A district court judge has issued a preliminary injunction against the University of Idaho, which has issued a no-contact order against three Christian law students who have expressed an opinion about marriage because a LGBTQ + student between a man and a woman was threatened, according to the verdict.
In April, four students all attended a “Community Moment” rally at the Law School on the University of Idaho campus in Idaho, Moscow, when someone from the Boyce campus posted an anti-LGBTQ + slur on an anonymous whiteboard in a classroom. The three plaintiffs, members of the Christian Legal Society, “gathered in prayer-with members of their community and others প্রদ to show support for the LGBTQ + community,” the decision reads.
One student, described only as Jane Doe, engaged the plaintiffs in a discussion of their traditional view of marriage, claiming that it was biblical. But without any incident they become separated.
Shortly afterwards, one of the plaintiffs left a handwritten note in Jane Doe’s carol, offering to continue the conversation. The university noted that Jane Doe viewed the move as a “violation” of her personal space. [she] Strongly refuses. “
A few days later, at a law school recognition meeting, students, including Jane Doe, expressed concern about CLS’s “religious and anti-LGBTQ” views, according to the ruling. One plaintiff defended CLS, arguing that “the biggest example of discrimination on campus he actually saw was against CLS and the administration’s failure to recognize and register it as a group in a timely manner.”
Jane Doe later submitted a report to the university’s civil rights and investigative office, stating that the plaintiffs’ actions made her feel “targeted and unsafe.” The OCRI then issued a no-contact order, barring the plaintiff from any contact with Jane Doe.
When attempts to resolve the dispute with the university failed, the plaintiffs filed a lawsuit, arguing that the non-communication order violated their First Amendment rights, among other things.
U.S. District Court Judge David Nai ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, discovering that the university had violated the no-contact order.
“Some may agree with the plaintiffs’ religious beliefs, ”he wrote. “It simply came to our notice then. However, no one should disagree that plaintiffs have the right to express their religious beliefs without fear of reprisals. The constitution makes it clear. ”