{"id":22929,"date":"2026-03-19T08:21:06","date_gmt":"2026-03-19T08:21:06","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/biblelon.com\/?p=22929"},"modified":"2026-03-19T08:21:06","modified_gmt":"2026-03-19T08:21:06","slug":"appeals-court-hears-liberty-universitys-religious-freedom-case","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/biblelon.com\/?p=22929","title":{"rendered":"Appeals Court Hears Liberty University\u2019s Religious Freedom Case"},"content":{"rendered":"

\n Reading Time:<\/span> 3<\/span> minutes<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

In 2024, we covered the lawsuit against Liberty University, in which \u201cEllenor\u201d Zinski, a biological male, accused Liberty, an openly Christian and conservative institution, of discrimination after it fired him. The following update comes from Liberty Counsel, the legal organization seeking to protect Liberty University\u2019s religious freedom.<\/em>\n<\/p>\n

[On Tuesday], Liberty Counsel presented\u00a0oral argument at the U.S. Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals in\u00a0Zinski v. Liberty University, a case that could determine the scope of religious liberty protections for faith-based institutions. The central issue in the case is whether a religious organization can abide by its doctrinal statement in its employment decisions, or whether federal employment law requires religious institutions to hire\u2014and retain\u2014employees whose personal conduct directly contradicts the institution\u2019s religious doctrine.<\/p>\n

Join others crying out to the Lord day and night.<\/h4>\n

\u00a0\n<\/p>\n

Liberty Counsel Founder and Chairman Mat Staver argued on behalf of Liberty University that as a Christian employer, the university has an absolute right to employ people who abide by its doctrinal statement.\n<\/p>\n

Jonathan Zinski, a biological male, informed the university in July 2023 after his 90-day probationary employment period expired that he wanted to \u201ctransition\u201d to \u201cidentify as female\u201d and change his name to \u201cEllenor.\u201d He was terminated for open violation of Liberty University\u2019s doctrinal statement that declares human beings are created \u201cas either biologically male or female from the womb.\u201d\n<\/p>\n

While Zinski alleges his firing amounts to \u201csex discrimination,\u201d Liberty University contends that it acted consistently with the constitutional protections under the First Amendment\u2019s Church Autonomy Doctrine and that the broad exemptions under federal Title VII employment law protect religious organizations from certain federal discrimination regulations.\n<\/p>\n

Staver emphasized that Zinski\u2019s firing was not about sex discrimination, nor about any animus or personal hostility, but about institutional integrity.\n<\/p>\n

\u201cIf Liberty can\u2019t actually hire employees that are consistent with its faith, then Liberty has no faith,\u201d Staver told the three-judge panel. Staver further noted that Zinski has a \u201cdifferent faith\u201d from the university and wants to \u201csupplant\u201d Liberty\u2019s doctrine for that of Zinski\u2019s LGBTQ affirming church, which would turn the university into a \u201chypocrite for having a doctrinal statement that means nothing.\u201d\n<\/p>\n

The panel expressed concern about the possibility that religious organizations might be forced to hire employees whose fundamental beliefs contradict the institution\u2019s religious doctrine.\n<\/p>\n

Judge A. Marvin Quattlebaum, Jr. posed a fundamental hypothetical question of whether a \u201cChristian church of 16 employees, one of which is a janitor, must hire a transgender employee even though their beliefs\u2026would be contrary to their doctrine?\u201d\n<\/p>\n

Representing Zinski, ACLU attorney Matthew Callahan said \u201cyes\u201d they must hire because applicable employment laws are \u201cneutral\u201d and \u201cmust be obeyed.\u201d\n<\/p>\n

However, Judge James Wynn pushed back on the \u201cmust-hire\u201d notion. He stated that forcing a church to hire someone whose beliefs contradict its doctrine would effectively \u201cforce a church to do something.\u201d Judge Wynn questioned whether the court would be \u201cmaking decisions for the church\u201d in these matters.\n<\/p>\n

Judge Henry Floyd questioned whether rushing to judgment at the motion-to-dismiss stage is appropriate, given that the legal principles at stake could affect hundreds of thousands of employees at religious hospitals, universities, and social organizations nationwide.\n<\/p>\n

The outcome of this case has the potential to establish whether:\n<\/p>\n