You are probably expecting one of our Weekly Update videos, looking forward to hear what John, Jere, and Sharon have to say about the events of the week, however we do not have a video for you today. John is at a conference this week, and AnnaScott (who runs everything from behind the camera) is on vacation. On top of this, the General Assembly had only pro forma sessions and did not take any substantive action on items this week.
If you are still curious about what has happened this week, you can check out the articles below!
If you remember from a couple of weeks ago, Governor Cooper vetoed three critical pro-family bills. The bills were returned to the General Assembly for override votes, but it is uncertain when these votes will take place. Check out last week’s Weekly Update for our full explanation of why it’s taking so long to do the override votes. You can learn more about Governor Cooper’s vetoes here.
Earlier this week, WRAL released a report on how the efforts to legalize casino gambling in North Carolina have progressed. Casinos are particularly harmful because they are specifically and strategically designed to exploit people and entice them to gamble for as long as possible. Moreover, decades of research clearly shows that the more forms of gambling that are legalized and advertised, the more citizens will gamble. Of those who do, a significant percentage will develop pathological or problem gambling issues. Gambling addiction manifests itself in increases in crime, domestic violence, child abuse, divorce, job loss, personal bankruptcy, substance abuse, and even suicide. These harms not only impact the gamblers themselves, but also their families, friends, employers, and community. Learn more about casino gambling and what you can do to help prevent it here.
At the end of June, the Supreme Court of the United States handed down two decisions that were major wins for religious liberty. 303 Creative v. Elenis got much of the attention, where it was decided that Lorie Smith should not be compelled to design websites communicating messages that she disagrees with on the basis of her religion. There was a second case, however, that was equally significant despite not receiving the same level of media attention. In the case of Groff v. DeJoy, the Court ruled that accommodating employees’ schedules to allow them to participate in religious activities does not place “undue hardship” on employers. Learn more about Groff v. DeJoy.