Liberty University set up by ex-employee, ACLU for affirming biblical sexuality

The nation’s premier Christian university is being sued for remaining true to its doctrinal statement and Christian mission after terminating an individual from his position for intentionally setting up the university to advance his LGBT agenda.

In response, we are fighting for the case to be dropped and for religious liberty to be upheld to ensure religious institutions are able to operate in accordance with their Christian faith and doctrine, a right secured by the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, federal Title VII employment law, and the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act.

The case, Zinski v. Liberty University, is a setup by Jonathan Zinski and the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) to push their LGBT agenda on Christian schools, churches, and organizations. Many legal scholars are closely watching this case because of its far-reaching legal implications.

Ulterior motives at play

Four months before Zinski applied to work at Liberty University, he began taking female hormones. He knew the university’s doctrinal position and agreed to adhere to the doctrine and Christian mission. But as soon as his 90-day probation ended, Zinski revealed his secret to the university and then demanded Liberty University depart from its doctrine and mission.

All new hires are required to sign a doctrinal statement agreeing to abide by Liberty University’s deeply held religious beliefs as a condition of employment. The doctrinal statement clearly states that human beings were directly created, not evolved, in the very image of God, as either biologically male or female from the womb, and that 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.

In his employment position, Zinski was required to interact face-to-face with students and staff seeking technical assistance, equipment troubleshooting, and servicing technology equipment in the IT Helpdesk office, in classrooms during classes where issues arose, and at various other locations across campus. 

Zinski knew what Liberty’s mission and doctrinal statement required of its employees. But as soon as his 90-day probation period ended, he announced his decision to identify as a woman and informed Liberty he had been undergoing hormone replacement therapy and intended to legally change his name to “Ellenor.”  All of this was done to set Liberty up and attempt to make an example out of the university for standing its ground.

As a result, Zinski was terminated for blatant disregard of Liberty’s religious beliefs, and he retaliated with an ACLU-backed lawsuit.

This is not a matter of discrimination — it’s simply upholding the constitutional freedom for religious institutions like Liberty to operate according to their stated beliefs.  

The law is on liberty’s side

The law, which protects the ability of religious organizations to operate consistent with their mission, is on the side of Liberty University. Under the First Amendment, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, religious institutions have the right to uphold their doctrinal statement and require employees to do the same.

In particular, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act provides exemptions from its employment discrimination provisions for religious employers to permit such institutions to abide by their doctrinal practices. In this case, Title VII entitles Liberty University to terminate Zinski because his actions are a direct contradiction to the school’s doctrinal statement and sincerely held religious beliefs.

A religious school is entitled to limit its staff to people who will be role models by living the life prescribed by the faith, and an employee who lives in open, blatant, and unrepentant violation of the Christian employer’s beliefs falls plainly outside the protection of Title VII. 

Simply put, Congress clearly, unequivocally, and explicitly exempted Liberty University — as a religious educational institution — from Title VII sex discrimination suits when those suits are inextricably intertwined with Liberty University’s religious doctrines.

Section 702 of Title VII exempts Liberty University from the requirement to employ individuals who blatantly, openly, and unrepentantly violate the doctrinal statement. In fact, the sponsors of this 1972 exemption were chiefly concerned with preserving the statutory power of sectarian schools and colleges to discriminate on religious grounds in the hiring of all their employees.

Ripple effect in the making

Should a Christian church be forced to keep on a pastor who denounces important tenets of the faith? Of course not. The same is true for Christian universities or other religious organizations. And the courts should have no role in deciding ecclesiastical matters because they have no constitutional authority to intervene in such matters.

In the United States, a religious organization has the right to employ individuals consistent with its convictions. This applies to Christian higher education institutions like Liberty University just as it applies to churches, synagogues, or other religious institutions. This case is so much greater than just Liberty University, as it applies to the freedom of religious universities, churches, and organizations across the country.

Courts lack the authority to delve into religious doctrine and ignore the fundamental principle that Liberty University has the right to decide for itself, free from state interference, matters of governance involving Christian faith and doctrine.

Courts are not authorized to adjudicate the proper interpretation of Scripture because the law knows no heresy and is committed to the support of no dogma.

All who unite themselves to such a religious body do so with an implied consent to submit to it. Zinski ignored this principle, and Liberty University was entitled to fire him under the First Amendment. We’re fighting for the rights of others to do the same.