This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
A federal district judge has failed to dismiss a lawsuit brought by a fired worker who obtained a job at a religious school by promising to adhere to its biblical standards, even as he was already started on a campaign to embrace transgenderism.
The judge, Norman Moon, allowed the lawsuit by Jonathan Zinski against Liberty University to move forward by claiming that the school cannot "erect a shield against antidiscrimination laws by asserting that mere acceptance of a member from a particular group would impair its image."
Further, he said having the Christian school employ Zinski does not significantly burden its ability to maintain its views and does not affect its freedom of expressive association.
Liberty Counsel, representing Liberty, said there would be an immediate appeal.
"Liberty University has the right under the First Amendment and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act to uphold its sincere Christian religious beliefs and require its employees to do the same. Jonathan Zinski intentionally and deceptively set up Liberty University in an attempt to undermine its religious beliefs and mission. Title VII makes it abundantly clear that Liberty University does not violate the law when it discharges an employee who has publicly engaged in conduct inconsistent with its religious principles. Title VII exempts Liberty University from having to employ individuals who violate its religious beliefs and doctrinal positions," explained Mat Staver, Liberty Counsel chief.
The next step in the case will be the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, where Moon's refusal to recognize the "meritless" status of claims by Zinski will be considered.
The legal team explained the issues: "In July 2023, Liberty University terminated Jonathan Zinski after he flagrantly and intentionally violated Liberty University's doctrinal statement and policies. When Zinski was hired, he acknowledged and affirmed the doctrinal statement, but then as soon as his 90-day probation period expired he revealed he had begun taking female hormones four months before he was hired, and that he planned to 'identify' as female."
Liberty Counsel said what happened was "Zinski set up this case when he applied to be hired."
The Supreme Court, in its Bostock v. Clayton County decision, "explicitly stated that the protection afforded to religious institutions in such scenarios were for future cases, and Liberty Counsel will press both the Fourth Circuit and, if necessary, the Supreme Court to recognize what the First Amendment and Title VII both require—that Liberty University is permitted to maintain its religious beliefs and practices and to require its employees to comport their lives with Liberty University's Doctrinal Statement and religious beliefs," the legal team explained.
The lawyers pointed out, "Zinski attempted to set up Liberty University for this lawsuit, in which Zinski was represented by the ACLU. Four months before applying to Liberty University, he began taking female hormones. Yet, when hired in February 2023, Zinski agreed to adhere to the university's doctrinal position regarding the biblical understanding of gender. Liberty University's doctrinal statement clearly states that human beings were directly created in the very image of God as either biologically male or female from the womb, and it is a sinful act prohibited by God to deny one's birth sex by self-identification with a different gender."
"Zinski acknowledged all of this despite knowing that he was four months into executing his plan to act in opposition to Liberty University's doctrinal statement and employment requirements by denying his biological sex. As his 90-day probation ended, Zinski revealed his effort to identify as a different gender and then demanded Liberty University depart from its doctrine, sincerely held religious beliefs, and Christian mission," Liberty Counsel noted.
The legal arguments include that Liberty University's decision to terminate Zinski was based on its religious values, and Title VII's text exempts that religious decision from employment discrimination suits.
