By Evan Garcia and Brad Brooks

LLANO, Texas (Reuters) – A rural Texas county’s public libraries will remain open while a court battle continues over whether local officials can remove books deemed inappropriate, commissioners decided on Thursday.

The Llano County commissioners in central Texas held a special meeting to consider closing the three public library branches after a federal judge’s ruling to return banned books to shelves and not censor any more.

Llano County – with a population of about 22,000 located about 60 miles northwest of Austin – is the latest flashpoint in a battle over books in libraries across the U.S.

The four commissioners and judge of the Llano County commissioners court, as the governing body is known, heard from 15 members of the public during a tense meeting before going into executive session. Most who spoke wanted the libraries to remain open.

“Does Llano, Texas, want to be known as the town that closed the public library?” resident Lee Nelms asked. “That would be the death knell for a vibrant community.”

But others said they wanted the libraries shut until books they labeled “pornographic” were out. They read aloud explicit sex scenes from books.

County Judge Ron Cunningham, the top elected official in the county, announced after the executive session that the libraries would remain open and said “we will try this in the courts, not through social media or through news media”.

He said the books had been returned to the shelves, but did not say when.

Among the books removed, according to the lawsuit, were “Caste: The Origins of our Discontent” by Pulitzer Prize-winning author Isabel Wilkerson and “They Called Themselves the K.K.K.: The Birth of an American Terrorist Group” by Susan Campbell Bartoletti.

Over 1,600 titles, mostly addressing racism and LGBTQ issues, have been removed from libraries in 32 states in the past year, according to the writers’ organization PEN America.

No state bans more books than Texas, according to PEN America.

“Public libraries are not meant to serve particular ideological factions,” said Kasey Meehan, who directs the “Freedom to Read” project of PEN America. “They are meant to serve the community.”

Some Llano County citizens in 2021 began requesting the removal of books that were included on a Texas Republican lawmaker’s list of titles that should be banned.

The library board resisted and in 2022 it was dissolved by county commissioners. Commissioners then “packed the new library board with political appointees,” according to the lawsuit.

Judge Robert Pitman of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas on March 30 issued a preliminary injunction ordering Llano County to return to library shelves “all print books that were removed because of their viewpoint or content.” He also ordered no more books be removed.

(Reporting by Evan Garcia in Llano, Texas, and Brad Brooks in Lubbock, Texas; editing by Donna Bryson and Sonali Paul)

By Andrew Chung

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – An evangelical Christian former mail carrier’s fight with the U.S. Postal Service over his refusal to work on Sundays gives the Supreme Court another chance to widen religious rights but also has led to a debate over whether religious people are more legally deserving than others to weekend days off from work.

The justices are set to hear arguments on Tuesday in an appeal by Gerald Groff, a former mail carrier in Pennsylvania, of a lower court’s ruling rejecting his claim of religious discrimination against the Postal Service for refusing to exempt him from working on Sundays, when he observes the Christian Sabbath. Groff sued after being disciplined for repeatedly failing to show up when assigned a Sunday work shift.

The court, with its 6-3 conservative majority, has a track record of expanding religious rights in recent years, often siding with Christian plaintiffs. A ruling favoring Groff could make it harder for businesses to deny a variety of religious accommodations to employees.

“The whole point of religious accommodation is you have to make special or favored arrangements in order to have an inclusive workforce,” said Alan Reinach, one of Groff’s attorneys.

Boston University School of Law employment law expert Michael Harper said that a ruling favoring Groff could “give a preference to the religious because they get to stay home on their Sabbath or their day of rest” that would be denied to nonreligious people.

Harper added, “Whenever you depart from neutral standards it creates the potential for greater friction in the workplace.”

Unions representing postal workers urged the Supreme Court to carefully consider the issue of hardship that religious accommodations for some employees could have on co-workers.

“A day off is not the special privilege of the religious. Days off, especially on the weekend, are when parents can spend the day with children who are otherwise in school, when people can spend time on the other necessities of life, when the community enjoys a common day of rest for churchgoers and the nonreligious alike,” the American Postal Workers Union said in a brief.

Groff’s case centers on a federal anti-discrimination law called Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits employment discrimination based on religion and other factors including race, sex and national origin.

Under Title VII, employers must make allowances for a worker’s religious observance or practices unless that would cause the business “undue hardship” – which the Supreme Court in a 1977 case called Trans World Airlines v. Hardison determined to be anything imposing more than a minor, or “de minimis,” cost.

Groff’s attorneys have asked the Supreme Court to overturn the Hardison precedent and require companies to show a “significant difficulty or expense” before denying an accommodation.

Groups representing some religions that are in the minority in the United States including Islam, Judaism and Hinduism told the Supreme Court that the Hardison standard has disproportionately impacted them and should be revised.

“By allowing employers to refuse to accommodate employees’ beliefs for almost any reason, Hardison forces devout employees to an impossible daily choice between religious duty and livelihood,” the Muslim Public Affairs Council wrote in a brief.

Representing the Postal Service, President Joe Biden’s administration told the justices there is no need to reverse Hardison because the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the agency that enforces Title VII, and many lower courts already have interpreted that ruling to provide substantial protection for religious employees.

James Phillips, a law professor at Chapman University in California, said a “strong majority” or even all the justices could side with Groff.

“This may be one of those religious liberty cases where the right and the left are actually aligned,” Phillips said.

SUNDAY DELIVERIES

Groff worked as a “rural carrier associate” in the towns of Quarryville and Holtwood in Pennsylvania’s Lancaster County, a job that required him to fill in as needed for absent career carriers, including on weekends. The Postal Service in 2013, in a bid to remain profitable, contracted with Amazon.com to deliver packages, including on Sundays.

Groff failed to report for assigned Sunday shifts. Postal officials sought to accommodate Groff by attempting to facilitate shift swaps, but were not always successful. His absences caused tension among other carriers who had to cover his shifts, the Postal Service said. Groff received several disciplinary letters and resigned in 2019.

“I hope the Supreme Court reaffirms our nation’s commitment to providing equal opportunity and fair treatment in the workplace,” Groff said in a statement provided by his lawyers.

University of Miami School of Law professor Caroline Mala Corbin, who specializes in law and religion, said that while the case could help minorities fully participate in the workforce, it also could tee up clashes between religious and secular values or LGBT rights.

For instance, Corbin said, a conservative Christian employee might have a better chance seeking a religious accommodation to refuse to use a transgender co-worker’s preferred pronoun.

“My worry is that the Supreme Court will use this case as an opportunity to cement its privileging of religion over equally important, competing interests – especially to the detriment of vulnerable groups,” Corbin said.

A ruling is due by the end of June.

(Reporting by Andrew Chung; Editing by Will Dunham)

Britney Spears’ highly anticipated memoir is set to release this coming fall, RadarOnline.com has learned.

In a sudden development to come roughly one year after it was announced the 41-year-old Princess of Pop signed a $15 million book deal with publisher Simon & Shuster, sources close to Spears revealed the final manuscript of the yet-unnamed memoir is officially finished.

Publishing insiders also revealed the superstar’s book is expected to be “groundbreaking” and an “instant best-seller.”

“Britney’s book is a story of triumph,” one publishing source told Page Six this week. “It will cover her most vulnerable moments, her childhood – being a little girl with big dreams – her breakup with Justin Timberlake, the moment she shaved her head, and her battle with her family over her conservatorship.”

“It is also a story of survival,” the insider continued, “finding her way out of the crippling conservatorship to finding happiness with her husband Sam Asghari.”

As RadarOnline.com previously reported, it was first announced Spears had signed with publishing powerhouse Simon & Shuster in February 2022.

The singer’s landmark book deal for $15 million reportedly marked one of the biggest book deals of all time behind that of Barack and Michelle Obama and Prince Harry.

Page Six also confirmed that Spears worked with ghostwriter Sam Lansky to compose the still-unnamed memoir.

Lansky, an acclaimed novelist and journalist who has written for Time, the Atlantic, and New York Magazine, has previously profiled stars in the music industry such as Adele, Nicki Minaj, and Madonna.

“Britney’s book is brutally honest and from the heart. No stone is left unturned,” another source said. “It’s truly a female empowerment story – her taking control of her life.”

“This book is a gift,” echoed another insider. “There are parts of this book that every person—particularly every woman—can relate to and feel less alone.”

“This book will…shake the world,” said another source familiar with the singer’s finished manuscript. “I believe that it will also be a groundbreaking instant bestseller.”

Never miss a story — sign up for the RadarOnline.com newsletter to get your daily dose of dope. Daily. Breaking. Celebrity news. All free.

Spears herself recently announced on Instagram that she has “written 3 different versions of [her] book” and had “LOTS of therapy through the process.”

The memoir is scheduled to hit bookshelves sometime around Thanksgiving and before the end-of-year holidays.

Donald Trump Jr. spoke out against the ongoing conservative boycott of Bud Light over their pro-LGBTQ+ ad campaign, RadarOnline.com has learned.

The beer company has been facing an onslaught of protests from right-wing mouthpieces and celebrities such as Fox News’s Tucker Carlson and country rapper Kid Rock since the brand’s partnership with Dylan Mulvaney was announced.

Trump Jr posted a video on his Rumble account touting the brewery’s “conservative credentials,” saying it was wrong to “blame the whole company for the inaction or the stupidity of someone in a marketing campaign that got woke as hell.”

He claimed to have researched Anheuser-Busch, Bud Light’s parent company, and found they mainly donated to Republicans, before pointing out that his fellow conservatives sometimes had “the tendency of — shooting first and aiming second.”

The 45-year-old claimed that a low-level marketing employee made the decision to partner with Mulvaney rather than the senior executives.

“Last cycle, their employees and their PAC gave about 60 percent to Republicans and 40 percent to Democrats,” Trump Jr. told his 1.1 million followers. “That’s literally almost unheard of in corporate America, where it’s really easy to go woke, where they do so constantly, where there’s a consequence to actually being a conservative. So 60 / 40 to the conservative side is kind of a big deal.’

The former president’s son said he also respected the St. Louis-based beer company’s corporate approach.

“On the lobbying front, we looked into the bills that Anheuser-Busch was working on,” he continued. “You know what they’re focused on, guys? They’ve focused on taxes and trade things that actually impact their business.”

The far-right has spoken out against the trans community in recent years, with elected officials such as Georgia Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene referring to the growing number of people identifying as transgender as “apocalyptic.”

Donald Trump recently spoke at the National Rifle Association, where he said, if re-elected, he would direct the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to study the effects of gender-affirming healthcare and “trans ideology” on mental health.

Never miss a story — sign up for the RadarOnline.com newsletter to get your daily dose of dope. Daily. Breaking. Celebrity news. All free.

Stephen Colbert is taking a stand against celebrities expressing their hateful opinions on the transgender community.

Earlier this month, Kid Rock shared a video of himself shooting a case of Bud Light after the brand announced transgender TikTok star Dylan Mulvaney as their new ambassador, so on the Tuesday, April 11, episode of the comedian’s late night show, he took the opportunity to ridicule the outspoken Republican and those like him.

After calling Florida State Representative Webster Barnaby a “d******” for referring to transgender individuals as “mutants,” the series aired a mock commercial promoting a fake beer meant just for straight men.

“Are you tired of woke beer that blurs gender lines? Wanna drink the beer that you were assigned at birth? Then reach for Shaft Beer: the only brew that comes in a can shaped like a p****,” the voiceover quipped.

The fake ad then called out Kid Rock by promoting a smaller version of the sip.

“If you want less beer, try Shaft Light,” the clip stated. “It’s the same beer, but in a can the size of Kid Rock’s p****.”

Colbert isn’t the only one slamming the “Cowboy” crooner for his behavior, as Howard Stern ripped him apart during the Monday, April 10, episode of his radio show.

“I wish I could call Kid Rock and have him come on the show and just tell me, ‘Why are you so upset about this? How is it hurtful?’ I don’t know why he got so upset,” the famous disc jockey spilled. “Kid Rock, I know him. He’s got a great life. He transitioned from some kid in Michigan to a rock superstar! I’m really dumbfounded by why someone would care so much that they would blow up a can of Bud Light and say, ‘F*** Anheuser-Busch.’ I don’t get it.”

Never miss a story — sign up for the OK! newsletter to stay up-to-date on the best of what OK! has to offer. It’s gossip too good to wait for!

Rosie O’Donnell, who came out in 2002, also slammed the singer for his hateful social media post.

“Kid Rock had to take an assault weapon and shoot the boxes of beer, proving what?” the actress questioned on the Tuesday, April 11, episode of her podcast. “Gay people, trans people, we drink beer too. Put down your gun, Kid Rock, it’s in bad taste. Especially after what happened at the school in Nashville.”

KAMPALA (Reuters) – When Frank Mugisha came out two decades ago, being gay in Uganda could be lonely and uncomfortable, but it was rarely a matter of life and death.

Since then, as Mugisha has emerged as the country’s most prominent LGBTQ rights activist, the perils have multiplied. In 2011, his friend and colleague David Kato was bludgeoned to death. Mugisha regularly receives death threats.

Politicians and religious organisations have fanned anti-gay sentiment and lobbied for harsh legislation, culminating in parliament’s passage last month of a bill that would criminalise even identifying as LGBTQ.

“The Ugandan population has been radicalised to fear and hate homosexuals,” Mugisha, 38, told Reuters during an interview outside the capital, Kampala.

“If I was seven, nine, twelve, fourteen, I don’t think I would tell anyone I am gay right now,” he said.

And yet, Mugisha says he will not give an inch in the face of the new bill, which is awaiting President Yoweri Museveni’s signature.

The bill passed with near unanimous support in parliament. If Museveni signs it – as he is widely expected to – Mugisha’s work could land him in jail under a provision that punishes the “promotion” of homosexuality with up to 20 years in prison.

But Mugisha said he feels an obligation to fight back on behalf of LGBTQ Ugandans, many of whom have left the country or fled their homes for safe houses since the bill was passed.

“I guess I am going to be in trouble a lot because I am not going to stop,” Mugisha said.

The bill also imposes the death penalty for so-called aggravated homosexuality, which includes having gay sex while HIV-positive.

COMING OUT

A practising Catholic typically seen in a blue suit and white shirt, Mugisha had what he calls a normal childhood, going to school and playing soccer in his Kampala neighbourhood.

He realised he was gay as early as the age of seven but did not start to come out until he was 14. His parents turned to prayer and traditional healers before landing somewhere between denial and acceptance, he said.

Mugisha said he encountered no overt hostility from friends about his sexuality, although some kept their distance for fear they would be suspected of being gay themselves.

In 2007, Mugisha took over leadership of Sexual Minorities Uganda (SMUG), an advocacy group he had earlier joined as an activist.

In the following years, he saw a hardening of anti-LGBTQ views, which he attributes to campaigning by ultra-conservative Christian groups, some from the United States.

“Homophobia and this whole anti-gay sentiment are Western. They are not Ugandan,” he said.

Same-sex relations were first criminalised in Uganda under British colonial rule. Mugisha said historically Ugandans “frowned” upon homosexuality but did not want to harm gay people.

Ugandan officials, by contrast, often say LGBTQ rights are a Western imposition.

Mugisha’s friend Kato was killed in 2011 months after a local newspaper printed the names, photographs and addresses of him and others in the LGBTQ community and called for them to be hanged.

The police said the murder was unconnected to his sexual identity, but Mugisha is certain that it was.

He considered leaving Uganda then, but he stayed and led the campaign against a law enacted in 2014 that stiffened penalties for same-sex relations.

That law was ultimately voided by the courts on procedural grounds and Mugisha is hoping for a similar outcome this time.

“Many people are going to … challenge this law,” he said. “Looking at this legislation, I do not think it will survive.”

(Editing by Aaron Ross and Nick Macfie)