澳彩开奖

Founded by some 30 leaders of the Christian Right, the Alliance Defending Freedom is a legal advocacy and training group that has:

• Supported the recriminalization of sexual acts between consenting LGBTQ adults in the U.S. and criminalization abroad
• Defended state-sanctioned sterilization of trans people abroad
• Contended that LGBTQ people are more likely to engage in pedophilia
• Claimed that a 鈥渉omosexual agenda鈥澨�will destroy Christianity and society

ADF also works to develop 鈥渞eligious liberty鈥� legislation and case law that will allow the denial of goods and services to LGBTQ people on the basis of religion. Despite its regular defamation of LGBTQ people, the group has managed to win special advisory status at the United Nations, in the European Union, and with the Organization of American States.听Since the election of President Trump, ADF has become one of the most influential groups informing the administration鈥檚 attack on LGBTQ rights

In Its Own Words

鈥淎llowing males to compete in the female category isn鈥檛 fair and destroys girls鈥� athletic opportunities. Males will always have inherent physical advantages over comparably talented and trained girls鈥攖hat鈥檚 the reason we have girls鈥� sports in the first place. And a male鈥檚 belief about his gender doesn鈥檛 eliminate those advantages.鈥澨�鈥� ADF legal counsel Christiana Holcomb, referring to trans female athletes as male in ADF news release, 2019

鈥淢en who self-identify as women are still biological men. Sure, they can take synthetic hormones to make themselves appear more feminine, style their hair, and wear makeup (or not). But being a woman is more than a physical appearance or a feeling鈥攊t is a biological reality. And no amount of wishing or desire will ever change the fact that a feminized man will never truly experience what it is to be a woman.鈥澨�鈥撎齅arissa Mayer, senior web writer, on the ADF website, 2019

鈥淭he only surprise is the rapidity with which this degradation of our human dignity has occurred. It has occurred, with raging effect, and within twelve months, on the heels of government mandated recognition of same-sex 鈥榤arriage鈥� 鈥� an oxymoronic institution if ever there was one. And, for its radical adherents, this has led to a deification of deviant sexual practices. It has further resulted in the inevitable and aggressive persecution of devout Christians who refuse to bow to the false god of sexual license.鈥澨�鈥撎鼳DF-affiliated attorney Charles LiMandri, 鈥淭he Tyranny of Made-Up Sexual Identities, 2015

鈥淭he endgame of the homosexual legal agenda is unfettered sexual liberty and the silencing of all dissent.鈥澨�鈥撎鼳DF Senior Counsel Erik Stanley at the Gospel, Homosexuality, and the Future of Marriage conference, 2014

鈥淎lliance Defending Freedom seeks to recover the robust Christendomic theology of the 3rd, 4th, and 5th centuries. This is catholic, universal orthodoxy and it is desperately crucial for cultural renewal. Christians must strive to build glorious cultural cathedrals, rather than shanty tin sheds.鈥澨�鈥撎鼴lackstone Legal Fellowship website, 2014

鈥淲hen given the same choice the Supreme Court of the United States had in听Lawrence vs. Texas, the Indian Court did the right thing. India chose to protect society at large rather than give in to a vocal minority of homosexual advocates. 鈥� America needs to take note that a country of 1.2 billion people has rejected the road towards same-sex marriage, and understood that these kinds of bad decisions in the long run will harm society.鈥澨�鈥撎鼴enjamin Bull, former executive director of ADF Global, on the recriminalization of consensual sex between adults of the same sex in India, 2013

鈥淸C]ontrol of the educational system is central to those who want to advance the homosexual agenda. By its very nature, homosexual acts are incapable of bearing fruit 鈥� indeed, strictly speaking, they are not sexual, as they are incapable of being generative or procreative. Thus there is the need to desensitize and corrupt young minds, both to undermine resistance to the agenda and for recruitment among those that are at an emotionally vulnerable stage of development.鈥澨�鈥撎齌hen-senior ADF Legal Counsel (Global) Piero Tozzi, speaking at the World Congress of Families gathering in Madrid, Spain, 2012

鈥淎nd in the course of the now hundreds of cases the Alliance Defense Fund has now fought involving this homosexual agenda, one thing is certain: there is no room for compromise with those who would call evil 鈥榞ood.鈥欌�澨�鈥撎鼳lan Sears, speaking at the World Congress of Families gathering in Madrid, Spain, 2012

鈥淭he government should promote and encourage strong families. When school officials have to choose between protecting children in those families or furthering the homosexual agenda, the choice is obvious: protecting our children comes first.鈥澨�鈥撎鼳ustin Nimocks, then-ADF senior counsel opposing a 鈥淲elcoming Schools鈥� curriculum, 2008

鈥淚n the end, those who profess to be 鈥榞ay鈥� or 鈥榣esbian,鈥� or who have otherwise slipped in and out of homosexual behavior, including 鈥榗ruising鈥� for anonymous partners, are people who succumb to a dangerous temptation.鈥澨�鈥撎鼳ustin Nimocks, then-ADF senior counsel, writing at TownHall.com, 2007

鈥淎s the homosexual agenda continues to sexualize our culture, other once-forbidden behaviors are exalted as just more alternative lifestyles. The result is that the well-being of millions of children is at risk, along with the right of parents to protect their children from sexual exploitation.鈥澨�鈥撎鼳lan Sears and Craig Osten,听The Homosexual Agenda: Exposing the Principal Threat to Religious Freedom Today, 2003

鈥淲e mention the new promotion of pedophilia in the context of talking about the influence of homosexual behavior on college campuses, because, despite all objections to the contrary, the two are often intrinsically linked.鈥澨�鈥撎鼳lan Sears and Craig Osten,听The Homosexual Agenda: Exposing the Principal Threat to Religious Freedom Today, 2003

鈥淭he issue under rational-basis review is not whether Texas should be concerned about opposite-sex sodomy, but whether it is reasonable to believe that same-sex sodomy is a distinct public health problem. It clearly is.鈥澨�鈥撎鼳DF attorney Glen Lavy, counsel of record, amicus brief,听Lawrence v. Texas, 2003

Background

According to its website, the Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) was launched on the morning of Jan. 31, 1994, during a meeting of more than 30 Christian leaders, in order to 鈥渄efend religious freedom before it was too late.鈥�

The founding board and original funders included James Dobson of Focus on the Family; Bill Bright of the Campus Crusade for Christ; D. James Kennedy of Coral Ridge Ministries (now D. James Kennedy Ministries); and Don Wildmon, founder of the听American Family Association. Its original purpose was to oppose the ACLU and other 鈥渞adical groups鈥� as well as to fight for 鈥渞eligious liberty.鈥� Since its founding, ADF has expanded its operations abroad as it battles abortion, LGBTQ equality, and what it considers the 鈥渕yth鈥� of the separation of church and state.

Originally called the Alliance Defense Fund (the name changed in 2012), ADF has been funding cases and training attorneys since its inception, claiming that it is 鈥渁dvocating for freedom in court,鈥� though it also is working to 鈥渃hange the culture,鈥� because, it says, legal victories aren鈥檛 enough. In other words, ADF is attempting to eradicate the separation of church and state and graft its version of conservative Christianity onto the legal profession and the culture at large through its legal strategies, the training of thousands of attorneys and its advocacy of policy changes at the state and federal levels.

ADF has several initiatives that help train conservative Christians. These include a variety of programs designed for young lawyers, including the Young Lawyers Academy, which schools new U.S. attorneys and provides opportunities to 鈥渆ngage the culture and join a network of Christian attorneys around the globe,鈥� and the Aret茅 Academy, which 鈥渓aunches highly accomplished university students and recent graduates on a path to future leadership in law, government, business, and public policy.鈥�

ADF Academy is a training program that purports to equip participants to 鈥渆ffectively advocate for religious liberty, the sanctity of life, and marriage and family.鈥� ADF claims more than 1,800 lawyers have participated. The organization also offers the听, through which Christian law students study under prominent scholars, participate in internships, and prepare for life and leadership in the legal profession. Since 2000 (the year of Blackstone鈥檚 inception), ADF claims it has trained more than 1,600 law students from 225 law schools in 21 different countries.

In 2014, the Blackstone website noted that part of its core curriculum included a reading list that not everyone would agree with. 鈥淣o offense and certainly, no proselytizing, is intended,鈥� ADF stated. 鈥淩ather, Alliance Defending Freedom seeks to recover the robust Christendomic theology of the 3rd, 4^th, and 5^th听centuries,鈥� which, the statement continued, 鈥渋s catholic, universal orthodoxy and is desperately crucial for cultural renewal.鈥�

ADF also has a legal academy that, according to a 2013 media kit, is a 鈥渟tate-of-the-art lawyer training project鈥� launched in 1997. Attorneys who attend the academy do so free of charge, but they are required to do 450 hours of pro bono work over a three-year period 鈥渙n behalf of the Body of Christ鈥� and the mission of ADF. Past sessions of the academy included topics such as effectively equipping attorneys 鈥渢o battle the radical homosexual legal agenda,鈥� upholding the sanctity of life and parental rights, and defending religious liberty.

Alan Sears was the longtime president, CEO and general counsel of ADF until January 2017. He served in various positions during the Reagan and George H.W. Bush administrations and also worked for the Department of Justice and was appointed director of the Attorney General鈥檚 Commission on Pornography.

Under Sears鈥� leadership, ADF expanded its training, funding and outreach not only domestically but internationally. Using its international platforms, ADF works with policymakers and other organizations to outlaw abortion, deny equality and marriage to LGBTQ people worldwide, and continue to push for a hard-right Christian theocratic worldview that is reflected in legislation and policies.

In January 2017, ADF named longtime theocratic right-wing activist, attorney and Baptist minister听听as its second president, CEO, and general counsel. Farris left the Convention of States, which he co-founded in 2013, to take the position at ADF. The Convention of States advocates for holding just what its name implies鈥攁 convention of states鈥攖o add amendments to the Constitution in order to stop 鈥渢he federal spending and debt spree, the power grabs of the federal courts, and other misuses of federal power.鈥�

Farris鈥� history in the religious right dates back to the 1970s, when he opposed the Equal Rights Amendment. In the early 1980s, he was head of Jerry Falwell鈥檚 Moral Majority in Washington state, and, in 1983, he founded the Home School Legal Defense Association (HSLDA), a legal advocacy group that is also a ministry to 鈥渄efend and advance the constitutional right of parents to direct the education of their children and to protect family freedoms.鈥� According to its mission statement, the HSLDA relies on 鈥減arental rights鈥� and 鈥渞eligious freedom鈥� to guarantee the 鈥渇undamental, God-given, constitutional right of parents and others legally responsible for their children to direct their education.鈥�

Farris also听听(COR) Manifesto, the same year that he served as treasurer for the Committee to Draft Pat Robertson for President. Farris was part of the COR steering committee. Among COR鈥檚 positions was this one: 鈥淲e deny that anyone, Jew or Gentile, believer or unbeliever, private person or public person is exempt from the moral and juridical obligation before God to submit to Christ鈥檚 Lordship over every aspect of his life in thought, word and deed.鈥� Another COR requirement was that one be 鈥渨illing to be martyred for Jesus Christ and the establishment of his Kingdom here on earth鈥� and also be willing to submit to the 鈥渉ierarchical order鈥� God has created, 鈥渋n which we are willing to submit as to Christ to employers, civil government, and church leaders, and within families, wives to their husbands, and children to their parents.鈥�

Farris, who ran for lieutenant governor of Virginia in 1993 (he lost), also founded the elite evangelical听听(PHC) in Purcellville, Virginia, where HSLDA is based. PHC is often referred to as 鈥淕od鈥檚 Harvard鈥� and, though very small, is a well-known training ground for the religious right and a pipeline for conservative jobs in Washington, D.C. Students in PHC鈥檚 Strategic Intelligence Program, for example, can graduate with security clearances from summer internships and end up in the CIA, FBI or the National Security Agency.

The HSLDA, where Farris remains on the board, has become a powerful lobbying tool for the Christian Right in terms of education. Though its members only make up about 15% of the nation鈥檚 1.5 million homeschooled children, it has been听in derailing homeschooling regulations in many states. 鈥淚鈥檝e never seen a lobby more powerful and scary,鈥� said the legislative director for Michigan Democratic representative Stephanie Chang in 2015.

The HSLDA is also anti-LGBTQ, promoting a constitutional amendment in 2004 that would have banned same-sex couples from both marriage and civil unions. In 2006, the group lobbied for a constitutional amendment to ban marriage equality, and in 听2012,听听three LGBTQ students at PHC who were anonymously running a blog titled听. Farris sent a private message to the blog鈥檚 Facebook page, in which he complained that the blog was infringing on the school鈥檚 copyright of the PHC name. He threatened that if the blog wasn鈥檛 taken down, the school would pursue legal action, reveal the bloggers鈥� identities, and seek damages. The bloggers posted Farris鈥� message publicly and soon thereafter, he backed off on his threat to litigate.

In 2010, ADF was granted special consultative status at the United Nations, which allowed ADF attorneys to attend and intervene at treaty and convention drafting meetings. In that capacity, ADF attorneys are positioned to help craft language on the international stage that cleaves to ADF鈥檚 agenda of Christian primacy in the public arena.

Also in 2010, ADF was accepted into the EU Transparency Register, which allows the organization to influence policies of institutions of the European Union. Since granted this status, ADF has, according to its website, 鈥減rovided numerous expert opinions and keynote addresses to European Parliament committees and inter-groups.鈥�

And, in 2014, ADF was accredited by the听听(OAS), the world鈥檚 oldest regional organization, established to promote state sovereignty as well as human rights, democracy, security and development.听, ADF attorneys are able to influence policy by attending meetings and debates鈥攖o battle 鈥済roups promoting abortion and radical sexual agendas.鈥� ADF has also received official accreditation for the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe and the EU Fundamental Rights Agency. Currently, according to its website, ADF has offices in Mexico City, Vienna (the headquarters of its international arm), Brussels, London, New Delhi, Geneva and Strasbourg, France. It also offers training in locations around the world as well as access to grants and consultation.

Battling the 'homosexual agenda,' gay sex听and marriage equality

ADF鈥檚 longstanding antipathy toward LGBTQ people has become public through its work on lawsuits, various statements its leaders have made and materials it has offered on its website over the years. It has also promoted the idea of a 鈥�homosexual agenda鈥濃�斕齛 nefarious scheme to destroy Christianity and, eventually, civilization through LGBTQ people鈥檚 efforts to secure equality under the law. To those who believe in this conspiracy theory, LGBTQ people are not really seeking equality; rather, they are actually seeking to destroy such things as Christianity, the family and culture.

Sears co-wrote a book first published in 2003 and still available called听The Homosexual Agenda: Exposing the Principal Threat to Religious Freedom Today. The authors claim that ADF has nothing but 鈥渞espect, compassion, and sensitivity toward those ensnared in homosexual behavior.鈥� But they then go on to support the pseudoscientific and dangerous practice of so-called听鈥渆x-gay鈥� therapy, to falsely claim that LGBTQ people are more likely to engage in pedophilia, and to claim that schools are 鈥渋ndoctrinating children鈥� into being LGBTQ. Lately, the authors breathlessly claim, 鈥渉omosexual behavior on college campuses is taking a dangerous new turn 鈥� the promotion of sexual relations between adults and children, known as pedophilia.鈥� Despite all scientific objections to the contrary 鈥� virtually all legitimate medical associations have debunked the once-common claim that gay men molest children at higher rates than straight men 鈥� Sears and his co-author insist that homosexuality and pedophilia 鈥渁re intrinsically linked.鈥�

The book also argues against any form of domestic partnerships or civil unions because they 鈥渨ill eventually destroy the institution of male-female marriage.鈥� In addition, the book claims, 鈥渞adical homosexual activists have the family, and particularly innocent, vulnerable children in their sights as well.鈥�

One of ADF鈥檚 past 鈥渁ffiliated organizations鈥� was something called the Corporate Resource Council (CRC), whose website was registered to ADF. The CRC was active from 2002 until 2012, and the URL to its former website defaulted to the main ADF site (snapshots of it are available in the web archive). The CRC stated on its site that it was providing 鈥渙bjective analysis鈥� of the value to corporations 鈥渙f family- and faith-friendly employee policies.鈥�

The site included several white papers that argued against domestic partnerships and protections for LGBTQ people in the workplace. One attempted to outline why domestic partnerships were not good business policy, saying that only small numbers of people use them and in any event the practice 鈥渞equires employers to treat cohabitation as equal to marriage.鈥� Another, by longtime anti-LGBTQ activist Maggie Gallagher, encouraged employers to support only marriage between a cisgender woman and a man and to avoid supporting domestic partnerships, which, she argued, 鈥渄iscourage marriage鈥� and send 鈥渁 confusing signal, giving the appearance of providing an appropriate context for having and raising children.鈥�

Still another white paper was the infamous paper by virulently anti-LGBTQ activist and medical doctor John Diggs, titled 鈥淭he Health Risks of Homosexual Sex,鈥� which claimed there are 鈥渟erious medical consequences to same-sex behavior.鈥� Diggs included several false claims about LGBTQ people, saying, in effect, that because they are LGBTQ, they are promiscuous (according to the paper, lesbians have far more sex with men than straight women do), don鈥檛 live as long as straight people and are mentally ill. The paper also included graphic descriptions of various sexual practices allegedly 鈥渃ommon鈥� among LGBTQ people.

ADF also has worked to keep LGBTQ sex criminalized. In 2003, the group filed an听amicus brief听in the landmark听Lawrence v. Texas听case, in which the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that various laws prohibiting private sexual acts between LGBTQ adults were unconstitutional. In the brief, page after page describes, in graphic detail, vaginal, oral and anal intercourse and various infections that may result from the latter. ADF argued that the Texas ban was in the interest of public health, because gay men and lesbians, the brief contended, engage in 鈥渞isky鈥� sexual behaviors that increase the spread of sexually transmitted diseases. 鈥淭he issue under rational-basis review is not whether Texas should be concerned about opposite-sex sodomy,鈥� it argued, 鈥渂ut whether it is reasonable to believe that same-sex sodomy is a distinct public health problem. It clearly is.鈥�

In 2003, Farris, before joining ADF, also co-wrote a听2003 amicus brief听with ADF attorneys Jordan Lorence and Joshua Carden in support of Texas鈥� criminalization of LGBTQ sex in听Lawrence v. Texas. Farris listed his affiliation in the brief as the Center for the Original Intent of the Constitution, which was formed in 1998 by the HSLDA and then was moved under the auspices of Patrick Henry College. The brief argued that states should have the right to police and criminalize sexual behavior, stating: 鈥淒efining the criminality of certain forms of sexual conduct, such as same-sex sodomy, is a policy issue that has historically and properly been left to the state legislatures.鈥�

ADF has also involved itself in battles over marriage equality, perhaps most visibly in the court battle over California鈥檚 Proposition 8, the amendment that overturned marriage equality in that state. When opponents of Prop 8 filed a lawsuit questioning the constitutionality of the amendment, ADF sought to intervene, as did the anti-LGBTQ hate group听Liberty Counsel, which had represented Campaign for California Families, a group that had been successful in previous anti-LGBTQ marriage initiatives. The group ADF was affiliated with, Protectmarriage.com, was allowed to defend Prop 8 rather than the group Liberty Counsel worked with.

The trial did not go well for the Prop 8 defendants, who听听to support their contention that marriage equality harmed children and heterosexual marriage. The court found one witness lacked qualifications to offer any expert testimony; another, a Claremont College professor, only rebutted a limited aspect of the plaintiffs鈥� case. Another proponent of Prop 8听听claimed that 鈥渉omosexuals are 12 times more likely to molest children鈥� (a falsehood) and that allowing marriage equality would cause states 鈥渢o fall into Satan鈥檚 hands.鈥� The witness claimed the internet as the source of this information.

Prop 8 was struck down in August 2010 by U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker, who ruled that the amendment violated due process and equal protection rights. Liberty Counsel appeared to blame ADF for a poor showing, stating in an Aug. 4, 2010, press release that ADF opposed the Liberty Counsel鈥檚 help and that even Walker expressed concern about the lack of evidence presented at trial by ADF. Regardless, the Prop 8 defendants filed an immediate appeal. The 9^th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld Walker鈥檚 ruling in February 2012 but on narrower grounds. The case went to the U.S. Supreme Court, which ruled in June 2013 that Prop 8 supporters had no right to appeal the district court ruling.

ADF International

ADF, which has argued that removing anti-LGBTQ laws from criminal codes will pave the way to marriage equality, has worked to keep those laws on the books, but mostly overseas since the U.S. Supreme Court struck down anti-sodomy laws in this country. The group has advised anti-LGBTQ organizations in听countries like Belize听that are trying to keep the law that criminalized LGBTQ sex on the books. That law was听declared unconstitutional听by the Belize Supreme Court in 2016.

In other instances, ADF leadership has defended criminalization, as when Benjamin Bull, former director of ADF Global,听听the Indian Supreme Court鈥檚 decision in 2013 that recriminalized LGBTQ sex, making it punishable by up to 10 years in prison. The court did the right thing, Bull said, choosing to 鈥減rotect society at large rather than give in to a vocal minority of homosexual advocates.鈥�

Bull also听 as part of a planning committee for a Russian conference held by the anti-LGBTQ听hate group听World Congress of Families. (The conference was canceled in the wake of Russia鈥檚 invasion of Ukraine but appears to have听.) The planning committee allegedly met with Yelena Mizulina, a member of the Russia parliament and one of the architects of Russia鈥檚 anti-LGBTQ laws.

Bull left ADF in 2017 and worked briefly at the Washington, D.C., offices of Texas-based First Liberty before becoming vice president and general counsel at the National Center on Sexual Exploitation.

Other ADF attorneys have publicly advocated retaining anti-sodomy laws. Jeffrey Ventrella and Piero Tozzi, two senior counsels for ADF at the time, spoke at a 2012 conference in Jamaica, with Tozzi defending the laws as a 鈥渂ulwark鈥� against an unspecified 鈥渁genda.鈥�

In 2011, Tozzi filed an amicus brief along with Brian Raum, another ADF attorney, in a case being heard by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights,听Karen Atala Riffo v. Chile, the first LGBTQ case heard by the court. (The court is an autonomous judicial institution based in Costa Rica. Together with the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, it makes up the human rights protection system of the Organization of American States.)

The plaintiff in the case, Karen Atala, was a Chilean judge who divorced her husband, another Chilean judge, in 2001. She had full custody of her daughters, but in 2004 a Chilean court ordered her to relinquish custody to her husband, ruling that because she was living with her female partner, her lesbian relationship put the development of her children at risk.

Atala lodged a complaint of discrimination with the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, which asked the Chilean court to justify its ruling. The case ended up with the Inter-American Court, and after a years-long battle, the court听听in 2012 to pay Atala restitution.

The ADF amicus brief, which argued that sexual orientation should not be a category of non-discrimination in the convention of human rights in the Americas (the American Convention of Human Rights), claimed that Atala was 鈥渦sing her daughters鈥� as a way to further her personal goals and had placed her own interests and achievements above the interests of her children, in spite of the 鈥渆motional and social damage鈥� that her cohabitation with a female partner had on her children. The brief also argued that Atala was 鈥渋mposing鈥� her lifestyle on her daughters and that sexual orientation should not be used in claims of discrimination, further suggesting that 鈥渆mpirical evidence鈥� shows that sexual orientation can change for a 鈥渟ignificant number of individuals.鈥�

ADF International, the organization鈥檚 international arm, has also been听extremely busy in Romania, where it has partnered with groups that have ties to far-right Christian nationalism and white nationalism.

The day after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in the听Masterpiece Cakeshop听decision on June 5, 2018, ADF International tweeted its opposition to a decision by the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU). That decision, in the case听Coman and Others, held that the residency rights of same-sex spouses married in one EU country must be recognized in all EU countries, even if the country doesn鈥檛 recognize marriage for same-sex couples. In this case, one of the men is American and the other Romanian. They had been legally married in Belgium but were denied the right to live as a married couple in Romania.

ADF International has been working to get civil partnerships between members of the same sex banned via the country鈥檚 constitution since at least 2015. It听听pushing for a referendum in July 2016. The group then organized a conference to push for a referendum in April 2017 and further advocated for it to go through at the UN Human Rights Council.

ADF International听collaborated closely in Romania听with a collective of local groups under the banner of the Coalition for the Family (Coali葲ia pentru Familie). One of the coalition鈥檚 cofounders, Bogdan Stanciu, is head of the anti-choice group Pro Vita in Romania. Stanciu was also the administrator or Romanian Altermedia, a consortium of white nationalist radio stations, newsletters and websites affiliated with David Duke, a former Ku Klux Klan leader. 听The German Altermedia site was banned in that country for its neo-Nazi content; the Romanian Altermedia site featured similar content. Stanciu was also head of a group called Noua Dreapta (New Right), a far-right ultranationalist Christian organization with antisemitic and anti-Roma views. He wrote for the group from 2001-04.

The president of Romania鈥檚 Coalition for the Family was accused by the U.S. embassy in Bucharest of organizing an anti-LGBTQ, Christian nationalist protest at the Romanian Peasant Museum where people carried signs reading 鈥淒ie F------鈥� and 鈥淕et out of the country鈥� while others used Nazi salutes.

ADF International has also听misrepresented its involvement听in听Coman and Others, claiming on its website that it was a 鈥渢hird party intervener鈥� at the CJEU, even though ADF was never allowed to participate in the case in front of the EU court.

Education advocacy

ADF is also involved in education. Its efforts to deny rights and dignity to LGBTQ students dates to at least 2005 (when it was known as Alliance Defense Fund). That year, the group launched the so-called 鈥溾�� campaign with other groups, including Focus on the Family, to combat the 鈥減romotion of the homosexual agenda.鈥� The Day of Truth was meant to counter the ongoing 鈥淒ay of Silence鈥� (held in April), in which students remain silent as a protest and to help spread awareness about the effects of anti-LGBTQ bullying.

The original Day of Truth website included a piece called 鈥淭he Ten Big Myths of Homosexual Behavior,鈥� provided by the听anti-LGBTQ hate group听Mission: America. It also included a 鈥渇act sheet鈥� provided by the now-defunct ex-gay group Exodus, which included many false claims about LGBTQ people, including that a 鈥渄eficiency of same-sex love鈥� in a person鈥檚 background will cause that person to be LGBTQ. The sheet also claimed that LGBTQ people can 鈥渃hange鈥� (to heterosexual). And it said that marriage between couples of the same sex should not be allowed, as 鈥渢here are moral, social, and medical reasons why homosexual behavior should not be affirmed.鈥� It also claimed that LGBTQ people are promiscuous, violent and mentally ill. In 2009, Exodus took over the Day of Truth, but in September of 2010, it听听and gave it back to ADF, claiming that the event had become too divisive and confrontational. Nevertheless, the 鈥渇act sheet鈥� was still publicly available that year. In 2011, Focus on the Family took over the Day of Truth and renamed it 鈥淒ay of Dialogue,鈥� although ADF is still available for legal counsel for students, something it has claimed throughout the event鈥檚 history.

ADF also promotes the use of specific language in efforts to discredit and undermine LGBTQ people and reproductive rights. A media kit available on the ADF website from 2012 through 2014 provided a page that listed its preferred terms in a 鈥�Media Reference Guide.鈥� Some examples include using 鈥渉omosexual agenda鈥� for the lesbian and gay civil rights movement; 鈥渃ross-dressing鈥� and 鈥渟exually confused鈥� rather than the term transgender; 鈥済ender-identity confusion/gender confusion鈥� for gender identity; 鈥�(leftist) sexual indoctrination programs鈥� for sexual education programs and health education; 鈥渟exual preference/choice鈥� for sexual orientation; 鈥渟exually mutilated male/female, self-proclaimed male/female, biological male/female鈥� for intersex person/male/female; 鈥渟pecial legal protections, privileged class鈥� for equal rights, equal protections and protected class; and using quotation marks around the word marriage when referring to same-sex couples and around the word hate when referring to hate crimes.

Like other anti-LGBTQ groups, ADF opposes anti-bullying initiatives that attempt to protect LGBTQ students. In 2012,听听to create a 鈥溾�� to compare what makes a 鈥済ood鈥� anti-bullying policy versus what makes a 鈥渂ad鈥� policy. A 鈥済ood鈥� policy, by ADF鈥檚 measure, 鈥渄oes not single out groups for special protection; rather, prohibits bullying against all students鈥� and 鈥渄oes not use materials or lessons [sic] plans from homosexual activist groups.鈥� A 鈥渂ad鈥� policy 鈥渟ingles out 鈥榮exual orientation,鈥� 鈥榞ender identity,鈥� etc. for special protection鈥� and 鈥渞equires tolerance training and similar programs using materials and lesson plans crafted by homosexual activist groups.鈥�

Policies that prohibit bullying based on sexual orientation and gender identity, the materials say, 鈥渙pen the door to the advancement of the political agenda of homosexual activist groups in schools.鈥� The adoption of such policies, the materials add, has resulted in 鈥減ublic schools subjecting young students to books, lessons, and programs designed to advance the homosexual agenda and undermine traditional notions of sexuality and the family.鈥�

The yardstick also states that bullies should not be educated to think differently about their victims and states that schools should limit anti-bullying policies to on-campus incidents, including cyber-bullying, and that public school teachers should not be required to report bullying. It also calls for forbidding investigation of bullying without the consent of the bully鈥檚 parents. ADF鈥檚 preferred policy also abolishes anonymity for crime victims below legal age and calls for no investigation into anonymous complaints unless 鈥済ood cause or threat of imminent physical harm exists.鈥� It also says private schools should be exempt from state anti-bullying laws.

One ADF attorney, Erik Stanley,听听as an anti-gay 鈥渉ate crime鈥� that had been used by pro-LGBTQ activists to advance the 鈥渉omosexual legal agenda.鈥� This claim is a popular conspiracy theory among anti-LGBTQ groups, turning on the theory that Shepard was murdered over drugs or for some other reason unrelated to his sexual orientation. But it is a claim that has been听.

In recent years, ADF has also been working quietly across the country to deny rights to trans students. Partnering once again with Focus on the Family in 2014, ADF developed a 鈥淪tudent Physical Privacy Policy鈥� for schools that offers guidelines meant to protect students in locker rooms and bathrooms. The group emailed a copy of the policy听to every school district in the country in 2014 and included听a letter听warning that any school district supportive of trans-inclusive policies would expose itself and its teachers to tort liability. The letter misrepresented trans identity and gender identity in general and attempted to portray trans-inclusive policies as subjecting students of one sex to interacting in bathrooms and locker rooms with students of 鈥渢he opposite sex.鈥� It also echoes the frequent claim of other anti-LGBTQ groups that suggest that trans women are just male 鈥減redators鈥� seeking access to women鈥檚 bathrooms and locker rooms.

ADF has made good on its threats to sue schools that accommodate trans students. In early September 2016, ADF听听against a school district in Minnesota. The suit claims that cisgender girls were caused 鈥渄istress鈥� because a trans student who identifies as female was using school facilities designated for women. The trans girl had requested use of the facilities in 2014 after transitioning, and the school district agreed in early 2016.

Aside from playing to听, ADF consistently misgendered the trans girl in its lawsuit and accused her of dancing to loud music 鈥渨ith sexually explicit lyrics in the locker room while 鈥榯werking,鈥� 鈥榞rinding,鈥� and lifting up his skirt to reveal his underwear.鈥�

'Religious Liberty'

Since the legalization of marriage for same-sex couples in the United States in June 2015, ADF has ramped up its involvement in so-called听鈥渞eligious liberty鈥� legislation听and lawsuits that portray discrimination against LGBTQ people as a 鈥渞ight.鈥� Across the country, opponents of LGBTQ equality are working to persuade state legislatures to pass laws known as Religion Freedom Restoration Acts (RFRAs) that allow individuals and businesses to deny goods and services to LGBTQ people on the basis of their privately held religious beliefs. The RFRA narrative often includes the idea that Christians are a 鈥減ersecuted minority,鈥� victimized by a secular (and pro-LGBTQ) 鈥渁genda.鈥�

In keeping with the falsehood that Christians are a persecuted minority and no longer have free speech rights, ADF officials make frequent reference to losing even more rights, often within their overall idea that things like the 鈥渉omosexual agenda鈥� are taking away the rights of Christians who speak out against it.

Sears gave an interview in 2014 to听The Remnant, a radical traditionalist Catholic newspaper, in which he seemed to be promoting that narrative. He said that history demonstrates that a democracy without values turns into totalitarianism and that 鈥渦topians鈥� seek to re-order society by 鈥渇orging draconian new laws and forcing new behaviors on others.鈥� Often, Sears said, 鈥渢hese dictatorial decrees are done in the name of 鈥榚quality,鈥� which really means the subjugation of individuals, families and society to the State and its currently fashionable schemes such utopians seek to set and control.鈥� He claimed that violence and destruction results 鈥渨ith punishment imposed on all who oppose the fabrication of their 鈥榥ew world orders鈥�.鈥�

ADF, which claimed, at least in 2016 on its website, that it does not promote legislation or lobby government officials,听听in both drafting and promoting Arizona鈥檚 S.B. 1062, the RFRA bill that was eventually vetoed by Gov. Jan Brewer in early 2015 after a backlash following its initial passage.

ADF was also intimately involved in crafting Mississippi鈥檚听, which passed early in 2016 and was signed by Gov. Phil Bryant. The law allows people who do not agree with marriage equality or LGBTQ rights to withhold goods and services without fear of legal repercussion. The bill includes protections for those who believe that sex outside of marriage is bad and for those who believe in a strictly binary gender identity. The听Clarion-Ledger听newspaper discovered that ADF helped write H.B. 1523 and helped write Bryant鈥檚 signing speech.听听reveal that former ADF Senior Counsel Austin Nimocks emailed Bryant鈥檚 administration two days before the U.S. Supreme Court ruling on marriage equality in June 2015. The email included an attached 鈥渕odel executive order鈥� that would 鈥減revent state governments from discriminating against their citizens because of their views about or actions concerning marriage.鈥�

The Mississippi law was challenged in court shortly after its passage. U.S. District Judge Carlton Reeves blocked it from becoming law in late June, saying that the law grants privileges to people who hold certain moral convictions, which 鈥渧iolates both the guarantee of religious neutrality and the promise of equal protection of the laws.鈥� Bryant said he would appeal and ADF听. In June 2017, the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reversed Reeves鈥� ruling, holding that the plaintiffs lacked standing in the case, so the statute went into effect. The U.S. Supreme Court refused to consider the case.

ADF attorneys have also听听to state legislatures in Kansas, South Carolina, Tennessee and Colorado, specifically in favor of restrictive bathroom bills that exclude trans people and against legislation that protects LGBTQ people from discrimination. An ADF attorney also testified via telephone to the South Dakota Legislature on a religious freedom bill.

ADF has been involved in other skirmishes regarding religious liberty, as when it听听in 2014 in Coeur d鈥橝lene, Idaho, by falsely claiming that the owners of a commercial wedding chapel were about to be arrested and jailed for refusing to marry couples of the same sex. The controversy听听when it was revealed that the chapel fell under religious exemption rules and the owners of the chapel told local media that they had never been contacted by ADF attorneys, who instead were emailing city officials. A city spokesman stated that the city had never threatened to jail the chapel owners or take legal action of any kind. In 2016, a federal judge听听almost all of ADF鈥檚 claims in the Idaho case.

Another strategy ADF employs is 鈥減re-enforcement鈥� challenges 鈥� that is, legal challenges to nondiscrimination ordinances that protect LGBTQ people before a business or church is found in violation. One such case听听in September 2016. ADF claimed Colorado鈥檚 nondiscrimination protections are unconstitutional because听听of speech and religion. The state鈥檚 law makes illegal to refuse service on the basis of sexual orientation or to advertise discriminatory intent. A federal judge upheld Colorado鈥檚 law in 2019, and in 2020 an appeal by the web designer was pending before the 10^th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

A similar case filed by ADF in May 2016 involved two calligraphers who challenged a city ordinance in Phoenix, Arizona, prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation in public accommodations. The two had not been asked to provide goods or services for a same-sex wedding, but they sued nevertheless so that their eventual refusal to do so would not be illegal. ADF argued that the ordinance violates the women鈥檚 right to free speech. A judge听听in September 2016, and denied ADF a preliminary injunction. The judge noted that the plaintiffs 鈥渃onfuse conduct with expressive speech,鈥� and found that the law was not a burden to them. That is because while it does prevent them from refusing to provide services or products to same-sex couples, it does not stop them from publicizing their religious views about marriage equality and LGBTQ people in general.

Trump era

After the election of Donald Trump as president, anti-LGBTQ groups were granted unprecedented access to the White House. ADF, which had 55 affiliated attorneys who had previously been听as serving in various legislative and judicial capacities on the state and federal levels, was among those exerting influence over the administration.

In 2017, Attorney General Jeff Sessions consulted with ADF before听听outlining guidelines on interpreting federal religious freedom protections to government agencies and departments. ADF senior counsel Greg Baylor听听that Sessions had met with the group in a series of 鈥渓istening sessions鈥� that Sessions himself had convened. Sessions also addressed ADF鈥檚 closed-door 鈥淪ummit on Religious Liberty鈥� at the Ritz-Carlton, Laguna Niguel in Dana Point, California. The event was closed to the press, but following attention in the media, his remarks听were leaked听to the right-wing partisan site听The Federalist.

In another striking move, the Department of Justice听听before oral arguments were made to the Supreme Court in September 2017 in support of ADF鈥檚听, in which a Colorado baker refused to create a wedding cake for a same-sex couple. Jack Phillips, the baker, refused the couple in 2012. Marriage for same-sex couples was not yet legal nationally, but the couple were planning to be married in Massachusetts, where it was legal. Colorado state law forbids discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, and the couple filed a complaint with the Colorado Civil Rights Commission, which found that Phillips had discriminated against the couple.

The complaint resulted in a lawsuit against Phillips that was argued before the Supreme Court in December 2017. Arguments听听by ADF鈥檚 Kristen Waggoner but also the U.S. Solicitor General Noel Francisco,听.听The Nation听reported that on two ADF press releases Francisco was listed as an allied attorney, though ADF later claimed that their 鈥渕edia dept. got it wrong.鈥� ADF made several other changes to its website following听The Nation鈥檚 report.

The Democracy Forward Foundation听听in April 2018 to compel compliance with the Freedom of Information Act, stating that the DOJ has 鈥渇ailed to sufficiently respond to Plaintiff鈥檚 requests for records concerning connections between Noel Francisco, Solicitor General of the United States, and Alliance Defending Freedom.鈥�

The U.S. Supreme Court issued a听, in which the majority stated that the Colorado Civil Rights Commission had displayed bias against Phillips鈥� religious beliefs when it sanctioned him, but the ruling upheld protections for LGBTQ people and applied only to the听Masterpiece听case, thus avoiding the larger issue of whether businesses can discriminate on the basis of religion.

The court also issued a ruling in June 2018 on another ADF case in which Barronelle Stutzman, owner of Arlene鈥檚 Flowers in Washington state, refused to create flower arrangements for a same-sex couple planning a wedding. There, the court听听to hear again in the wake of听Masterpiece, thus opening other chance for ADF to attempt to bring it back to the Supreme Court. In June 2019, the state Supreme Court unanimously ruled against Stutzman, but ADF again asked the U.S. Supreme Court to hear the case.

ADF continues to be extremely active in terms of free speech lawsuits against colleges and universities via its Center for Academic Freedom project. It has partnered with the libertarian group Young Americans for Liberty in several lawsuits against colleges, including Kellogg Community College in Michigan; University of Massachusetts-Amherst (听in June 2018); and the University of California-Berkeley (听in June 2018).

In another ADF lawsuit, brought by a Christian student against Gwinnett Community College in Georgia, the Department of Justice听filed a brief听in support of the student, who claimed his religious rights were violated when he was not allowed to hand out Christian pamphlets on campus. ADF sued, and the college changed its policy. As a result, the lawsuit was thrown out in a federal court. ADF听, because the court failed to address whether the student鈥檚 constitutional rights were violated.

ADF also听听in December 2017 on behalf of the student group Turning Point USA (TPUSA), claiming that the university has a too-restrictive speech policy. TPUSA has been dogged by the discovery that a few of its officers and members have听ties to the white nationalist alt-right, as when former TPUSA Florida field director听听student conference in December 2017 and was filmed in a hotel room paid for by TPUSA saying that the only thing the Nazis didn鈥檛 get right was that they didn鈥檛 keep going.

In May 2018, ADF was dealt a blow in one of its anti-trans lawsuits against a school district in Boyertown, Pennsylvania. The 3^rd听U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, in an unusual move,听, striking down ADF鈥檚 attempts to ensure the further marginalization of trans students in the Boyertown Area School District. The district had implemented a trans-inclusive policy in 2016 that allowed students to use restroom facilities in accordance with their gender identity. ADF sued on behalf of several students who claimed they felt uncomfortable sharing facilities with a trans classmate, claiming that the guidelines violated Title IX and also the students鈥� right to privacy. Title IX prohibits sex discrimination in schools.

The 听circuit court鈥檚 ruling also听, stating that the appellants鈥� 鈥渞eal objection is to the presence of transgender students, not to any 鈥榚nvironment鈥� their presence creates.鈥� The allegations, the ruling further noted, 鈥渋nclude an assertion that a cisgender student was harassed merely by a transgender student washing that student鈥檚 own hands in a bathroom or changing in a locker room. That is not the type of conduct that supports a Title IX hostile environment claim.鈥�

ADF lost again in June 2018 in one of its pre-enforcement lawsuits 鈥� legal challenges to nondiscrimination ordinances that protect LGBTQ people before a business is found in violation. In this case, the听听that the Phoenix-based Brush & Nib Calligraphy Studio could not legally violate the city鈥檚 nondiscrimination protections because of the owners鈥� religious beliefs. The studio had not yet discriminated against any LGBTQ people but believed that the ordinance prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation should be overturned or should not apply to religious beliefs.

The court referred repeatedly to the听Masterpiece听ruling to explain why Brush & Nib should not discriminate. The听: 鈥淲e听recognize that a law allowing Appellants to refuse service to customers based on sexual orientation would constitute a 鈥榞rave and continuing harm鈥欌�� and that 鈥淎llowing a vendor who provides goods and services for marriages and weddings to refuse similar services for gay persons would result in 鈥榓 community-wide stigma inconsistent with the history and dynamics of civil rights laws that ensure equal access to goods, services, and public accommodations.鈥欌��

In April 2019, the U.S. Supreme Court听听that would directly affect the lives of LGBTQ people. All three deal with whether existing federal bans on sex discrimination in the workplace also prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity. One of the cases is听. ADF is defending a Michigan-based funeral home that was sued by a 听longtime employee who said she was fired because she came out as transgender. The appellate court ruled in favor of the employee, and the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the case on Oct. 8, 2019.

ADF听听on its website the lawsuit is trying to protect people from 鈥渦nelected agencies鈥� (the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission). But it also relies on anti-trans myths to claim that allowing transgender women to keep their jobs 鈥渦ndermines鈥� cisgender women鈥檚 rights because, according to ADF, cisgender men will masquerade as women to access services for women. ADF also claims the funeral home owner and the employee 鈥減arted ways鈥� when, in fact,听

Throughout 2019, ADF attorneys and spokespeople appeared in a variety of news reports regarding their lawsuits against transgender people. ADF engages in misgendering transgender people and refers to trans women as 鈥渂iological men鈥� or uses male pronouns for transgender women. Deliberate misgendering听听and harmful because it denies them their identity and personhood.

In January 2019, ADF attorney Kristen Waggoner appeared on Fox News and听听who sued Colorado cake maker Jack Phillips (an ADF client) for refusing to make a cake for her. In July 2019, ADF鈥檚 Christiana Holcomb appeared on NBC鈥檚 Today where she听听to transgender female athletes as 鈥渂iological males.鈥�

ADF also took up the case of an Ohio college professor who refused to refer to a transgender student by her preferred pronouns and instead referred to her by her last name only. The professor was disciplined by the university after the student filed a complaint, but the professor still refused to use the student鈥檚 preferred pronouns, claiming it was against his free speech rights and religious views to do so. In February 2020,听, saying that misgendering students is not protected free speech and that government employees like Nicholas Meriwether, who works at a state-funded institution, Shawnee State University, have limited free speech rights when they are performing their jobs. The court also determined that the First Amendment does not protect them from disciplinary proceedings.

Transgender athletes competing in girls鈥� sports became another anti-trans front in 2019 for ADF. In June, 听with the U.S. Department of Education鈥檚 Office of Civil Rights on behalf of three cisgender female high school athletes in Connecticut, though there is听听that transgender athletes have advantages over cisgender athletes. Connecticut has a trans-inclusive policy with regard to its schools and competing in sports, but ADF alleges that transgender girls have an unfair advantage over cisgender females because they鈥檙e 鈥渂iological males鈥� and are thus stronger and faster.

ADF followed the complaint with听, arguing that听, the 1972 federal civil rights law that prohibits gender discrimination in programs that receive federal funding, does not apply to trans students. The law, ADF argues, was designed to prohibit discrimination against cisgender girls and women. If ADF is successful, trans student athletes may not be allowed to compete in school sports in accordance with their gender identities. Three cisgender female high school track athletes filed suit with their mothers alleging that allowing trans girls to compete against them results in 鈥渂oys displacing girls in competitive track events in Connecticut.鈥� Days after the lawsuit was filed, one of the plaintiffs in the case听听in eight days, winning two state championships.

In March 2020, the Department of Justice filed a statement of interest in the Connecticut lawsuit to support ADF鈥檚 claims. The statement of interest contains similar language to ADF鈥檚, referring to trans girls as 鈥渂iological males鈥� and claiming that the policy allowing them to compete with cisgender girls deprives the latter 鈥渙f the single-sex athletic competitions that are one of the marquee accomplishments of Title IX.鈥�

The DOJ has filed other statements of interest and amicus briefs supporting ADF鈥檚 anti-LGBTQ arguments in its lawsuits over the past few years, including in听, and in听听that went before the Supreme Court in 2019.

ADF also听听in 2020 to get anti-trans sports bills passed in state legislatures. In Arizona, it worked with Republican state lawmaker Nancy Barto and the anti-LGBTQ group Center for Arizona Policy to push such a bill. In Idaho, Republican state Senator Mary Souza sponsored an anti-trans sports ban bill and听听on the bill and would 鈥渂e responsible for any legal defense fees.鈥� The Idaho bill passed and was signed into law by the governor in March 2020.