom represents an Arizona church facing exactly this type of discrimination.  In Gilbert, AZ, the town’s sign code broadly permits the display of political, ideological, and other types of signs.  The jumble of political signs depicted below is a common sight on many street corners in Gilbert throughout the year.

While Gilbert broadly permits this dizzying array of signs, it severely restricts signs inviting people to a church’s services.  It does so by requiring church signs to be, among other things, far smaller in size and displayed for a shorter duration than other similar signs.  The graphic below (which is drawn to scale) shows the differences in size:


Churches also get the short end of the stick (to say the least) regarding the amount of time their signs can be displayed.  While Gilbert permits political signs to be displayed for five months, it limits church invitation signs to 12 hours before the start of the service.  And to add insult to injury, the combination of the 12-hour limit and the fact that most churches hold services on Sunday mornings results in most church invitation signs sitting in virtual darkness the majority of the time they are displayed.

Unfortunately, earlier this year the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld Gilbert’s discriminatory treatment of our client’s signs.  But the battle to protect the church’s religious liberty does not end there.  Alliance Defending Freedom recently asked the United States Supreme Court to hear the church’s case. We expect to find out soon whether or not the High Court will accept this case.

Please join us in praying that the High Court grants review in this important case and upholds the free speech rights of churches.  In addition, if you know of a church that is facing similar obstacles, please contact Alliance Defending Freedom at 1-800-835-523, or online via our Legal Help Form, so we can protect churches from heavy-handed government restrictions in your community as well.


Guest Author:  Pastor Jimmy Seibert

Dear Friends,

I recently shared a message called, “Clarity and Compassion.” The purpose was to be Biblically clear about gender identity according to God’s word and create a compassionate environment to work towards wholeness.

In Genesis 1:27-28 and Genesis 2:21-24 we see God’s outline for mankind. God is the One who created us and decided we would be male and female. God is the One who initiated how we would relate to one another physically, mentally and emotionally in the purity of marriage and the uniqueness of our gender.

In Genesis 3:1 when Adam and Eve were tempted in the garden, the enemy asked, “Has God really said…?”, beginning the temptation that would eventually bring sin into the world and blind us from God’s purity, purpose, and plan.

Today, that question, “Has God really said…?” is brought up daily. As we move forward during these challenging days we, as pastors and leaders, must be clear on what the Bible says about who we really are. With great compassion, we can draw people back to the scriptures and to God’s original design. Through Jesus we have not only been forgiven of our sins, but also brought back into the wholeness that Adam and Eve had before sin entered the world.

I have spent years meditating on Genesis 1:1-3 because I believe with all my heart that if you can fully absorb God’s original intent and understand the power of sin, you will be well-equipped to navigate the issues of the day, specifically related to gender, marriage, and family.

At Antioch Community Church, we are on a journey to help people through the confusion of our culture. When we deal specifically with the issue of homosexuality, I realize there are three categories of people we are communicating with:

Category 1: Those who know homosexuality is sin and desperately want help. It is our responsibility to offer help with great compassion. At Antioch, we offer a program called Living Waters, an eight week in-depth approach to healing sexual brokenness and clarifying identity. We also have specific counseling services as well. But the core of who we are is our small groups, which we call Lifegroups, where we offer discipleship and community. The sense of belonging that comes from those relationships is really the make or break for someone coming out of any addiction, especially sexual addiction.

Category 2:  Those who are not sure if homosexuality is right or wrong.  I have found that those 30 years of age and younger are Biblically illiterate and culturally immersed. When we are speaking to that group, they are not necessarily resistant to God’s word, it is just that they don’t know what God’s word says. For those who have honest hearts and honest questions, we offer clarity on where we stand in written form, spoken communication and books and resources offered. We also offer discipleship to answer those in-depth questions such as, “How do I deal with a friend or family member?” and “How do I deal with my own struggles?”  By realizing we are re-educating a generation, we can better understand where to go and what is needed.

Category 3: Those who believe homosexuality is who they are and it is their lifestyle of choice despite any loving insight from the Bible or other believers. This is what the Bible calls rebellion. Psalm 68:5- 6 says God is a Father to the fatherless and gives a home to the lonely. The passage ends with the phrase, “only the rebellious live in a parched land.” After 25 years of ministering to people, not just with sexual brokenness but all kinds of sin issues, I find God is willing to heal and restore anyone, unless they are willfully rebellious to God, His word and His people. That rebellion ultimately keeps them from what they need.

The way I describe it to people who choose to walk another way but still want to be a part of the church, is that the church is not simply a civic organization or a social gathering. The church is a group of people gathered around Jesus Christ and the scriptures who are trying to live life according to His way and not their own. In our by-laws we have a clear doctrinal statement that clarifies what we believe about marriage and about how we live our lives. To be a member of Antioch, one must sign off on that doctrinal statement and on a Matthew 18 discipline process for those who choose sin and rebellion. There is a rare occasion where someone will go all the way through a discipline process because they obviously can choose in a voluntary organization to walk away whenever they like. What needs to be clear, though, is what God’s Word says and where we stand for discipline through the journey.

Throughout American history, and actually world history, revival has always come when we have realized our sin and brought people back to God and the scriptures.  In the midst of the brokenness of our society, we need a revival; a returning to God and His ways. As pastors and leaders, we do it with compassion, but we also do it with such clarity that people truly can come face to face with who God is, how their sin breaks God’s heart, and also destroys their own lives.  When we do that, no matter what the challenges are, we can trust that God will use us to set men and women free.  And isn’t that we are called to do? To be the rescued who in turn rescue others so God might be glorified and people might be helped.


Churches and religious organizations face a rapidly-changing American culture.  Many churches are confronting things they never thought they would a decade ago.  The issues of same-sex “marriage”, homosexual behavior, and gender-identity, are among the emerging issues that confront churches today.  The legal impact of these issues on churches can appear confusing.

In responding to a culture seemingly bent on fulfilling every whim of the sexual revolution, today’s churches must take the time to revise or implement their statement of faith on the issues of marriage and human sexuality.   Churches who know their position on these issues may think it unnecessary, but every church must understand that culture at large no longer subscribes to a Judeo-Christian sexual ethic or morality.  As one pastor recently put it, the church is no longer the “home team” in America.  As a result, it is important for a church to put in writing what it believes on the issues confronting culture.  And from a legal perspective, it is always better to act in advance.  If a church is ever required to legally prove its religious beliefs on these issues, having written evidence will ensure that it can do so easily.

So, here is some advice and resources to start the process at your church:

1.         Adopt or revise your statement of faith to include the church’s religious beliefs on marriage and human sexuality.  Alliance Defending Freedom has a resource that explains the importance of including these issues in your statement of faith.  Feel free to download and print this document for your church leaders.

2.         Use the suggested language put together by Alliance Defending Freedom as a guide for statements of faith on marriage and human sexuality for your church.

3.         Put it in your own words as your church would state it. There is no “magic” or legally required language to adopt in your statement of faith.  Instead, this simply state the church’s religious beliefs on the issue of marriage and human sexuality

4.         If you are in the process of revising your bylaws, review the resource by Alliance Defending Freedom entitled Seven Things All Churches Should Have In Their Bylaws.

Taking proactive steps to update or implement your church’s statement of faith will strengthen a defense should one be legally necessary in the future.  Please take advantage of these resources or call us at (800) 835-5233 if you have specific legal questions.


While many churches grapple with the impact and affects of same-sex “marriage”, a different but related issue is surfacing. It’s the push to recognize so-called “gender identity”: denying biological gender and demanding acceptance of one’s perceived gender. This means, as the name suggests, that a man who chooses to view himself as a woman will expect to be viewed and treated as such at all times and in all circumstances. And the failure to recognize this gender malleability as perfectly acceptable behavior will come at a cost.

Recent developments reveal the dimension of this threat to churches and ministries. In one recent case, a man teaching music and religion courses at a Catholic school in New York decided, after 32 years, that he was a “transgendered” woman – which is to say a “woman” in a man’s body. His decision violated Catholic theology and, not surprisingly, the school terminated his employment agreement. The teacher filed suit, claiming discrimination on the basis of so-called “gender identity,” which is now protected under New York law. The school asked a court to dismiss the claim based upon its right to hire and fire according to their beliefs. But a trial judge denied their request and forced the matter forward to trial.

Or consider another development. The State of California recently enacted legislation requiring public schools to allow students to use the bathrooms and locker rooms of their “perceived” gender. Under this law, the boy who merely claims to believe he is a girl (it’s not likely anyone will check to see if he is sincere) is free to change clothes and shower with the girls, regardless of how the young women may feel. How much further will this go? Will boys be forced upon the rosters of girls’ teams and even use up scholarship money designated for girls? Will girls who object be forced to undergo “sensitivity” training so the boy does not feel bad? We have already seen evidence that the approach may be to re-educate the uncomfortable young women away from their “stereotypical gender thinking.”

If all this is not shocking enough, it may be that Christian and other religious schools will be pressured to accept these changes. What happens to a Christian school that plays sports in a league that includes public school teams? Will these Christian schools be required to “accommodate” the visiting teams this way as the price of playing in a public school league? Or might some state official require that Christian schools accept this development as the cost of public university scholarships?

These and other questions arise as we enter the brave new world of gender-blender politics. And as we know from experience with marriage redefinition, those who disagree with this radical new government orthodoxy will be told they believe the wrong way, and that their religious beliefs are merely another form of religious bigotry.

The starting point for protecting churches, Christian schools, and other religious ministries against this new push is to solidify their protections by clarifying their beliefs in their bylaws and policies. For example, religious institutions that believe in the inerrancy of the Bible, or that derive beliefs from their church teachings, need to clearly state and affirm those beliefs. If a church believes that God created humanity male and female according to His design and purposes, it follows theologically that pursuing a course based upon gender confusion violates scripture that such behavior separates us from God, and that such behavior should not be celebrated as liberation from God’s creational design.

Furthermore, churches and religious nonprofits will do well to require both employees and volunteers to recognize and affirm biblical standards, and to make clear that departure from these standards will be cause for immediate termination of employment.

Beyond the issue of hiring and firing, churches should not be surprised to face potential conflicts arising during regularly scheduled worship services. What should a church do when a member or stranger attends services wearing clothing of the opposite sex? Is the person a sincere seeker or attending to disrupt services? If it is a disrupter – how should a church deal with the matter? Churches are private religious organizations, and as such have the right to demand the person leave the property – by police escort if necessary. Despite the church’s private status, such a person may claim the church is a “public accommodation” since it is open to visitors, and that removing the person from services violates state or local laws.

Since these issues will likely grow more serious in the near future, churches need to be informed. Churches are no stranger to hostility from a culture departing from biblical truth.  Instead of being shaken or surprised by these developments, churches must take proactive steps now to protect themselves while there is still time. Alliance Defending Freedom has resources to help your church get started on this process.  If you find your church, school, or religious organization confronted by a particular situation, please contact us so an attorney can review your case.


ADF Senior Legal Counsel - Church Project

ReligionClause recently reported some good news out of New Zealand.  The Human Rights Tribunal there ruled against a discrimination charge by a man who was denied ordination in the Anglican Church because he was engaged in homosexual behavior.  Eugene Sisneros filed a lawsuit claiming that the Bishop of Auckland discriminated against him in violation of the New Zealand Human Rights Act.  The conflict came about because of the Church’s doctrine on chastity for those desiring to enter the priesthood:

To be ordained as a priest or deacon of the Anglican Church… a person must… “be chaste”. Chastity is defined by the Canons of the Church as “the right ordering of sexual relationships”. Such relationships can only occur within a Christian marriage which is defined by the Formularies as a physical and spiritual union of a man and a woman…. Thus a person seeking to enter the ordained ministry of the Anglican Church must either be single and celibate or in a heterosexual marriage.

Sisneros admitted he was involved in a homosexual relationship and claimed in the lawsuit that the Bishop’s denial of his ordination amounted to discrimination on the basis of marital status and sexual orientation.

The New Zealand Human Rights Tribunal held that the Anglican Church was exempt from the Human Rights Act because of its status as a Church.  The Tribunal held that the law contained an exemption for churches that was intended to “preserve the institutional autonomy of organised religions in relation to their decisions concerning the appointment of clergy and ministers.”  The Tribunal noted that Sisneros’ claim would ”entirely negate that purpose.”  If Sisneros was allowed to pursue his claim,

“The Anglican Church would be required to ordain priests who taught that the right ordering of sexual relationships can only occur within a Christian marriage (defined by the Formularies as a physical and spiritual union of a man and a woman) but who themselves did not ‘live’ that doctrine. Ministers would not be exemplars, nor would they be bound by submission to the Constitution of the Church or by their declaration of allegiance to its doctrine and Formularies. This would undermine in the most fundamental way the religious autonomy of the Church, its right to be selective about those who will serve as the very embodiment of its message and its voice to the faithful.”

The Human Rights tribunal got this decision right.  Although it may be surprising that a person engaged in an active homosexual relationship would attempt to use the rule of law to force the Anglican Church to accept him as a priest, these types of claims may become more common in the future.  Many countries, and almost every State in the United States have some form of “anti-discrimination” law that includes protection based on the categories of “sexual orientation” or “gender identity.”  These laws have remained largely dormant until now.  If these laws are used against churches, then the autonomy of the Church is most certainly in jeopardy.

The New Zealand Human Rights tribunal acknowledged the strong precedent of church autonomy.  This basically means that churches have the right to make their own decisions, especially in relation to the selection, credentialing, and firing of ministers.  The United States also has a strong history of protecting church autonomy.  The U.S. Supreme Court acknowledged this autonomy in the selection of ministers in its decision in Hosanna-Tabor v. EEOC.  In fact, the New Zealand Human Rights Tribunal cited that case in its opinion.

The overarching point is that a church has the right to decide who its ministers will be and government cannot and should not interfere with that decision.  The New Zealand Human Rights Tribunal ended its opinion with this quote:

First, to determine whether issues of race, sex, or sexual orientation are not “truly” religious or freighted with theological meaning is to embroil the courts in decisions they lack competence to decide. But the greater concern is not the comparative competency point. Rather, it is that this sort of issue is simply not the state’s business. We adhere to a strong version of religious group autonomy. Religious bodies have the right to reject candidates for ministry or discipline or expel an existing pastoral minister even if the grounds for doing so appear to liberals (and others) to be archaic, illiberal, or bigoted. The grounds for selection or dismissal are matters within the province of the religious community, and it alone, to decide.

Alliance Defending Freedom is working hard to protect the autonomy of the Church.  The Church Team’s mission is to protect the right of the Church to be free to minister the Gospel without legal restriction or hindrance.   That includes the ability of your church to select and control its own ministers without interference from the govrnment.  If your Church is threatened with legal action that calls into question its ability to decide matters of faith, contact Alliance Defending Freedom so our attorneys can review your situation.


ADF Senior Legal Counsel - Church Project

Search the Blog

Stay Connected to Speak Up.

View Posts by Author



© 2015 Alliance Defending Freedom. All Rights Reserved.