A federal judge in Oregon has tossed out a lawsuit by a woke group that was hoping to force all Christian schools to toe the radical transgender line and teach the LGBTQ agenda in their schools.
The lawsuit sought to bar the use of federal-backed school loans, grants, and other federal money from being given to religious-based schools unless those schools pushed the extreme LGBTQ agenda on students.
But the effort was thrown out on January 12 by Clinton-nominated Judge Ann Aiken of the U.S. District Court of the District of Oregon.
Per The Blaze:
The Religious Exemption Accountability Project, an LGBT activist group, sued the Education Department in March 2021 on behalf of a gang of 33 current and past students at federally funded colleges.
The lawsuit’s alleged aim was to “put an end to the U.S. Department of Education’s complicity in the abuses and unsafe conditions thousands of LGBTQ+ students endure at hundreds of taxpayer-funded, religious colleges and universities.”
According to the suit, the plaintiffs sought “safety and justice for themselves and for the countless sexual and gender minority students whose oppression, fueled by government funding, and unrestrained by government intervention, persists with injurious consequences to mind, body and soul.”
The left-wing group hoped to define “oppression” as occurring when schools refused to allow so-called transgender girls to use the locker rooms and bathrooms of natural-born girls. Or if said schools refused to let athletes born as male to play on a girls team.
The group also contended that federal Title IX rules prohibit such “oppression,” and so religious schools should either knuckle under to the radical gay agenda, or lose access to all federal education dollars.
But Judge Aiken said she recognized that government “has no constitutional obligation to prohibit sex discrimination (or race discrimination, religious discrimination[,] political discrimination, or what have you) by private institutions, even ones that get government funds.”
Aiken went on to say, “Plaintiffs have submitted no allegations of discriminatory motivation on the part of those enacting the religious exemption. To the contrary, Plaintiffs argue that when Congress enacted Title IX, protections for—or discrimination against sexual and gender minorities—were ‘of no concern.'”
The judge also said “the Supreme Court has stated that ‘a law is not unconstitutional simply because it allows churches to advance religion, which is their very purpose.'”
Aiken then added, “Plaintiffs also fail to allege facts to demonstrate that it is Defendants—the government actor— that has burdened Plaintiffs religious beliefs.”
The judge also blasted the arguments of the activist’s allegations, saying they are “difficult to string together.”
While the Clinton-nominated judge suggested that “the relief requested will result in the Plaintiffs receiving the dignity and equal treatment they seek,” she ultimately decided to dismiss the case and deny the motion for preliminary injunction.
It is another in a long string of failed attempts to use Title IX to force conservative districts and religious schools to bow to the hardcore groomer agenda.