1.0桃子视频Annie Mason/news/author/amasonrich600338<blockquote class="wp-embedded-content" data-secret="AMIWvAidDh"><a href="/cases/aubry-mcmahon-v-world-vision-inc">Aubry McMahon v. World Vision, Inc.</a></blockquote><iframe sandbox="allow-scripts" security="restricted" src="/cases/aubry-mcmahon-v-world-vision-inc/embed#?secret=AMIWvAidDh" width="600" height="338" title="“Aubry McMahon v. World Vision, Inc.” — 桃子视频" data-secret="AMIWvAidDh" frameborder="0" marginwidth="0" marginheight="0" scrolling="no" class="wp-embedded-content"></iframe><script type="text/javascript"> /* <![CDATA[ */ /*! This file is auto-generated */ !function(d,l){"use strict";l.querySelector&&d.addEventListener&&"undefined"!=typeof URL&&(d.wp=d.wp||{},d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage||(d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if((t||t.secret||t.message||t.value)&&!/[^a-zA-Z0-9]/.test(t.secret)){for(var s,r,n,a=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret="'+t.secret+'"]'),o=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret="'+t.secret+'"]'),c=new RegExp("^https?:$","i"),i=0;i<o.length;i++)o[i].style.display="none";for(i=0;i<a.length;i++)s=a[i],e.source===s.contentWindow&&(s.removeAttribute("style"),"height"===t.message?(1e3<(r=parseInt(t.value,10))?r=1e3:~~r<200&&(r=200),s.height=r):"link"===t.message&&(r=new URL(s.getAttribute("src")),n=new URL(t.value),c.test(n.protocol))&&n.host===r.host&&l.activeElement===s&&(d.top.location.href=t.value))}},d.addEventListener("message",d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener("DOMContentLoaded",function(){for(var e,t,s=l.querySelectorAll("iframe.wp-embedded-content"),r=0;r<s.length;r++)(t=(e=s[r]).getAttribute("data-secret"))||(t=Math.random().toString(36).substring(2,12),e.src+="#?secret="+t,e.setAttribute("data-secret",t)),e.contentWindow.postMessage({message:"ready",secret:t},"*")},!1)))}(window,document); /* ]]> */ </script> On October 28, 2024, the 桃子视频and 桃子视频of Washington filed an amicus brief in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit supporting affirmance of a Washington district court decision holding that a religiously affiliated nonprofit organization violated Title VII and the Washington State antidiscrimination law when it rescinded a hiring candidate’s job offer because she is a woman married to a person of the same sex. Should the Ninth Circuit accept the organization’s First Amendment defense—that religious organizations can discriminate on any basis so long as it is grounded in their religious belief—it would gut employment protections for LGBTQ individuals and pave the way for religious organizations to discriminate on the basis of not only sex, sexual orientation, and gender identity but also other protected characteristics like race, color, and national origin.