3Stories - January 19, 2026

Union Gospel Mission in Washington state offers shelter to the homeless, but there was a threat to its mission when the state Supreme Court issued a ruling a law that required non-profit ministries, such as Union, to not consider sexual orientation when hiring for “non-ministerial” roles.  That’s according to Liberty Counsel, which reports on its website: “…the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously ruled that the First Amendment’s Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses entitle religious organizations to hire employees in non-ministerial roles who align with their religious beliefs.”  It added that the court, “…issued a narrow preliminary injunction preventing the state from enforcing its employment discrimination law against Union Gospel when its hiring decisions are based on religion.”

The article noted:

Union Gospel, represented by Alliance Defending Freedom, argued that “churches and religious ministries have autonomy to hire fellow believers for all positions,” including IT technicians and other support and administrative roles. The appeals court agreed and upheld a lower court ruling that determined the First Amendment’s well-established church autonomy doctrine forbids government interference in the internal decisions that affect a religious institution’s faith and mission.

Liberty Counsel said, “Under the rationale that the church autonomy doctrine applies to non-ministerial roles for ‘religious organizations like Union Gospel,’ religious schools would seem to fall under the ruling’s scope and have the freedom to hire or terminate employees that are not aligned with its religious doctrines.”

The issue of males playing in women’s sports was one of the Top 10 Topics of 2025 on The Meeting House on Faith Radio, and as the calendar rolled into 2026, the U.S. Supreme Court heard two cases where you had men presenting as females who were pressing for the right to compete against biological women.  

Referring to the contention that men should not play in female sports, according to The Washington Times: “The majority of the justices appeared open to that argument, though they wrestled with the implications. They wondered whether that would mean opening the door to segregated chess teams and academic classes or eliminating same-sex locker rooms and separate teams for males and females.”

The Times noted, “The justices heard more than three hours of oral arguments in cases out of Idaho and West Virginia, where state laws restrict the participation of transgender girls and women in girls’ sports. Twenty-five other states have similar laws.”  It added, “Idaho and West Virginia sustained losses in lower courts.”

The attorney for the males presenting as a female who challenged West Virginia’s law, said, “Our argument is that there’s a group of people who are assigned male at birth for whom being placed on the boys’ team is harmful. We happen to have a word for those people. It’s transgender girls,” adding, “But I don’t think it means we’re elevating the gender identity to be the new definition of sex.”

The lawyer used the language of the left in his argument, but Chief Justice Roberts, according to the article, “said he thought the law demanded more.”  He asked, “You don’t think we should have an operating definition of sex?”  And, indeed, over the last few years, federal officials were actually attempting to redefine sex to include gender identity.
 
Arguing on behalf of the Trump Administration, Principal Deputy Solicitor General Hashim M. Mooppa declared: “Denying a special accommodation to trans-identifying individuals does not discriminate on the basis of sex or gender identity or deny equal protection,” adding, “All of that remains true even assuming a man could take drugs that eliminate his sex-based physiological advantages.”

A hearing on Capitol Hill this past Wednesday dealt with the abortion pill, its availability, and its dangers to women.  Sen. Bill Cassidy, a medical doctor, was among those concerned. The Washington Stand reported:

Over the past several months, conservatives have been increasingly vocal about Trump’s inaction as more and more women fall prey to these dangerous drugs that are sending them to the emergency room in record numbers.

The article noted the the Senator, in an interview with Family Research Council President Tony Perkins, said: “The focus of the health committee hearing is to make people aware that taking an abortion drug is not like taking a Tylenol…”  The senator said, “…we need to go back to where we have a requirement that if the patient wants a prescription, she needs to see a doctor. That sounds so basic. There [are] complications for taking this medicine…"

The Washington Stand referenced the Ethics and Public Policy Center study showing that there was an 11% serious complication rate.
 
FRC held a press conference the same day as the hearing, that included a number of lawmakers, calling for, “…DOJ and HHS to end the Biden-era policies that have allowed abortion drugs to be shipped across state lines, which are undermining state laws, endangering women, and violating federal law.”  In a press release in advance of the event, FRC noted, “The pro-life leaders will urge the DOJ to safeguard the constitutional authority of states to enact and enforce pro-life laws. They will also urge the FDA to immediately suspend mifepristone and all its generic forms from the market while conducting an evaluation of the risks associated with the drug.”