Do churches have the right to discriminate?

Leslie Fenton has a timely article in Salon that looks at the issue described in the caption of this post. To me the answer is simple: No churches do not have the right to discriminate if they are taking public funds. And the same holds true if they are acting as a quasi agency of the state - e.g., providing adoption and foster care services. Unfortunately, the Roman Catholic Church and its agencies believe that they are entitled to special rights and privileges in the form of receiving millions dollars in public funds while retaining the right to indulge in religious based bigotry against taxpayers who are the source of some of the funds the Church is sucking up out of the public trough. This is really what the recently filed lawsuit in Illinois is all about. It's about special rights - what the opponents of LGBT equality accuse gays of wanting when in fact it is they, not LGBT citizens who are seeking special rights. It is far past time that the courts say no to this in a resounding manner. Here are highlights from Salon:
*
Imagine this scenario: As a part of its efforts to fight hunger, the State of Illinois gives out a number of grant contracts to private agencies that run food bank programs. One of these grants goes to the Catholic Church's social services arm, Catholic Charities, which runs a number of food bank programs in several Illinois cities. Soon, state investigators discover that Catholic Charities has imposed a severe condition on its food bank program: They will not distribute the food to hungry families unless the recipients sign an affidavit stating that none of the family members are gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgender. Illinois then terminates its grant to Catholic Charities. The group immediately files suit claiming religious discrimination, and conservative legislators repeatedly introduce new legislation in an attempt to exempt all religious organizations from having to follow the state's human rights laws even when they are using state money to fund their programs.
*
Outrageous, you're thinking. . . . . Think again. In the State of Illinois, a real battle is underway between Catholic Charities and the state's human rights laws. Specifically, Catholic Charities has suspended its publicly funded adoption and foster care services because they anticipate state sanctions if they were to continue refusing to serve LGBT families. They have now filed a lawsuit seeking an injunction against the state from enforcing the Illinois Religious Freedom Protection and Civil Unions Act. . .
*
In many cities around the country, adoption and foster care services are farmed out to private agencies, many of them religious, through lucrative state contracts. Adoption and foster care have long been big business for the Catholic Church, and up until the last few years they have always been happy to benefit from public dollars. But now that states have begun to recognize LGBT families as part of the public, as members of the community who deserve equal treatment, those state dollars come with a catch. Publicly funded programs can't deny services to members of the public whose rights are protected by anti-discrimination laws.
*
[T]he Church still wants to have its cake and eat it too, and isn't willing to give up on those state contracts so easily. In Illinois, they're fighting on both the judicial and legislative fronts. In addition to the civil lawsuit seeking an injunction, they've also been pushing hard on friendly legislators to amend the civil union law to exempt religious organizations from having to comply. So far, the legislative efforts have failed several times in committee. The lawsuit should also be a no-brainer.
*
Their complaint also glosses over the very real problem that many anti-gay religious groups have when attempting to use state funds to enrich their own programs: Cherry picking. Not only does Catholic Charities want to cherry pick between the members of the public who benefit from public funds, but they want to do so in a way that would not be legally permissible for a public agency. Further, the Church cherry picks through its own religious values.
*
Finally, no one is forcing Catholic Charities to take public money. They can continue to run private adoption services in as discriminatory a fashion as they like, using the Church's own private funds.
*
By refusing to serve LGBT families, Catholic Charities appropriates a huge quantity of state resources and reserves them exclusively for straight members of the public. Now that the state has recognized that this is illegal discrimination, it's time for them to either start serving the entire public or to give up the public funds.

Catholic Charities Sues Illinois Over Non-Discrimination Rules

The Roman Catholic Church is once again demanding special rights which would allow its Catholic Charities organizations to continue to suck up millions of dollars in taxpayer funds yet indulge itself in discriminating against members of the public it prefers to persecute and stigmatize - gays, of course, being the principal target. As I have argued many times, religious groups are free to engage in their religious based bigotry as long as they stay within their own separately funded organizations. However, once they put their hand out for taxpayer funds, the rules change. If Catholic Charities refuses to abide by Illinois' non-discrimination laws, then the state needs to cut the organization off from the taxpayer teat. The Chicago Tribune looks at the lawsuit launched by Catholic Charities - wouldn't it be nice if similar vigor was put into ridding the Church of sexual predators and their enablers? Here are some story highlights:
*
Lawyers for Catholic Charities in the dioceses of Springfield, Peoria and Joliet are seeking an emergency injunction that would protect religious agencies who turn away unmarried couples who want to become foster parents -- including couples in civil unions.
*
In a petition filed today in Sangamon County Circuit Court, the three Catholic Charities agencies sued the Illinois Attorney General and Department of Children and Family Services for threatening to enforce new policies that accommodate civil unions, which went into effect last week.
*
In March, the attorney general’s office issued a letter stating that the office “received notice that Catholic Charities … discriminates against Illinois citizens based on race, marital status and sexual orientation” in the provision of foster care and adoption services and demanded that Catholic Charities turn over a wide range of documents in response.
*
The charities ask the court to declare that they are legally justified to preserve their current policy of exclusively granting licenses to married couples and single, non-cohabiting individuals and referring civil union couples to other child welfare agencies.
*
Last week, Catholic Charities in the Diocese of Rockford ended its publicly funded foster care and adoptive services. Catholic Charities in the dioceses of Peoria and Joliet temporarily suspended issuing new licenses for foster care and adoptive parents. Catholic Charities in the Archdiocese of Chicago ended its foster and adoption services in 2007 when it lost insurance coverage.

Illinois Catholic Charities Threatens To Turn Away Gay Couples

Like many of the gay hating religious denominations and their affiliated agencies, Illinois Catholic Charities wants to suck in $30 million in taxpayer funds to run its adoption and foster care programs but wants the special right to turn away those that they deem sinful. I'm sorry, but the minute organizations like Illinois Catholic Charities accept the first dollar of taxpayer derived funds, they forfeit their right to make religious based judgments against others. I hope the state of Illinois hangs tough and tells Illinois Catholic Charities to either cease in religious based discrimination or lose 100% of public funds. Yes, it might cause short term disruptions in services, but it is far past time that religious organizations be allowed to have their cake and eat it too. Oh, and while the state is at it, how about some criminal prosecutions of priests and bishops for the obstruction of justice flowing from the sex abuse cover up conspiracy. Here are high lights from Huffington Post on the blackmail efforts of Illinois Catholic Charities:
*
One of the largest adoption agencies in Illinois is threatening to turn away couples with civil unions, despite state law demanding they do otherwise.
*
Catholic Charities has more than 3,000 children in its foster care and adoption agencies, representing around 20 percent of all such services in the state, according to the Chicago Sun-Times. In recompense, the state pays the organization around $30 million a year.
*
But when the state's new civil unions law goes into effect on June 1, heads of those agencies are saying that they do not plan to serve gay couples in those unions.
*
"The Catholic Church is not going to be OK with Catholic Charities processing applications from anyone in a civil union," Trish Fox, the head of the Catholic Charities of Peoria, told Chicago Public Radio. "And all we're asking is that we can continue what we've always done, which is refer cohabitating couples, heterosexual or homosexual, to another agency."
*
The language of the civil unions law, though, is clear on the subject: if an agency receives state dollars, it cannot discriminate against same-sex couples -- that is, it must treat people in civil unions as it would treat married couples.
*
Anthony Martinez, Executive Director of The Civil Rights Agenda, said in a press release that it's as simple as that. “If an organization receives state funding, they must serve all residents of that state equally," Martinez said. "I don’t want my tax dollars to fund discrimination in any form, and that is exactly what the Catholic Charities are asking for: the right to discriminate.”

Kentucky Supreme Court: No State Funding for Baptist University

In a decision that I believe was correctly decided, the Kentucky Supreme Court has ruled that an $11 million legislative appropriation to a Southern Baptist Convention affiliated university violated the state's constitution. The university in question, University of the Cumberlands, has a history of discrimination against those not adhering to its religious dogma and had previously expelled a gay student for posting comments about his sexual orientation and dating life on the Internet. As I have argued many times on this blog, if an institution wants to accept public funds, then it must leave aside its religious based discrimination against those of other faiths and other sexual orientations. They simply do not get to have their cake and eat it too. No citizen should be required in help fund an institution that discriminates against them. Perhaps Richard Land and the SBC could take some of monies used to demonize gays and oppose gay rights and fund the pharmacy school. Here are some details from Cincinnati.com:

*
The Kentucky Supreme Court ruled Thursday that a Baptist university can't keep $11 million awarded by state lawmakers some four years ago to open a pharmacy school. . . A trial court judge had ruled in 2008 that the appropriation to the private, church-affiliated university violates the state constitution. The university's attorneys appealed directly to the supreme court, skipping the court of appeals, in hopes of expediting a decision.
*
Justice Lisabeth Abramson, writing for the majority, said the appropriations violated two sections of the state constitution. "If Kentucky needs to expand the opportunities for pharmacy school education within the commonwealth, the Kentucky General Assembly may most certainly address that pressing public need, but not by appropriating public funds to an educational institution that is religiously affiliated," Abramson wrote.
*
Abramson also said the scholarship program "is precisely the type of special privilege and favoritism" that the constitution condemns. Daphne Baird, spokeswoman for the university, said the decision is a death knell for the proposed pharmacy school.

*
Franklin County Special Circuit Judge Roger Crittenden had held in the initial ruling that the state appropriation violated a constitutional prohibition against public education money being spent on any "church, sectarian or denominational school."
*
The gay-rights group Kentucky Fairness Alliance filed the lawsuit in 2006 after the University of the Cumberlands expelled a gay student for posting comments about his sexual orientation and dating life on the Internet. Attorneys for the organization tried using the expulsion to bolster their arguments in the lawsuit that the school shouldn't receive funding from Kentucky taxpayers.
*
American Civil Liberties Union attorney Bill Sharp said Kentucky's constitution contains broader protections against public funding for private, church-affiliated schools than does the U.S. Constitution. Sharp said it appears some state lawmakers want to overlook those protections, which, he said, made the outcome of the lawsuit "extremely important."

Bob McDonnell's Budget Amendments Seek to Defund Public Broadcasting and Slash Mental Health Care

Apparently since PBS television specials, educational programs and public broadcast radio are not popular with the Bible thumping, gun carrying, rednecks that increasingly comprise the GOP base in Virginia, Gov. Bob McDonnell has asked the Virginia General Assembly to amend the state's budget to cut funding for public broadcasting and set spending on a trajectory to cease all state funding within four (4) years. Also included in McDonnell's budget cut targets are some medicaid mental health prescription coverage, services to emotionally disturbed children, and health care to low income Virginians - apparently examples of McDonnell's version of "compassionate conservatism. Like so many self-anointed and self-congratulatory "Godly Christians," McDonnell wears his religion on his sleeve, but when it comes time to act he kicks those who are down and out in a most decidedly un-Christian manner. As for PBS fans, They had best get on the telephone and call, write and e-mail their members of the House of Delegates and state Senators. Here are some highlights from the Richmond Times Dispatch:
*
Gov. Bob McDonnell is gunning for Big Bird. The Republican's proposed revisions to Virginia's pending two-year, $83 million budget would put the state on a four-year trajectory to end aid to public radio and television stations -- long an objective of the GOP-dominated House of Delegates. McDonnell wants the General Assembly, which returns to Richmond on Wednesday to put the finishing touches on legislation passed this winter, to eliminate $592,835 for public broadcasting in the second half of the 2010-12 spending cycle.
*
McDonnell, who is approaching the 100-day mark of his fledgling administration, is recommending overall spending increases of $42 million. They would be financed with reductions totaling $51 million, including nearly $10 million in cuts in services for emotionally disturbed children.

*
The Senate could prove the last line of defense against McDonnell amendments. For his revisions to be included in the budget, they require majority votes in both chambers. In the smaller body -- the Senate -- that means McDonnell may have to persuade members of the Democratic majority to break ranks on issues important to the party, such as health care and education.
*
McDo*nnell, however, may get the last word. Under Virginia's constitution, the govenor has an item veto that allows him to strike features he deems offensive from the budget. Overriding a veto is difficult, requiring a two-thirds vote in each body.
*
Sen. R. Edward Houck, D-Spotsylvania, who is Colgan's second-in-command on the budget-writing panel, and Del. Riley E. Ingram, R-Hopewell, a member of the Appropriations Committee, are joining mental-health groups in pressing lawmakers to reject the McDonnell proposal.

*

Previously, the Times Dispatch had reported that McDonnell's budget raises taxes on low income families while give the wealthy a free pass (Taliban Bob apparently sees himself as a sort of reverse Robin Hood). Here are highlights:

*
The state's new budget includes a little-noticed provision that raises taxes on low-income Virginians, according to a report by a think tank chiding political leaders for favoring business over the poor.

The Commonwealth Institute said the two-year, $83 billion budget, which takes effect July 1, trims a tax break that benefits families with incomes below $49,000 and three or more children. The organization's executive director, Michael Cassidy, said yesterday that the provision represents a violation of Gov. Bob McDonnell's no-new-taxes pledge.

Christian Legal Society v. Martinez

The U.S. Supreme Court will be taking up the case of Christian Legal Society v. Martinez, which arises out of Hastings Law School's refusal to give university funds to a Christian[ist] legal group on campus which seeks to exclude non-Christians and gays from membership - even though their student fees are going to underwrite the Christian organization. I have always been of the opinion that as long as an organization does not take public tax derived funds or in this case student fee derived monies, the organization is free to discriminate as a private organization. However, once an organization starts to accept taxpayer funding or here student fee derived funds, it's a whole new ball game and the right to discriminate, if you will, ceases. Once again, it is a case of bigotry and discrimination bearing a price. In this case, no access to public funding. Sadly, the case is all too typical of Christian groups that want to have their cake and eat it too in the form of acting in a discriminatory matter and then making the targets of such discrimination unwilling provide funding to those who would discriminate against them. The irony, of course, is that some years back when some artists were denied public funding because their "art" was deemed offensive to many taxpayers, conservatives argued that there was no discrimination because the artists in question could do whatever they wanted - they just could not receive public monies. Now that the shoe is on the other foot, the hypocrisy of this Christian organization is palpable. It will be interesting to watch Antonin Scalia try to side with the Christianists - even though he claims his extreme Catholicism never effects his legal rulings (yeah, just like Judy Garland in the Wizard of Oz). Here are highlights from the Washington Post.
*
This specific controversy began at Hastings, part of the University of California, when CLS members asked to become a registered student organization. With that designation, the group could apply for certain funding, send mass e-mails to the student body and participate in an activities fair, among other perks. Hastings said no. The school concluded that because the CLS bylaws barred non-Christians, gays and non-celibate students from serving as officers or voting members, the group violated the school's ban on discrimination "on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, ancestry, disability, age, sex or sexual orientation." The CLS could still meet on campus but could not be a registered club unless it opened its membership to all, even those who didn't subscribe to its beliefs. The group challenged the school, and lower courts supported the Hastings policy as a neutral rule applying equally to all groups.
*
The Hastings dispute is being replicated across the country as cities and states enforce nondiscrimination policies against religious organizations. In Washington, after the District's legalization of same-sex marriage, Catholic Charities decided not to provide spousal health benefits for any new employees in order to avoid penalties for not offering coverage to the same-sex partners of its workers. In Los Angeles, the police department cut ties with a youth group connected to the Boy Scouts because of the latter organization's position against homosexual Scout leaders. In Boston, Catholic Charities stopped its adoption work because of the demand that it not discriminate against same-sex couples. And in Connecticut, the government has barred organizations with anti-homosexual policies from a list of groups to which state employees can give automatic charitable contributions.
*
Ironically, penalizing groups for religious discrimination, in the name of fostering equality, could hamper greater recognition of gay rights. Same-sex marriage, for instance, is unlikely to gain majority support if a vote for gay rights is seen as a vote against the rights of faith-based groups. As we move toward greater recognition of gay rights -- as we should -- we need to assure religious groups that it doesn't mean they will be punished for their views.
*
Personally, I do not buy into some of the statements made in the story. No one should be forced to fund a group that actively discriminates against them. Were the position of Hasting Law School overruled, that is precisely what would happen. If CLS wants student derived funding, then drop the discriminatory membership requirements. Otherwise, discriminate, but do not expect to receive funds derived from those you hate. The University told CLS that it could meet on campus, so the choice the university made seems to be a fair one.

Gay Student Forced to Step Down at Cornell University

In sharp contrast to the Syracuse Post-Standard's editorial supporting gay marriage and in yet another example of how Christianists want the special right to receive public or university funds and then discriminate, Chi Alpha Christian Fellowship at Cornell University has forced a gay Christian out of the top leadership office. As I have said numerous times, if Christian organizations want to discriminate, then they need to get their snouts out of trough of public or in this case student fee derived money. All too typically, the Christianists with their it's all about me mind set want it both ways. Hopefully, Cornell will make it very clear: either stop the discrimination or lose university derived money. Cornell is a beautiful and wonderful university, unfortunately Chi Alpha Christian Fellowship endorses ugly discrimination. Here are some highlights from the Cornell Daily Sun:

*

A campus Christian group that receives funding from the student activity fee is coming under scrutiny after a student was asked by advisors to step down from its leadership team when he told them that he had openly accepted his homosexuality. This incident is also raising questions about the effectiveness of campus mechanisms for addressing instances of discrimination.

*

Chris Donohoe ’09, who joined the Chi Alpha Christian Fellowship when he was a freshman, said he had been openly struggling to reconcile his sexuality with his faith in Chi Alpha before he was asked to step down from the leadership team by Matt and Tracy Herman, the organization’s pastors. The Hermans, both members of Chi Alpha at Missouri State University before graduating in 2002, became Cornell Chi Alpha’s campus pastors in 2006.

*

After Donohoe finished his term as vice president, he was going to be on the leadership team last fall. The Hermans told Donohoe that they were comfortable with his position as long as he did not engage in a relationship. However, after Donohoe met his boyfriend last summer and affirmed his acceptance of his sexuality, the Hermans asked him to step down from the team without consulting the rest of the organization.

*

Donohoe was asked to step down because he no longer believed his sexuality was a sin and stopped actively working to overcome it, disregarding the Bible. “The decision to ask Chris to step down was not that he did something wrong in having homosexual tendencies. [It was because] he no longer thought it was wrong. … I support the decision fully,” [Danielle] D’Ambrosio [’10, Chi Alpha’s president] said.

*

Because Chi Alpha is an independent student organization registered with Cornell’s Student Activities Office, the situation has provoked a reaction from Cornell administrators. . . . . Independent student organizations at Cornell are prohibited from discriminating membership on the basis of race, religion, gender and sexual orientation, according to the Student Activities Offices Independent Organization Contract. The anti-discrimination policy, however, does not extend to the leadership of independent student organizations.

*

Hubbell and Clarke have communicated the University’s position to the Hermans and the next step will be a meeting between all parties involved. In the meantime, the controversy has spread across various campus listservs, and the Student Assembly will discuss on Thursday a resolution about the future of Chi Alpha. . . . A resolution regarding the group’s current funding and funding eligibility in the future will be discussed at [Thursday’s] Student Assembly meeting,” Ryan Lavin ’09, S.A. president, said yesterday.

*

I hope the student body will continue to rally against discrimination funded with student fees. I suspect that without university funding Chi Alpha would either shut down or drastically curtail its activities - either of which would be a good thing in my opinion. Here is what WVBR FM 93.5 is reporting about a student vigil:

*

Cornell students are buzzing after hearing the news that senior Chris Donohoe was asked to step down from the leadership team of Chi Alpha Christian Fellowship for openly accepting his homosexuality. Matt and Tracy Herman, the organization's pastors, are facing intense scrutiny by the Cornell community. In response to the two's alleged homophobia, the Cornell LGBTQ community and its supporters have planned a candlelight protest to be held tomorrow evening. This peaceful demonstration will be held on Cornell's Arts Quad outside McGraw Hall from 7:15 PM to 7:45 PM as members of Chi Alpha gather inside the building for their regular Friday night meeting. Students have been organizing through Facebook.com, and already almost 300 people have committed to the protest.

Discrimination Results in $20,000 Bill In Rollback Property Taxes

Some time ago I did a post about a religious organization in New Jersey, the Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association, which was facing the possible loss of its tax exempt status for real estate tax purposes due to its refusal to allow two lesbian couples to have their civil union ceremonies in the pavilion. That action has finally resulted in the tax exemption in fact being rescinded and the Meeting Association being presented with a bill for retroactive taxes in the amount of $20,000.00 (http://www.app.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080223/NEWS/80223002/1004/NEWS01). Clearly, in this case discrimination has a price.

When I posted my earlier comments on this story, I received several e-mails from those who thought that it was an outrage that the Meeting Association had to participate in something it did not endorse in order to keep its tax exemption. I disagreed with their analysis then and believe the correct result has been achieved. The Meeting Association knew that in order to receive the exemption, its facility had to be open and available to all. By its own conduct the Meeting Association proved that such was not the case. Actions have often consequences. What I find most humorous and ironic is that those who supported the continued exemption for the Meeting Association - and others who continue to be outraged as the Boy Scouts are stripped of sweet heart deals due to the organization’s non-inclusive policies - is that these folks don’t like living by the standards they apply when the shoe is on the other foot.

A great example of this is what happened some years back when various artists were not being approved for funding by the National Endowment for the Arts based on the content of their art which some found (often correctly) offensive to some religious beliefs. At the time, the artists alleged they were being censored and that their First Amendment rights were being curtailed. In response Christianist types pointed out that the artists could do whatever they wanted with no impact on their freedom of speech/expression, just do not expect public funding to underwrite it. Yet, when the tables are turned and groups discriminate based on religious belief they somehow believe that the public should underwrite their discriminatory actions. True to form, they want a double standard – one for them and a different one for everyone else. At best this is intellectually disingenuous and at worst it is sheer hypocrisy. The correct view is that when one takes public, tax derived funding, there ARE strings attached, namely that one loses the right to discriminate or to produce religiously offensive art as the case may be. If you want to be free to do whatever you want, the answer is very simple: do not take the public funding, or in the case of the Meeting Association, the tax exemption. You do not get to have it both ways. Here are some brief story highlights:

OCEAN GROVE — The Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association will have to pay about $20,000 in rollback property taxes for the boardwalk pavilion, the township tax assessor has determined. Assessor Bernard Haney said Friday that he calculated the pavilion's taxes to be about $6,500 a year for 2005, 2006 and 2007.

The pavilion had been part of the association's boardwalk and beachfront property that was part of a state Green Acres tax abatement program. The association has not paid property taxes on the property since the program was established. But controversy last year over the association's refusal to allow two lesbian couples to have their civil union ceremonies in the pavilion led the state Department of Environmental Protection, which oversees the Green Acres program, to re-evaluate the association's application this year. DEP commissioner Lisa Jackson decided that because the pavilion was apparently not open to all on an equal basis — a requirement of the tax abatement program — she would not allow the pavilion to be included.