— an analysis that this court is in as good a position as the trial court to make, since the question is, fundamentally, one of law. Furthermore, even if the trial court’s characterization of “recognition” as “endorsement” were purely a finding of fact, the trial court simply did not make the kind of finding Judge Mack claims it made. In Judge Bacon’s order upholding Georgetown’s free exercise defense, the judge stated that “[t]he major purpose of ‘university recognition’ is official endorsement, an endorsement which the University believes will conflict with the normative teachings of the Church on homosexuality.” This finding does not specify what kind of moral or ideological position such “recognition” is an “endorsement” of. Moreover, the trial court’s , 6 L.Ed.2d 982 (1961) (<HOLDING>). In contrast, however, regulations requiring
holding that employees retaliatory discharge based on employees election to public office did not violate public policy holding that when a judicial office is created by legislative act or municipal ordinance  the office is regarded as a de facto office until the act or ordinance is declared invalid holding government cannot require declaration of belief in god as condition of holding public office holding that the test for good faith is the actual belief of the party and not the reasonableness of that belief recognizing that a prosecutors office is an entity and that information in the possession of one attorney in the office must be attributed to the office as a whole