Federal judge rules Christian employers not obligated to cover transgender surgeries
OAN’s James Meyers
8:45 AM -Tuesday, March 5, 2024
A federal judge in North Dakota ruled on Monday that Christian employers do not have to provide payment and healthcare for transgender surgeries and other procedures.
On Monday U.S. District Judge Daniel Traynor in Bismarck ruled that the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) cannot enforce the Christian Employers Alliance (CEA) to cover medical care for gender transition surgeries.
Traynor, who is a Donald Trump nominee, stated that Christian groups are protected under religious liberty protections from being forced to provide “gender transition services.”
Additionally, the judge said the Christian Employers Alliance’s “religious beliefs are substantially burdened by the monetary penalties it faces for refusing to violate its beliefs.”
“Here, CEA’s sincerely held religious belief is that male and female are immutable realities defined by biological sex and that gender reassignment is contrary to Christian Values,” Traynor wrote. “As a result, performing or providing health care coverage for gender transition services under the EEOC and HHS coverage mandates impinges upon CEA’s beliefs. CEA must either comply with the EEOC and HHS mandates by violating their sincerely held religious beliefs or else face harsh consequences like paying fines and facing civil liability.”
Traynor also said in his ruling that the government had not shown it could not protect transgender employees’ rights in another way, such as providing them tax credits or subsidies.
The lawsuit was first initially filed in October 2021, by the Christian Employers Alliance after taking issue with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s interpretation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act that employers needed to cover transgender surgeries.
Furthermore, the judge’s decision was praised by the CEA and the Alliance Defending Freedom, which represented the group in the case.
“We are overjoyed our members will not have to choose between the biblically based employee benefits and quality healthcare they provide, and the threat of federal enforcement and massive costs for practicing their faith,” Christian Employers Alliance President Shannon Royce said.
Stay informed! Receive breaking news blasts directly to your inbox for free. Subscribe here. https://www.oann.com/alerts
with Ryan Helfenbein
with Pat Harrigan
with Michelle Klann
with Dr. Drew
Bitcoin hit a record high, fueled by investors pouring money into U.S. spot exchange-traded crypto products.
SpaceX will appear before a U.S. labor board judge to face claims that it fired engineers for criticizing CEO Elon Musk.
Apple is betting that the more powerful models would attract consumers looking to upgrade to AI-powered PCs.
Elon Musk alleges a breach of contract and a departure from the original mission to develop AI for humanity’s benefit.
rnrn
What argument did the Christian Employers Alliance make against the interpretation of the EEOC that included gender identity as part of sex discrimination?
He Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits sex discrimination in the workplace. The EEOC’s interpretation included gender identity as part of sex discrimination, which would require employers to provide coverage for gender transition surgeries and other related procedures.
The Christian Employers Alliance argued that this interpretation violated their religious beliefs and infringed upon their rights to exercise their faith. They claimed that providing coverage for gender transition services went against their belief that gender is determined by biological sex and that gender reassignment is contrary to Christian values.
Judge Traynor’s ruling acknowledged the religious liberty protections afforded to Christian employers and stated that their sincerely held religious beliefs were burdened by the requirement to provide coverage for gender transition services. The judge emphasized that the Christian Employers Alliance would face severe consequences if they refused to comply, such as paying fines and facing civil liability.
However, Traynor also recognized that transgender employees have rights that should be protected. He suggested alternative ways for the government to ensure these rights, such as providing tax credits or subsidies to transgender individuals for medical services related to gender transition.
This ruling is significant because it highlights the ongoing debate between religious freedom and LGBTQ+ rights. It raises questions about the extent to which religious beliefs can exempt individuals or organizations from complying with laws that aim to protect marginalized communities.
Advocates for LGBTQ+ rights argue that allowing religious exemptions in cases like this perpetuates discrimination and denies transgender individuals access to necessary healthcare. On the other hand, proponents of religious freedom believe that individuals and organizations should not be forced to act against their deeply held beliefs.
Moving forward, this ruling may have broader implications for similar cases across the country. It will likely be referenced in future legal disputes involving the clash between religious liberty and LGBTQ+ rights.
It is crucial for the court system to strike a balance between protecting religious freedom and ensuring equal rights for all individuals, regardless of their gender identity. As this debate continues, it is important for lawmakers to consider the diverse perspectives and interests involved and find a solution that respects the rights and freedoms of all parties.
" Conservative News Daily does not always share or support the views and opinions expressed here; they are just those of the writer."
*As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases
Now loading...