Talk:First Liberty Institute

message: Can you please take a look at these additional entries, and let me know if they are okay to add to this wiki?
:I would advise against adding every case for which we can find some source mentioning the Institute. Usually First Liberty Institute is only mentioned in passing, and there is very little information about the Institute in any of those sources I checked. At least parts of the proposed additions misrepresent the given source, too. Huon (talk) 20:18, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thank you so much for your quick response!! I do have some additional sources. If I can provide more sources, do you think that any of these cases would be eligible to add to the wiki? Thanks again for all of your help! 2601:280:4980:A60:FC20:3D6C:E12B:5F40 (talk) 15:12, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Additional edits 

message: I asked this question previously, but I think that it got missed... I do have some additional sources for the entries I would like to add. If I can provide more sources, do you think that any of these cases would be eligible to add to the wiki? Thanks again for all of your help!2601:280:4980:A60:FC20:3D6C:E12B:5F40 (talk) 17:03, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: That would depend on what those additional sources say about First Liberty Institute. Do they cover the organization itself in some detail, or do they just mention it in passing while discussing the case? What could we write about the organization, based on those sources? Huon (talk) 17:59, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:   The Mt. Soledad article cited above only mentions Liberty Institute as an identification for one of the people who commented on the case. So this article, all by itself, is insufficient to support bringing that case into the First Liberty Institute page. Cases in which the First Liberty Institute is "interested" or even filed an amicus brief would not generally be suitable for adding, in the absence of in-depth media coverage about First Liberty Institute's involvement (in contradistinction with in-depth coverage of the case and its issues). — jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 18:04, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Additional edits 

message: Dear contributors,
I wanted to propose a couple of changes to the page. In full disclosure, I want to let you know that I am an employee of First Liberty Institute, but I intend to abide by Wikipedia’s standards of neutrality.
I'd like to note that I am not the individual who was making requests or edits before; that person had been hired by First Liberty Institute previously but we realized this was not the correct way to approach things. From now on, I'll be the only person here making requests for the firm and will endeavor to abide by all applicable rules.
Proposed Change #1
One issue with the article is that it relies too much on primary sourcing. 
I want to offer some clarification about the organization’s history and provide a secondary source confirming the information. This would replace reference #9 (which is a primary source), with two secondary sources.  
I propose that it be changed to read like this:
Kelly Shackelford originally founded the organization in 1997 under the name Liberty Legal Institute (LLI). At that time, LLI was the legal arm of the Free Market Foundation. 
The organization changed its name to Liberty Institute in 2009 and was then finally renamed First Liberty Institute in 2016. 
Proposed Change #2
On this change, Reference #11 is a primary source. I offered a couple more sources confirming the details on the case of Dr. Eric Walsh.
I propose that it be changed to read:
First Liberty Institute represented Dr. Eric Walsh in a lawsuit against the Georgia Department of Health (DPH). DPH hired Dr. Walsh in 2014 as a district health director. Dr. Walsh was also a lay minister at a Seventh-Day Adventist church, where he frequently gave sermons and religious speeches. One week after his hiring, DPH officials reviewed Dr. Walsh's sermons and subsequently fired Dr. Walsh from his position. In April of 2016, First Liberty filed a lawsuit, claiming that Dr. Walsh had been terminated from his job due to his religious beliefs.     In February of 2017, the state of Georgia agreed to settle the suit for $225,000.  
--
I believe that these changes reflect the information more accurately, based on the available sourcing. Happy to collaborate and edit as needed. Thank you!!
TheLibertyWriter (talk) 17:26, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi. I think your proposals sound good and you are following Wikipedia's policies which is good. I like the fact you have also disclosed your connection - though that does not debar you from editing, I like your honestly and the fact you are trying to do thinks the right way. Kindest regards Lin4671again (talk) 18:52, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Hello Lin4671again. Thanks for your prompt reply. Would you like to make those edits to the article? I want to be as neutral as possible and refrain from editing directly. Let me know if you'd be willing to do that. Thanks! TheLibertyWriter (talk) 19:38, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think that The Stream meets our requirements at WP:RS. That's beside the point that the author of the article works for First Liberty. Doug Weller talk 19:48, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  To Doug Weller's point, here's another source confirming details on Dr. Walsh's case: https://world.wng.org/2017/02/georgia_settles_with_doctor_in_religious_freedom_case. This could replace the source from The Stream. TheLibertyWriter (talk) 20:15, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the input and for the changes made to the article. TheLibertyWriter (talk) 18:36, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed Changes to Address Primary Source Issues 

message: Dear editors,
I hope you're all doing well. Again, I'm disclosing my connection to First Liberty as an employee, but will abide by Wiki standards.
One of the issues with the article is that it contains content that is written like an advertisement. I would like to address that issue and offer some changes. Which section(s) or text in the article do you all think read like an ad? Just want to make sure I target the right parts.
Thanks in advance for your input!
TheLibertyWriter (talk) 18:22, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fixing content that reads like an advertisement 

message: Dear editors,
I wanted to propose a change to the first line of the article. It currently reads:
:First Liberty Institute is a Texas based religious firm which litigates religious liberty issues.
I found a few sources that altogether describe what the organization does. Based on that, I think this would be a clearer statement:
:First Liberty Institute is a nonprofit legal organization based in Plano, Texas, near the Dallas-Fort Worth metro area.
 
 The organization is focused on religious freedom and the First Amendment, representing and providing legal assistance to individuals and groups of various faiths on those issues. 
 
 Because First Liberty handles court litigation and other similar legal matters, it is often referred to as a law firm. 
 
I tried to be as neutral as possible on this. If you notice, I've pulled a variety of sources that span a broad spectrum of what is out there in the media regarding First Liberty. This change also takes out the need for Citation #1, which is a primary source. It would be great if one of you would be willing to make this change. 
Happy to collaborate further and as needed. Thanks!!
TheLibertyWriter (talk) 21:22, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for your contribution.Lin4671again (talk) 13:19, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Changing first line of article and removing primary source 

message: Is there any disagreement that it's on the right? Rolling Stone calls it Christian Right, People for the American Way call in religious right. The SPLC calls it right wing. The Texas Observer notes its anti-LGBQT stand. There's no mention in the text of Jeff Mateer who played an important role, right? But the article mentions Ho, who was only a volunteer, why in the world is that worthy of mention, let alone in the lead, while Mateer and Matthew J. Kacsmaryk (less controversial than Mateer but still with the same prejudices) aren't? How it's described needs to be in the article. Doug Weller talk 13:56, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Doug. I added the details about Ho in the text as he was appointed to a Circuit Court which is just below the Supreme Court and hence significant. The fact that it was added to the 'lead' was merely because it was more appropriate there than adding into the 'prominent cases' subsection or starting a new subsection. I added links to Jeff Mateer and Matthew Kacsmaryk in the 'see also' section as they were just nominated to District Courts as opposed to a Circuit Court like Ho. I have no problem with it being added that it has been described on the 'right' / 'Christian right' etc if that is sourced from neutral, reliable sources (unlike SPLC or PFAW). As for their views on LGBT issues, that should also be added. Absolutely. Lin4671again (talk) 14:38, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Doug Weller talk. I've made changes to the article in light of your comments. Are you happy for the NPOV tag to now be removed or, if not, what else needs to be changed?  Lin4671again (talk) 15:18, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: For myself, I think your additions are inadequate, Lin4671again. You're picking out only People For the American Way, as if that's the only source for calling FLI 'something-right', and you're creating a separate criticism ghetto section, which should preferably be avoided, compare WP:NOCRIT. IMO, there needs to be something in the lead section before the POV tag is removed. I'll see if I can craft something. (Your Criticism sentence is grammatically incoherent, btw, Lin4671again.) Bishonen | talk 15:52, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: The SPLC is a reliable source for its opinion, which should be attributed. We use it in probably hundreds of articles. I have no idea what you mean by "neutral" - someone who doesn't care if an organisation hates gays or loves them? With an organisation that is clearly political such as this one, no one is likely to be neutral. We use non-neutral sources all the time. Doug Weller talk 17:14, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: 'Neutral' means a source that is not commenting about a group it opposes. Regards Lin4671again (talk) 19:35, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: You think 'neutral' means that? I can't believe you mean to say a source that is commenting about a group it supports is neutral, but it sounds a bit like it. Please clarify. Bishonen | talk 19:50, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV - removal of any indication that FLI is on the right & its LGBT stance 

message: There's nothing in the article about its funding. It relies on donations and fees, clearly, and received about $8 million from Contributions, Gifts & Grants in I think 2015. Here's an earlier IRS report which I'm not suggesting we use, just to back up the other link.There's also this Trump administration payment but that's less than $300,000. Doug Weller talk 17:24, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe it provides pro bono services so I doubt that fees would amount to much, if anything. Lin4671again (talk) 19:37, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: It also charges. The example I gave was a case where it kept the money while others didn't. But I suspect it has large donations, but haven't been able to find a source. Doug Weller talk 20:04, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Funding 

message: I've removed the bit about the Free Market Foundation in the lead section because it's quite confusing. Wikipedia's article Free Market Foundation is about a different organization, a classical liberal think tank in Johannesburg, South Africa, founded in 1975. What I can find on Google looks like the American, right-wing, Free Market Foundation, founded in 1972, was merged with the Liberty Legal Institute around 2009. If the American Free Market Foundation needs to appear in the lead (I don't quite see why, though), it has to be described more, and distinguished from the South African Free Market Foundation that we have an article about. Bishonen | talk 15:52, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Free Market Foundation

message: Hello editors,
I wanted to reach out and propose another case to be included in the Prominent Cases section. This one is the Bladensburg WWI Veterans Memorial, which has also received solid media attention. 
Below is a paragraph that captures the case briefly and neutrally. Let me know if one of you would be open to adding this into the article. 
Thanks!
--     --     -- 
First Liberty Institute represents the American Legion in a lawsuit brought by the American Humanist Association, who argues that the cross-shaped veterans memorial in Bladesnburg, MD violates the U.S. Constitution. In 2017, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit declared the memorial unconstitutional.  First Liberty appealed the panel's decision.  In March 2018, the Fourth Circuit decided it would not rehear the case before a full panel of judges, upholding the panel's prior ruling requiring the memorial to be removed or altered.  
TheLibertyWriter (talk) 20:06, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know. I frankly think the section is in danger of becoming overly detailed, which isn't exactly making it more interesting (IMO), or making the article more balanced. The section is supposed to contain the most prominent cases, not everything as it happens. "The veterans memorial cross cases" are already mentioned, generally and in the plural. All the references for that are pretty old. How about just adding a clause about the Bladensburg memorial to the mention of the memorial cross cases, with one of the new references? (I'd suggest referring to the neutral Washington Post report, rather than the opinion piece from the Washington Examiner, tellingly entitled "Wide-reaching lawsuit aims to strip our religious heritage".) The whole sentence would have to be reshaped, obviously. Perhaps you'd like to try to craft an edit on those lines, TheLibertyWriter? Bishonen | talk 21:37, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Bishonen, thanks for your input. Would something like this work?: "...the veterans memorial cross cases, including the Bladensburg WWI Veterans Memorial   and several other cross-shaped memorials that have been challenged by the Freedom From Religion Foundation, the ACLU, and the American Humanist Association;" TheLibertyWriter (talk) 18:36, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Bishonen, just wanted to touch base with you on the above recommendation I made to insert the one-liner on the Bladensburg WWI Vet. Memorial case. Let me know your thoughts. TheLibertyWriter (talk) 16:22, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  Drmies or Lin4671again, would you be able to add the one liner statement on the Bladensburg WWI Veterans Memorial case? The line would be the following:  ...the veterans memorial cross cases, including the Bladensburg WWI Veterans Memorial   and several other cross-shaped memorials that have been challenged by the Freedom From Religion Foundation, the ACLU, and the American Humanist Association;  Thanks!! TheLibertyWriter (talk) 14:51, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  Drmies, thanks for the insertion. TheLibertyWriter (talk) 14:55, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Adding Bladensburg WWI Veterans Memorial Case to Prominent Cases section 

message: Dear Editors,
As always, thanks for your input and helping to improve the article. I wanted to propose inserting the First Liberty Institute logo into the article, potentially on the right-side within the organization's infobox. The following organizations, who operate in the same sphere as First Liberty, have their respective logos displayed in the article in that fashion: Alliance Defending Freedom, Liberty Counsel, Becket Fund for Religious Liberty. You can find the First Liberty logo here: https://firstliberty.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/First-Liberty-Logo.jpg . Would one of you be willing to make this insertion? Thanks in advance. TheLibertyWriter (talk) 21:09, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  Hi Drmies, would you be kind enough to upload the logo? I appreciate it. TheLibertyWriter (talk) 21:13, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: TheLibertyWriter, no, you upload it. I don't have it... I said I'll stick it in there after you upload--that I can do for you. Drmies (talk) 03:21, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  Hi Drmies, sorry about the confusion there on the logo. I've uploaded it to the Wikipedia Commons. Here is the URL: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:First_Liberty_Institute.jpg , Thanks again!  — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheLibertyWriter (talk • contribs) 14:37, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  Hi Drmies, just wanted to follow up with you on the logo and see if you will have a chance to add it to the article. Let me know if you need a different file or size.  Thank you. TheLibertyWriter (talk) 19:49, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  First Liberty Logo 

message: Dear Editors, 
Looks like it's been a little while since some changes were made to the article. 
I wanted to propose an update to the content, especially now that the firm is set to go before the U.S. Supreme Court to present oral arguments on the Bladensburg WWI Veterans Memorial case. In my opinion, I think that right now the article slightly obscures the Bladensburg WWI Veterans Memorial case, which is indeed a matter of national attention as it is set to be argued before the Supreme Court. 
That being said, here's what I propose:
In the second paragraph under "Prominent Cases," you will find the last sentence that currently reads:
: The veterans memorial cross cases, including the Bladensburg WWI Veterans Memorial, have been challenged by the Freedom From Religion Foundation, the ACLU, and the American Humanist Association.[19]
I propose that it be separated from the 2nd paragraph, and have a new paragraph immediately thereafter rewritten to read something like this:
: First Liberty Institute is also known to litigate veterans memorial cross cases. Among these cases is the Bladensburg WWI Veterans Memorial case, which has been litigation since 2014 after the American Humanist Association sued to remove the memorial claiming it was in violation of the U.S. Constitution. In November 2018, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear the case and oral arguments are set for February 27, 2019. In previous years, the Freedom From Religion Foundation, the ACLU, and the American Humanist Association have challenged other similar veterans memorial cross cases. 
Just want to run this suggestion openly before any formal changes are made. Thoughts? Birtig ; Drmies ; Bishonen ; Lin4671again
Major news outlets have given extensive coverage to this case, which is why I think that it is helpful to have it stand out more in the article. Here are some sources that support the above information. TheLibertyWriter (talk) 22:56, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  The official site of the U.S. Supreme Court. Here is where you will find the set oral argument date for the case.
*, I hope you don't mind that I noted, on this talk page, the COI you disclosed on your userpage. Drmies (talk) 00:31, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  Per the comment above, the edits have been made on the article. Thank you. TheLibertyWriter (talk) 21:02, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Changing one paragraph on Prominent Cases section 

message: Hi editors Birtig ; Drmies ; Bishonen ; Lin4671again. I have a proposition for keeping the First Liberty Institute article reasonably up to date yet concise. If I am understanding some of the previous conversations correctly, I have the impression that you prefer to avoid small changes here and there. I respect that and understand that with the nature of our work, that could get overly detailed. I also understand that Wikipedia is not meant to be an exhaustive resource.  But, I think that to give the reader an accurate overview of the organization’s work, this should include new developments. Otherwise, without some maintenance, the article will become outdated. As our organization has ongoing cases in the courts, there will continue to be updates to make as the cases progress and as First Liberty grows. But I think that this can be done in a simplified manner.
So, I have a twofold proposal.
Part 1: Going forward, the content on the article (especially in Prominent Cases) should describe the cases more concisely. I’d suggest starting by cleaning up the section, likely with a list of some of the high-profile cases the organization has been a part of. 
Part 2: For simplicity for us and you, I am proposing that every 3 months, I’ll thoroughly review the article and suggest any highly publicized updates that have unfolded, especially on the Supreme Court cases we litigate.
In looking over the Wikipedia pages of organizations similar to our own, I think these are substantiated suggestions. An organization similar to First Liberty Institute is Becket Fund for Religious Liberty.  Each of our organizations provides pro bono legal counsel for First Amendment infractions for all religions and both were founded within a few years of each other.  Becket’s article has a cleaner format and they list the title of the Supreme Court cases they have been involved with, the court ruling and a clause giving an overview of the case.  Formatting our content this way would help alleviate your concern about too many details and excessive updating.
Please let me know what you think and if any of you have a different proposition. I want to work smoothly with you and am open to discussion.  Thank you! TheLibertyWriter (talk) 21:50, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page Maintenance Proposition 

message: An editor has removed the category Category:Civil liberties advocacy groups in the United States from this group - I reverted and have been reverted back. My point is that even if you don't like the consequences of them advocating for religious liberty - such as it means they take positions that contradict those who advocate in favour of LGBT rights - there is no doubt that religious liberty is a civil liberty and, therefore, First Liberty Institute is a civil liberty advocacy group. Birtig (talk) 09:05, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Nobody's disputing that religious liberty is a civil liberty. What's under dispute is whether they advocate for "religious liberty" or just use that as an excuse to push an agenda. Do reliable sources generally describe them as a "civil rights advocacy group" or is that a self designation? Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:08, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: So you accept that First Liberty is an advocacy group, and you also accept that religious liberty is a civil right, but you don't think that First Liberty is a civil rights advocacy group because you believe that their advocacy of religious liberty issues is just a front for its true agenda? Birtig (talk) 16:24, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I play games. Monopoly is a game. I do not play monopoly. They are an advocacy group. Religious liberty is a civil right. They are not a religious liberty advocacy group.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:30, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Not exactly deductive logic, but this is: First Liberty Institute is an advocacy group - Every single case that First Liberty takes up concerns religious liberty - ergo, First Liberty Institute is a religious liberty advocacy group. Birtig (talk) 18:11, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  civil liberties advocacy group 

message: Hi editors Birtig ; MB ; 1990'sguy ; Volunteer Marek,
I wanted to help shorten the copy on the Prominent Cases section by doing the following:
The paragraph regarding Eric Walsh's case would be amended to read like this:
:: First Liberty Institute represented Dr. Eric Walsh in a lawsuit against the Georgia Department of Public Health (DPH) which had hired Dr. Walsh in 2014 as a District Health Director. Dr. Walsh also served as an associate pastor for his church. One week after his hiring, DPH officials reviewed Dr. Walsh's sermons and subsequently fired Dr. Walsh from his position.  In April 2016, First Liberty filed a lawsuit claiming that Dr. Walsh had been terminated from his job due to his religious beliefs.  In February 2017, the state of Georgia agreed to settle the suit for $225,000. 
The paragraph regarding the Candy Cane Case would be amended to read like this:
::The "Candy Cane Case" began in 2004 after a student in Plano, Texas was prohibited by school officials from distributing candy canes with a religious story attached at his school's Christmas party.  In 2011, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit found that First Amendment rights were violated, however two school principals were granted immunity. The case was appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, which declined to hear the case. 
The paragraph regarding the U.S. Department of Veteran Affairs would be amended to read like this:
::In 2011, First Liberty Institute filed a lawsuit against the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs alleging that the department had censored a pastor’s prayer at a Memorial Day ceremony.  The case was settled after mediation by former Texas Supreme Court Chief Justice Thomas R. Phillips. Under the settlement, the VA agreed not to interfere with prayers, recitations, or words of religious expression. 
I hope that these edits help to make the article more concise and to the point. Would one of you be willing to please make these edits? Or you can just let me know and I can make the edits directly. Thanks.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by TheLibertyWriter (talk • contribs) 20:55, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shortening the copy on the Prominent Cases section 

message: Dear article editors, Birtig ; Drmies ; Bishonen ; Lin4671again ; MB ; 1990'sguy ; Volunteer Marek
I wanted to reach out and add a line about a recent update. Last year in June, our firm brought a close to one of our cases at the United States Supreme Court. In the Prominent Cases section, we think that it would be worth rewriting these sentences: “In February 2019, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral argument on this case. In previous years, the Freedom From Religion Foundation, the ACLU, and the American Humanist Association have challenged other similar veterans memorial cross cases.”
Proposed new sentence would read as follows: “In June 2019, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in The American Legion v The American Humanist Association upholding the cross memorial, citing that it did not violate the Establishment Clause.” 
We think this would help make this paragraph more succinct.
Here are a few sources that confirm this update:
https://www.cnn.com/2019/06/20/politics/supreme-court-maryland-world-war-i-memorial-cross/index.html
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/20/us/politics/maryland-peace-cross-supreme-court.html
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/supreme-court-says-maryland-peace-cross-honoring-military-dead-does-not-constitute-government-endorsement-of-religion/2019/06/20/a63c4c24-9365-11e9-b570-6416efdc0803_story.html
https://www.oyez.org/cases/2018/17-1717
TheLibertyWriter (talk) 20:15, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for letting us know about this! I updated it as requested. I agree that the second sentence is unrelated to First Liberty Institute (as least directly) and probably violates WP:COATRACK, but I won't immediately delete it out of caution. --1990'sguy (talk) 20:25, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks 1990'sguy for making that update. We appreciate it and really helps keep the page up to date. TheLibertyWriter (talk) 20:32, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Update to Prominent Section - Bladensburg Memorial Case 

message: Hello article editors, Birtig ; Drmies ; Bishonen ; Lin4671again ; MB ; 1990'sguy ; Volunteer Marek
I just wanted to ask if we could make a further update to the paragraph about the Coach Kennedy case listed in the ‘Prominent Cases’ section of the page. The proposed change is just the latest update in this case. This change would add a sentence after this one: “The Supreme Court declined to hear the case in January 2019.” 
Proposed sentence to follow would read: “As of March 2020, First Liberty will appeal the case to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals after a federal district court ruled against Coach Kennedy.” 
Here are a few sources that confirm this update:
https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/praying-coach-joe-kennedys-lawsuit-against-bremerton-school-district-thrown-out/
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2020/mar/6/joe-kennedy-washington-football-coach-loses-again-/
TheLibertyWriter (talk) 21:08, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Update to Prominent Section - Coach Joe Kennedy Case 

message: Hello all, 
I wanted to suggest an edit to the opening section. There's a line that reads: "The group has taken stances against LGBT rights." I propose deleting this line altogether.
One of the sources for this line is the Southern Poverty Law Center, which isn't a secondary news source. The SPLC offers their opinion and viewpoint about First Liberty. But that's not unbiased reporting and it should not be the basis of designating FLI as an anti-LGBT organization. The other source is an article from the Austin Chronicle, titled "Paxton Stacks AG’s Office With Anti-LGBT Culture Warriors." This source is also skewed and slanted toward one side of the ideological spectrum. It reads more like an op-ed opinion piece than straightforward journalism or reporting. Again, I don't think this is a credible source to warrant putting that controversial line in the opening section. 
I strongly suggest removing that line. 
Input? Birtig ; Drmies ; Bishonen ; Lin4671again ; MB ; 1990'sguy ; Volunteer Marek; PaleoNeonate 
Thank you. TheLibertyWriter (talk) 15:10, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Change to: The group has taken stances against LGBT rights.