By CatholicVote | Created at 2024-11-01 03:26:29 | Updated at 2024-11-01 06:30:53
3 hours ago
CV NEWS FEED // A man claiming to be a woman has sued a Christian university for firing him over what it deemed to be contrary to biblical teaching on sex and gender, according to ACLU Virgnia.
Liberty University is currently embroiled in a legal dispute involving former employee Jonathan (Ellenor) Zinski, a man identifying as a “transgender” woman, alleging wrongful termination based on gender identity.
As documented in the lawsuit, Zinski, who was hired as an information services apprentice at the school’s IT helpdesk, informed the university in mid-2023 that he now identified as a woman, despite being hired and initially presenting as a man.
This disclosure followed his participation in hormone replacement therapy, which he claims was a medical necessity. According to Zinski, his decision to transition, alongside a planned legal name change, was communicated to the university as an effort to avoid any misunderstandings regarding his changing appearance and gender identity.
Shortly after his disclosure, Liberty University terminated Zinski’s employment, citing violations of the university’s core religious beliefs as outlined in its Doctrinal Statement. The statement expressly affirms the immutability of God-given biological sex, defining it as either male or female, and condemns any actions that are a “denial of birth sex by self-identification with a different gender” as sinful.
“A person’s attractions and status generally do not preclude them from employment at Liberty, but rather it is their actions,” the university wrote in a statement, according to MSN. “Active and unrepentant patterns of sin, including sinful behaviors regarding sexual expression and/or gender expression, would be incompatible with our Christian workplace. At Liberty, these are indeed part and parcel of job performance and workplace conduct.”
Liberty asserts that all employees are expected to support and embody the university’s Scriptural teachings both professionally and personally, as their conduct reflects on the university’s Christian mission to “Train champions for Christ.”
In response to the lawsuit, Liberty University has retained Liberty Counsel, a prominent conservative legal organization, to defend its right to operate according to its Christian values.
Liberty Counsel recently filed a brief asking the federal district court to dismiss Zinski’s complaint, arguing that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 explicitly allows religious educational institutions to make employment decisions based on their religious doctrine.
Liberty Counsel’s filing highlights that Title VII’s Section 702 and Section 703 exemptions provide religious employers, like Liberty University, with the freedom to select employees whose beliefs and actions align with their institutional religious standards.
Liberty University’s defense also invokes the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), arguing that requiring the university to retain an employee who openly lives in opposition to its doctrinal beliefs imposes a “substantial burden” on its religious exercise.
According to Liberty Counsel, any mandate forcing the university to retain individuals contrary to its religious convictions would violate RFRA’s protections and the First Amendment rights to religious freedom and expressive association.
The brief emphasizes that the university’s religious mission, including its biblical stance on gender, is central to Liberty’s educational and operational ethos, and thus protected by law from secular interference.
Liberty University’s stance is rooted in its history as a bastion of conservative Christian education. Founded in 1971 in Lynchburg, Virginia, by the late Jerry Falwell Sr., a well-known televangelist and conservative activist, the university has grown from a small college into one of the largest Christian institutions in the world. Today, Liberty enrolls more than 100,000 students through both residential and online programs, all while emphasizing a Christian worldview in its educational philosophy.
Liberty University’s motion to dismiss also cites the First Amendment’s ecclesiastical abstention and ministerial exception doctrines, which have been repeatedly upheld in courts to protect religious institutions from government interference in matters of faith and doctrine. Liberty contends that Zinski’s lawsuit would force the court into evaluating religious beliefs and practices, a step forbidden by the First Amendment, which grants religious institutions the autonomy to manage their employment practices based on their faith.
The ministerial exception, in particular, protects religious institutions from employment-related lawsuits that could compromise their autonomy in selecting individuals to serve in roles representing the faith.
While Zinski’s role in IT support was not strictly ministerial, Liberty argues that all positions within the university contribute to its religious mission, and thus employees are expected to embody and support the institution’s Christian values. Liberty Counsel notes that, under the ministerial exception, religious employers are granted broad discretion to ensure that all staff align with the faith-based objectives of the institution, even if they do not serve directly in teaching or ministerial capacities.
