Religious Freedom, Equality, and Non-Discrimination in Employment Cases: Interview with Cole Durham

W. Cole Durham, Jr. is Emeritus Professor of Law at the J. Reuben Clark Law School of Brigham Young University, where he held the Susa Young Gates University Professorship and Founding Director of the Law School’s International Center for Law and Religion Studies. He was interviewed by Dmytro Vovk.

Before the interview, we asked you to think about a case of a line of cases you have modified your views about. What have you chosen?

My plan is to talk mainly about Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School v. EEOC (2012) and the follow-up case, Our Lady of Guadalupe School v. Morrissey-Berru (2020). These are both cases that deal with the religious autonomy doctrine, and I think they represent a concerning trend.

(more…)

Continue Reading Religious Freedom, Equality, and Non-Discrimination in Employment Cases: Interview with Cole Durham

The Naming of Religious Groups: A Human Rights Analysis

A logo of the Mount Sinai Health System, an example of “denominational trademarks” / Shutterstock

In this series, contributors discuss the naming of religious entities as a religious freedom issue. Focusing on Australia, Bulgaria, Estonia, Poland, Romania, Spain, and Ukraine, they analyze regulations implemented or considered in these states to restrict the autonomy of religious groups in choosing a name. From the perspective of human rights law, this autonomy, as an aspect of freedom of religion or belief, is not absolute. States are allowed to proportionally interfere in the naming of religious organizations to balance religious autonomy against the rights of others or other legitimate values, such as protection of intellectual property.

(more…)

Continue Reading The Naming of Religious Groups: A Human Rights Analysis

Legal Restrictions on Names of Religious Groups in Australia

Jeremy Patrick is a senior lecturer at the University of Southern Queensland School of Law and Justice.

In Australia, religious groups are largely able to operate with autonomy and with very little government oversight—including over the names they wish to operate under. This is not to say that the government imposes no limitations whatsoever but that any limitations will arise only in very specific contexts, and for the vast majority of religious groups the vast majority of the time, these hypothetical limitations are of no real concern. In this brief post, I canvas the contexts of denominational trademarks, incorporation, charitable registration, marriage ordination, direct legislative protection, and schism. This brief overview shows that, apart from church property disputes after a schism, judicial and legislative restrictions on religious group names are rare and scattered.

(more…)

Continue Reading Legal Restrictions on Names of Religious Groups in Australia