Politics

In a setback for religious freedom, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit ruled last Thursday that Christian schools in Maine must comply with pro-LGBT regulations that conflict with their religious beliefs, if they want to participate in a public tuition assistance program. “Essentially what the court has said is that you can believe what you want to believe, you can talk about what you believe, but once you exercise what you believe, that’s conduct that the state of Maine can regulate,” said Jeremy Dys, senior counsel for First Liberty Institute, which brought the lawsuit.

In Crosspoint Church v. Makin, a two-judge panel (one judge died before the opinion was issued) partially upheld a lower court order denying a preliminary injunction against Maine’s pro-LGBT regulations. Crosspoint Church runs Bangor Christian School (BCS). The court decided a second lawsuit featuring a Catholic school (St. Dominic Academy v. Makin) on the same day, on almost identical grounds.

BCS holds employees and students to basic biblical standards for gender and sexuality, and requires teachers to ascribe to a statement of faith. But those standards run afoul of provisions in the Maine Human Rights Act (MHRA), which Maine now applies to schools seeking to participate in its tuition assistance program. “A private school that participates in the tuition-assistance program and then violates the MHRA exposes itself to civil suits from both the Maine Human Rights Commission (MHRC) and private alleged victims, with remedies including injunctive relief and monetary damages,” the court described.

Specifically, the MHRA “‘Religious Nondiscrimination Rule’ bars covered schools from discriminating in admissions, financial aid, academics, and the like on the basis of religion,” as the court described, and its “‘Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity Nondiscrimination Rule’ bars discrimination in all the same activities on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity but exempts religious schools that do not receive public funding.”

In practice, this rule would have the effect of preventing BCS’s attempts to enforce its biblical norms of sexuality and gender, Dys told The Washington Stand. For instance, if a male student identified as transgender and wished to use the female restrooms and locker rooms, BCS could not enforce its policies against him without violating the Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity Nondiscrimination Rule. “When the state of Maine presents this sort of regulation on conduct, it creates a real problem,” he said.

Yet the court concluded the Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity Nondiscrimination Rule “works no constitutional violation.” It also held that “certain of BCS’s policies” violated the Religious Nondiscrimination Rule, including “church member discounts” and “consideration of ‘prospective students’ spiritual fit.’”

Besides these rules, the MHRA also establishes an “Employment Rule” that “bars employment discrimination based on ‘race or color, sex, sexual orientation or gender identity, physical or mental disability, religion, age, ancestry, national origin or familial status,’” as the court described. With regard to this rule, the court partially reversed the district court, finding that Crosspoint Church fell into a carveout in the rule, thereby eliminating the “case or controversy.”

Finally, the MHRA’s “Religious Expression Rule” stipulates that, “to the extent that an educational institution permits religious expression, it cannot discriminate between religions in so doing.” The court rightly held that “the Religious Expression Rule unconstitutionally violates Crosspoint’s free-exercise rights” and remanded it to the district court for an injunction.

In the lawsuit, Crosspoint argued that “a set of recent amendments to the MHRA specifically targets BCS, in violation of the Free Exercise Clause,” as the court characterized it, based on a years-long history of litigation.

Maine has offered state tuition assistance to enable parents to send their children to the school of their choice since 1980. However, the program excluded Christian schools until 2022, when a 6-3 U.S. Supreme Court found the policy unconstitutional in Carson v. Makin. Parents at BCS were at the center of that case.

Based on its recent decisions in Trinity Lutheran (2016) and Espinoza v. Montana (2019), where government entities tried to block Christian schools from generally available public benefits, the Supreme Court in Carson held that “Maine’s ‘nonsectarian’ requirement for its otherwise generally available tuition assistance payments violates the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment. Regardless of how the benefit and restriction are described, the program operates to identify and exclude otherwise eligible schools on the basis of their religious exercise.”

In anticipation of a defeat in front of the Supreme Court, the Maine legislature amended the law in 2021, allowing Christian schools to receive state tuition assistance, but only if they complied with the state’s rules for nondiscrimination towards sexual orientation and gender identity.

In 2023, Maine Attorney General Aaron Frey (D) professed to be scandalized at the very nature of a Christian school. “The education provided by the schools at issue here is inimical to a public education,” he complained. “They promote a single religion to the exclusion of all others, refuse to admit gay and transgender children, and openly discriminate in hiring teachers and staff.”

Frey’s comments came in response to another federal lawsuit filed by Crosspoint Church, alleging that attaching general state funding to LGBT strings amounted to a “poison pill” for accepting the money. “Putting Plaintiff to the choice of participating in a generally available benefit program or surrendering its constitutionally protected religious exercise penalizes its religious exercise and constitutes a substantial burden,” the lawsuit argued.

However, the district court refused to view the circumstances in that light, or to apply the recent string of Supreme Court precedents. Instead, U.S. District Judge John Woodcock, a George W. Bush appointee, ruled in February 2024 that “the educational antidiscrimination provisions do not violate the Free Exercise Clause because they are neutral, generally applicable, and rationally related to a legitimate government interest.”

This language reached further back to the “neutrality” test established in the Supreme Court’s 1990 ruling in Employment Division v. Smith, the controversial decision that prompted a furious Congress to overwhelmingly pass the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1991.

Dys contended that both the district court and the appellate court were wrong to rely on the neutrality test in this context, “because you can’t simply exclude religious exercise because it’s religious,” he told TWS. “You have to give full faith and credit to that part of the Constitution,” referring to the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment.

“I suspect there’s going to be further action on this case,” he concluded. First Liberty is still reviewing whether to appeal the case to the full First Circuit or directly to the Supreme Court. In either case, Dys said, “We’re going to seek further review.”

“We are disappointed that though the First Circuit acknowledges that religious institutions can teach what they believe, it would then refuse to allow conduct consistent with those beliefs,” Dys declared. “Religious education plays a critical role in our diverse society, but Maine’s leadership will not tolerate conduct consistent with those religious beliefs. As the U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly said, punishing religious institutions for being religious is odious to our Constitution.”

This article was originally written by Joshua Arnold and published on The Washington Stand. For more content like this, visit Real Life Network.

Political movements often reveal their true values not when defending their friends, but when those friends become liabilities. The controversy surrounding Maine Senate candidate Graham Plattner is about far more than one politician facing serious allegations. It raises a deeper question about integrity, consistency, and whether political principles still matter when power is at stake. As discussed on The Daniel Cohen Show, the real story isn't simply what Graham Plattner is accused of. The real story is what his own party tolerated until it became politically inconvenient. Watch more biblical news and cultural analysis anytime on Real Life Network.

Principles Mean Little If They Only Apply to Opponents

Every political movement claims to stand for something.

Honesty. Justice. Accountability. Character.

Those principles sound admirable until they become costly.

For years, Democrats have championed slogans like "Believe All Women," presenting themselves as defenders of victims and champions of accountability. Yet the Graham Plattner controversy forces an uncomfortable question: Were those principles truly universal, or were they conditional?

Before the most recent allegation surfaced, there had already been numerous warning signs.

Reports of disturbing online behavior. Multiple women raising concerns. A history of deeply troubling public controversies.

None of those revelations caused Democratic leadership to abandon him. Instead, many prominent figures continued endorsing his campaign, praising his future, and encouraging voters to support him.

Only after the political math began changing did the calls for his resignation suddenly multiply.

Principles cease to be principles the moment they become negotiable for political advantage.

That observation extends far beyond one Senate race.

Every political party faces the temptation to excuse behavior from its own side while condemning identical behavior from its opponents. Integrity requires applying the same standard regardless of whose name appears on the ballot.

Otherwise, morality becomes little more than another campaign strategy.

Selective Outrage Destroys Public Trust

The Plattner controversy illustrates a growing problem throughout American politics. Outrage increasingly depends less on the facts than on tribal loyalty.

The question often becomes not, "What happened?" but rather, "Whose side is this person on?" That mindset inevitably erodes public confidence.

When voters believe standards change depending on political affiliation, trust disappears. People stop believing public statements because they assume every response has already been filtered through electoral calculations.

That perception becomes especially damaging when movements claim moral authority.

The same inconsistency appeared after the horrific atrocities committed against Israeli civilians on October 7. Many organizations that had previously spoken passionately about believing victims suddenly became noticeably quieter when Jewish women testified about sexual violence committed by Hamas terrorists.

The victims had changed. The moral standard appeared to change with them.

Justice loses its credibility when compassion becomes selective.

The issue is not whether every allegation is automatically true. Serious accusations deserve careful investigation and due process. The issue is whether identical standards are applied consistently.

Without consistency, justice itself becomes politicized.

Readers interested in more biblical analysis of today's headlines can explore additional programming on Real Life Network.

Truth Matters More Than Winning

Political victories are temporary. Character lasts much longer.

Near the end of the episode, Daniel reflected on the legacy of Charlie Kirk. What made Kirk influential wasn't merely his ability to win arguments. It was his willingness to engage opponents thoughtfully while remaining grounded in conviction.

Ideas mattered. Truth mattered. People mattered. That same principle applies beyond politics.

Pastor Jack Hibbs offered a timely reminder that America's deepest problems cannot ultimately be blamed on those who reject biblical truth. Scripture first calls God's own people to humility, repentance, and faithfulness.

That perspective changes everything.

It reminds Christians that integrity cannot depend on election cycles, polling numbers, or partisan advantage. It must remain constant.

When winning becomes more important than integrity, both eventually disappear.

Every generation faces moments that reveal what it truly believes. The Plattner controversy is one of those moments.

Not because it exposes the failures of one politician, but because it exposes the temptation facing every movement: protecting power instead of protecting principle.

History remembers societies that defended truth even when it was costly.

It also remembers those that sacrificed truth for short-term political gain.

The choice remains the same today.

Watch the full discussion on The Daniel Cohen Show and explore more biblical news and cultural commentary anytime on Real Life Network.