The rapid embrace of radical ideas and activism surrounding gender ideology is seemingly everywhere we turn. This resource is intended to help churches and ministries engage with this pressing issue. It includes hypothetical scenarios, practical actions for your church, considerations for pronoun usage, and more.

To create this supplement of the ADF Ministry Alliance Handbook, we've partnered with three of the largest pregnancy center organizations in the U.S.--Care Net, Heartbeat International, and the National Institute of the Family and Life Advocates--to provide pregnancy centers with the knowledge and foresight necessary to help them operate in a way consistent with their mission and beliefs, without fear or apology.

In a 6-3 decision, the Supreme Court upheld the right to freedom of association, meaning Americans have the freedom to choose which groups or causes they associate with and financially support, and whether or not they make that association public knowledge.

In a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court ruled that the City of Philadelphia violated a faithbased non-profit’s free exercise rights when it tried to shut down the organization’s foster care ministry because of its religious beliefs. This is a significant victory for religious freedom.

On December of 2022, President Joe Biden signed into law the misnamed Respect for Marriage Act (RFMA), which, among other things, repealed the federal Defense of Marriage Act and enshrined same-sex marriage into federal law. The law expands not only what marriage means in the law, but also who can be sued for disagreeing with its new meaning. The newly enacted law also opens the door to litigation against those who disagree with the new definition.

The U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights were created over two centuries ago to recognize and protect God-given freedoms that have helped our country flourish. A central theme throughout these founding documents is the protection they provide from government overreach. Unfortunately, in today's age, with its penchant for radical ideologies and "cancel culture," the government isn't the only one who can threaten these core, founding freedoms. Corporate America is trying its hand at stifling views it doesn't like.

A collection of sample statements & sample job descriptions for Christian schools. Schools can refer to these documents to help guide them while crafting their own.

One of the ways to prepare your ministry is by adopting a Code of Christian Conduct. This code should be grounded in your ministry’s Statement of Faith and establish parameters for acceptable behavior for all employees, teachers, administrators, campers, students, etc.

Threats to your ministry’s ability to carry out its religious mission are on the rise. This easy-to-understand legal guide describes practical steps you can take today to prepare your ministry, so you can approach religious freedom legal issues with confidence.

When the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Our Lady of Guadalupe School, it clarified and broadened the scope of the ministerial exception. This important employment case allows for greater freedom for churches and ministries as they make decisions about who will teach and represent their faith.

In Bostock, the Supreme Court ruled that an employer cannot fire or decline to hire an employee solely because of the employee’s sexual orientation or transgender status. Because the opinion leaves open all questions regarding religious-liberty rights, it is still unclear how this ruling may affect churches and ministries.

In Espinoza, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that religious schools and religious families cannot be discriminated against in state tax credit programs simply because they are religious. This case paves the way for equal treatment for religious people and organizations.

In Little Sisters of the Poor, the Supreme Court ruled that the Departments of Health and Human Services, Labor, and the Treasury had the authority to create exemptions from the Affordable Care Act’s contraceptive-coverage mandate for employers who object on religious or moral grounds. While this ruling was primarily about procedures and rulemaking, the decision’s effect is greater freedom for religious organizations.

In Calvary Chapel Dayton Valley, the Supreme Court declined to provide emergency relief to a Nevada church that the state’s COVID-19 regulations treat worse than similarly-situated secular businesses and protests. The Court’s ruling does not end the church’s case; it simply declined to halt Nevada’s unequal treatment of the church while the case continues in lower federal courts.

The right to freedom of speech is one of our God-given, individual liberties that our government was established to help secure. Throughout our country’s history, Americans have recognized that a vibrant and prosperous nation must embrace freedom of speech because it’s essential to upholding democracy, the pursuit of truth, and limiting government’s power.

The ministerial exception allows religious organizations to make employment decisions regarding ministers without government interference.

In July 2022, the Michigan Supreme Court reinterpreted the state's Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act and penal code to include sexual orientation and gender identity discrimination within the definition of the word “sex.” The law expansively applies to churches, religious schools, and nonprofits such that now even though these entities treat all people with respect and dignity, they can face punishment for simply teaching or operating in accordance with their religious beliefs on sexuality and identity.

In a 6-3 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Carson v. Makin that the state of Maine cannot exclude students who attend religious schools from a government program in which they are otherwise qualified.

On December of 2022, President Joe Biden signed into law the misnamed Respect for Marriage Act (RFMA), which, among other things, repealed the federal Defense of Marriage Act and enshrined same-sex marriage into federal law. The law expands not only what marriage means in the law, but also who can be sued for disagreeing with its new meaning. The newly enacted law also opens the door to litigation against those who disagree with the new definition.

The practice of banks and other corporations canceling individuals and organizations due to their beliefs seems to be gaining steam. In early March of 2023, Christian podcaster, author, and preacher Lance Wallnau shared that Bank of America closed his ministry’s account. He expressed on his Instagram page that large banks are investigating Christian ministries as if they are participating in alleged “money laundering schemes” yet ignoring the larger issues America is facing.

Since the reversal of Roe v. Wade, the stand to protect life has entered a new strategic phase. Life’s defenders now work to rectify the enduring moral and legal imprint Roe molded in 1973. And those opposed to protecting the unborn have shaped their Supreme Court defeat into an effort to extend so-called “reproductive justice” at the state level. Apart from placing scarcely any limitations on abortion, "reproductive justice” has manifested itself in punitive actions against pregnancy centers that, as a matter of fact, advocate for justice and celebrate the miracle that is human reproduction.

In January 2019, the New York State Legislature passed SB 660. The labor law prohibits employers from making employment decisions based on someone’s “reproductive choices.” In practice, the law requires pro-life organizations, including pregnancy centers and churches, to employ people who expressly violate their mission. It prevents these organizations from requiring employees to commit to their pro-life purpose. And to top it all off, it forces these organizations to praise the government’s requirements by characterizing them as a protection of “employee rights.”

The law claims to protect employees from discrimination based on their “reproductive choices,” but its sponsors could not name one example of this so-called problem occurring in the real world. In reality, it forces pro-life pregnancy centers and other employers to employ people who disagree with their core missions. The First Amendment protects Americans from this kind of government targeting, and Alliance Defending Freedom is challenging the law on behalf of multiple pro-life ministries.

It's becoming harder for leaders to navigate the legal and cultural issues their ministries face. Many activists and government officials are pushing laws and policies that would prevent pregnancy centers from operating according to their biblical beliefs. This easy-to-understand resource describes practical steps you can take today to prepare your pregnancy center, so you can approach religious freedom legal issues with confidence.

The rapid embrace of radical ideas and activism surrounding gender ideology is seemingly everywhere we turn. This resource is intended to help churches and ministries engage with this pressing issue. It includes hypothetical scenarios, practical actions for your church, considerations for pronoun usage, and more.

The ministerial exception allows religious organizations to make employment decisions regarding ministers without government interference.

In July 2022, the Michigan Supreme Court reinterpreted the state's Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act and penal code to include sexual orientation and gender identity discrimination within the definition of the word “sex.” The law expansively applies to churches, religious schools, and nonprofits such that now even though these entities treat all people with respect and dignity, they can face punishment for simply teaching or operating in accordance with their religious beliefs on sexuality and identity.

The practice of banks and other corporations canceling individuals and organizations due to their beliefs seems to be gaining steam. In early March of 2023, Christian podcaster, author, and preacher Lance Wallnau shared that Bank of America closed his ministry’s account. He expressed on his Instagram page that large banks are investigating Christian ministries as if they are participating in alleged “money laundering schemes” yet ignoring the larger issues America is facing.

Since the reversal of Roe v. Wade, the stand to protect life has entered a new strategic phase. Life’s defenders now work to rectify the enduring moral and legal imprint Roe molded in 1973. And those opposed to protecting the unborn have shaped their Supreme Court defeat into an effort to extend so-called “reproductive justice” at the state level. Apart from placing scarcely any limitations on abortion, "reproductive justice” has manifested itself in punitive actions against pregnancy centers that, as a matter of fact, advocate for justice and celebrate the miracle that is human reproduction.

In January 2019, the New York State Legislature passed SB 660. The labor law prohibits employers from making employment decisions based on someone’s “reproductive choices.” In practice, the law requires pro-life organizations, including pregnancy centers and churches, to employ people who expressly violate their mission. It prevents these organizations from requiring employees to commit to their pro-life purpose. And to top it all off, it forces these organizations to praise the government’s requirements by characterizing them as a protection of “employee rights.”

On December of 2022, President Joe Biden signed into law the misnamed Respect for Marriage Act (RFMA), which, among other things, repealed the federal Defense of Marriage Act and enshrined same-sex marriage into federal law. The law expands not only what marriage means in the law, but also who can be sued for disagreeing with its new meaning. The newly enacted law also opens the door to litigation against those who disagree with the new definition.

The law claims to protect employees from discrimination based on their “reproductive choices,” but its sponsors could not name one example of this so-called problem occurring in the real world. In reality, it forces pro-life pregnancy centers and other employers to employ people who disagree with their core missions. The First Amendment protects Americans from this kind of government targeting, and Alliance Defending Freedom is challenging the law on behalf of multiple pro-life ministries.

In a 6-3 decision, the Supreme Court upheld the right to freedom of association, meaning Americans have the freedom to choose which groups or causes they associate with and financially support, and whether or not they make that association public knowledge.

In a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court ruled that the City of Philadelphia violated a faithbased non-profit’s free exercise rights when it tried to shut down the organization’s foster care ministry because of its religious beliefs. This is a significant victory for religious freedom.

When the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Our Lady of Guadalupe School, it clarified and broadened the scope of the ministerial exception. This important employment case allows for greater freedom for churches and ministries as they make decisions about who will teach and represent their faith.

In Bostock, the Supreme Court ruled that an employer cannot fire or decline to hire an employee solely because of the employee’s sexual orientation or transgender status. Because the opinion leaves open all questions regarding religious-liberty rights, it is still unclear how this ruling may affect churches and ministries.

In Espinoza, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that religious schools and religious families cannot be discriminated against in state tax credit programs simply because they are religious. This case paves the way for equal treatment for religious people and organizations.

In Little Sisters of the Poor, the Supreme Court ruled that the Departments of Health and Human Services, Labor, and the Treasury had the authority to create exemptions from the Affordable Care Act’s contraceptive-coverage mandate for employers who object on religious or moral grounds. While this ruling was primarily about procedures and rulemaking, the decision’s effect is greater freedom for religious organizations.

In Calvary Chapel Dayton Valley, the Supreme Court declined to provide emergency relief to a Nevada church that the state’s COVID-19 regulations treat worse than similarly-situated secular businesses and protests. The Court’s ruling does not end the church’s case; it simply declined to halt Nevada’s unequal treatment of the church while the case continues in lower federal courts.

In a 6-3 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Carson v. Makin that the state of Maine cannot exclude students who attend religious schools from a government program in which they are otherwise qualified.