Why Religious Institutions Should Not Receive Taxpayer Funds

The Founding Fathers wanted no established church and a clear separation of church and state being mindful of the wars of religion that had wracked Europe and witnessed the abuses of the Church of England which was the established church in much of colonial America.  Their concept has been perverted over the years and the Trump/Pence regime and a recent ruling of the U.S. Supreme Court have made the situation even worse as bigoted and discriminatory denominations have sought to gorge themselves at the trough of taxpayer funds.  Indeed, churches, including the immensely wealthy Catholic Church, received PPP loan funds - an example of how far we are from the Founder's intent. Another area where taxpayer funds are wrongfully given to discriminatory religious institutions is the federal funding of sectarian colleges and universities which gobble up taxpayer money even as they discriminate against members of society.  The test should be simple: discriminate and you receive zero taxpayer funds. Such a rule in no way restricts institutions' ability to practice their so-called religion yet doesn't make the public underwrite their bigotry financially.  A situation involving a Southern Baptist - a denomination founded on racism and bigotry - college underscores why such institutions should not receive a penny in taxpayer funds.  A piece in the Charlotte Observer looks at the expulsion of a gay student by Union University in Tennessee for the mere fact that he is gay.  Here are highlights:  

Alex Duron was slated to attend a master’s program in nurse anesthesia this fall at Union University in Jackson, Tennessee, about midway between Memphis and Nashville.

But days before classes started, the private Christian college sent him a letter rescinding his acceptance.

“Your request for graduate housing and your social media profile, including your intent to live with your partner, indicates your unwillingness to abide by the commitment you made in signing (the university’s community values statements),” the letter states.

Those community values include a reference to “sexually impure relationships” and the acknowledgment that God’s definition of marriage is between a man and a woman, according to the student life handbook.

“The promotion, advocacy, defense or ongoing practice of a homosexual lifestyle (including same-sex dating behaviors) is also contrary to our community values,” the value statements read. “Homosexual behaviors, even in the context of a marriage, remain outside Union’s community values.”

Duron — who is gay — shared the letter in a Facebook post Tuesday, telling Union “that bigotry masked as religion is not Christian at all.”

In a statement to McClatchy News, spokesperson Tim Ellsworth said “as a Christian institution,” Union has certain “standards of behavior for its faculty, staff, and students”

Union University — which touts itself as “the oldest institution affiliated with the Southern Baptist Convention” — is home to roughly 3,100 undergraduate and graduate students, according to its website. Tuition and fees for the average undergraduate total close to $45,000 a year.

To help students offset that cost, the university receives federal funding from the U.S. government.

According to the Treasury Department’s data lab, which tracks federal spending, Union received more than $40 million from the government in 2018. The vast majority went toward student aid with a small chunk — about $90,000 — allocated for nursing and health professional grants.

As a recipient of federal funds, Union is subject to Title IX regulations, which bar K-12 schools and institutions of higher education that receive federal funds from discriminating on the basis of sex — including sexual orientation.

But there’s a catch: They can claim a religious exemption.

Union University President Dub Oliver applied for such an exemption in 2015, citing the university’s oversight by the Southern Baptist Convention and beliefs against homosexuality and abortion, according to letters filed with the U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights.

It was accepted that year.

The Title IX religious exemption has long been used to protect colleges and universities from complying with federal discrimination laws that go against their beliefs, though it can be hard to keep track of which institutions have sought one, Teen Vogue reported in 2018.

Campus Pride, a nonprofit advocating for the rights of LGBT+ students, keeps an updated list of colleges and universities that have sought a Title IX exemption or otherwise discriminated against LGBT+ students.

It’s called the “Shame List.”

Union University is one of more than 100 campuses across the U.S. on the list.

The U.S. Supreme Court recently ruled businesses can’t discriminate against employees who identify as LGBTQ+, and a lawsuit filed in California last year challenges religious exemptions to Title IX.

Two former students at Fuller Theological Seminary in Pasadena have accused the evangelical seminary of unlawfully discriminating against them in violation of Title IX after they were expelled for being apart of same-sex marriages, media outlets report.  Christianity Today reported the lawsuit “is believed to be the first of its kind.”

 Hate and bigotry masked as religion remains one of the great evils in the world.  Such religious exemptions from non-discrimination laws need to be eliminated. If these bigoted institutions cannot survive without taxpayer funds, then good riddance. Taxpayers should not be indirectly support hateful institutions.

Diverting Taxpayer Funds to Religious Schools is Wrong

It has long been the goal of religious schools to divert public tax dollars to support private sectarian schools many of which discriminate against gays and those belonging to other denominations or faiths. The Trump/Pence regime, eager to sustain the loyalty of Christofascist voters supports this diversion of public monies to discriminatory religious schools.  A case before the U.S. Supreme Court, if decided wrongly could open the flood gates for taxpayer funds flowing to such schools while allowing such schools to openly discriminate against an array of students and/or parents.  Such a ruling would clearly violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, yet the "conservative" majority on the Court may well be happy to allow taxpayer funded discrimination.  A column in the Washington Post looks at this dangerous situation.  Here are highlights:

Imagine a country where your hard-earned tax dollars must fund private religious schools that require students to have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ, or that expel students for being gay. Imagine that your state is forced to spend resources to help fund construction of a local house of worship of a faith you do not share, just because the state is also contributing to building a community center.

These scenarios are antithetical to the principles of religious freedom on which our nation was founded. And yet, this is the path we may be headed down as the U.S. Supreme Court gears up to hear oral arguments Wednesday in Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue.

The case arises out of a challenge to a Montana private-school voucher program. Because the Montana Constitution — like three-quarters of the states’ constitutions — specifically prohibits state dollars from funding religious education, the state limited its voucher program to secular schools. But some parents argued that if Montana funds private education at all, it must fund religious education. The Montana Supreme Court struck down the entire voucher program, resulting in all private schools being treated the same way: None of them get taxpayer dollars.

Now, however, the U.S. Supreme Court is poised to decide whether Montana’s earlier decision to fund some secular schools means that it must also fund religious schools — schools that teach religion, compel students to engage in religious activities and enforce religious codes of conduct. This case is not about what a state may do, but about what it must do. To hold that the U.S. Constitution requires taxpayers to fund religious education in this fashion would upset long-standing principles of religious freedom and separation of religion and government.

No taxpayer should be forced to fund religious education. . . . Private religious schools don’t adhere to the same nondiscrimination laws that public schools do. As a result, we have seen them turn students away because their families don’t share the school’s religious beliefs. They have barred admission because a student or parent is LGBTQ or a student has a disability. They have expelled students who engage in sex outside marriage. . . . . While not all private religious schools conduct themselves in this way, too many do, and taxpayers should not have to underwrite such discrimination.

Those challenging the Montana Constitution are not seeking a level playing field. Instead, they are asking the state to fund their religious schools and continue to extend to them exemptions from laws that apply to public and even secular private schools. That is not equal treatment — it’s religious privilege.

The Christofascists continue to demand special rights and the ability to discriminate at will - even when receiving taxpayer funds.  They are a clear and present danger to constitutional government. 

Trump Unveils More Anti-LGBTQ 'License to Discriminate' Plans

The Trump/Pence regime is continuing its attacks on the LGBT community and moving to grant a license to discriminate to religious - mostly conservative "Christian" - organizations that receive taxpayer funded support.  The goal is to (i) solidify evangelical support in advance of the 2020 presidential election, and (ii) prop up religious organizations that cannot survive financially without government funding, their respective denominations no longer being able to support their operations.  The Trump/Pence rule making is targeted to allow discrimination against not only LGBT individuals, but also those of other religions or no religion.  Stated another way, it is an effort to have a stated supported religion - conservative Christianity - in violation of the Establishment Clause of the U.S. Constitution.  A piece in The Advocate looks at this very dangerous and discriminatory agenda.  Here are excerpts:

Donald Trump’s administration has made yet another move to enable discrimination, including anti-LGBTQ discrimination, in the name of “religious freedom.”

On Thursday, National Religious Freedom Day, Trump announced his administration is issuing nine proposed rules that govern how faith-based nonprofits with government contracts interact with their clients, reversing regulations put in place under President Barack Obama.

Under the Obama-era regulations, these contractors “need to give beneficiaries notice of the providers’ religious character and the right to get services elsewhere,” The Washington Post reports. “The providers also have to make reasonable efforts to refer beneficiaries to another provider if the person receiving services is uncomfortable.” The Trump administration says these rules are unfair to faith-based providers because they don’t apply to secular organizations.

The newly proposed rules, which are subject to public comment before becoming final, would apply to organizations that provide a wide range of services through contracts with the departments of Veterans Affairs, Health and Human Services, Labor, Agriculture, Education, Justice, Homeland Security, and International Development. Services offered by these contractors include substance abuse treatment, adoption and foster care placements, refugee resettlement, and much more.

[W]e are talking about government grants to the tune of millions and millions of dollars,” she explained. “And increasingly, they are excluding members of the public from receiving services based on who they are.”

The rules would indeed enable faith-based contractors to turn away people who are LGBTQ or follow a different religion, according to the American Civil Liberties Union. “We will keep saying this as long as we have to: Religious freedom is a fundamental right, but it does not confer a license to discriminate,” said Heather Weaver, senior staff attorney with the ACLU Program on Freedom of Religion and Belief, in a press release. “Government-funded programs, including those operated by faith-based organizations, should not be able to discriminate against vulnerable people seeking help.

“The right to believe and to exercise one’s faith is a core American value. The right to discriminate with taxpayer dollars is not. These regulations would dismantle meaningful protections for beneficiaries of these federally funded programs and strip away basic notice requirements designed to ensure that beneficiaries know their rights to be free from discrimination and their right to an alternative, nonreligious provider. Taxpayer funds should not be used to allow discrimination.”

Today’s announcement comes on top of many other efforts by the Trump administration to establish a right to discriminate in the name of religion. In November, for National Adoption Month, HHS announced a new rule that would allow adoption agencies and other programs that receive HHS grants to reject same-sex couples and rainbow families on the basis of religious freedom. Other programs that stand to be affected include elder services, Head Start, refugee resettlement, HIV services, and programs for runaway and homeless youth.

The administration has finalized a so-called conscience protection rule allowing health care providers to opt out of procedures that offend their religious beliefs, but court challenges have kept the rule from going into effect. It also wants to eliminate provisions of the Affordable Care Act that ban anti-transgender discrimination and even allow homeless shelters to discriminate against trans clients.

Anyone who is not an evangelical "Christian" extremist should be very, very worried.  Yes, I have the word Christian in quotation marks because, in my view, the members of Trump's base are Christian in name only.  Look at Christ's social gospel message, and these people are the antithesis to that message.  Indeed, the make the Biblical Pharisees seem like good, upstanding people.

Michigan Ends Funding For Anti-LGBT Adoption Groups

In a move that needs to be followed in every state in the country, the sate of Michigan will no longer provide state funding to adoption and foster care agencies that refuse to work with LGBT individuals as adoptive parents or foster parents citing "religious belief."  Expect shrieks and flying spittle and claims of persecution from those who want to gorge themselves at the public taxpayer funds trough yet want to discriminate against taxpayers.  The choice is simple, if you take public funds, you work with all of the public.  If you are unwilling to do that, then do not take public funds. The reality is that many of these bigoted agencies cannot make a financial go of it without taxpayer funds - something that ought to tell them that their bigotry and exclusionary policies are not wanted in the public market place.  The Detroit Free Press looks at the development.  Here are excerpts:

Michigan will no longer financially support adoption and foster care agencies that refuse to work with same-sex couples and LGBTQ individuals because of religious beliefs under the terms of a settlement of a lawsuit negotiated by Attorney General Dana Nessel.

The settlement, which was announced Friday, sets up a battle with the Republican-led Legislature, which passed a law in 2015 that allows adoptions agencies to refuse to work with members of the LGBTQ community.

The terms of the settlement require that the Michigan Department of Health and Human Services agrees to maintain nondiscriminatory provisions in its foster care and adoption agency contracts. It also calls for the department to enforce the nondiscrimination provisions by terminating contracts with agencies that either discriminate against same-sex couples or LGBTQ individuals who would otherwise qualify to become foster or adoptive parents or that refer them to other agencies.

In exchange for the policy, the plaintiffs in the case — Kristy and Dana Dumont of Lansing and Erin and Rebecca Busk-Sutton of Detroit — have agreed to dismiss their claims and pay their own attorney fees and costs.

In 2015, Republicans in the Michigan Legislature, voting mostly along party lines, passed a controversial bill that allows adoption and foster care agencies to cite religious convictions when refusing to work with same-sex couples who want to adopt  or foster a child.

The two couples filed a lawsuit in 2017 challenging the MDHHS contract with taxpayer-funded and state-contracted foster care and adoption agencies that refused to work with same-sex couples.

The couples said they approached St. Vincent Catholic Charities and Bethany Christian Services to adopt children the agencies had accepted through referrals from MDHHS.  They said the agencies refused to work with them.

The state contracts with 59 private adoption and foster care agencies across the state and while the MDHHS wasn't able to say specifically how many don't work with same-sex couples or LGBTQ individuals, 20 of the agencies are affiliated with religious organizations.

During her campaign for attorney general, standing up for the rights of the LGBTQ community was a major theme.

“Discrimination in the provision of foster care case management and adoption services is illegal, no matter the rationale,” Nessel said in a statement. “Limiting the opportunity for a child to be adopted or fostered by a loving home not only goes against the state’s goal of finding a home for every child, it is a direct violation of the contract every child-placing agency enters into with the state.”

The ACLU said the settlement was a victory for the 12,000 children in foster care in Michigan.

“Our children need every family that is willing and able to provide them with a loving home," said Leslie Cooper, deputy director of the ACLU LGBT & HIV Project. "When agencies choose to accept taxpayer dollars to provide public child welfare services, they must put the needs of the children first.”

Leading the way in whining was the Catholic Church which routinely acts like a hog at a trough when it comes to seeking taxpayer funds to prop up its discriminatory agencies. 

Trump Lauds "Christian" Adoption Agencies for Refusing Same Sex Couples

While the Human Rights Campaign ("HRC") and Equality Virginia ("EV") have foolishly injected themselves into the current chaos of Virginia politics, Donald Trump reminded everyone not overcome with political correctness of where these organizations ought to be focusing their efforts.  Speaking at the National Prayer Breakfast Thursday morning, Trump openly endorsed anti-LGBT discrimination by foster and adoption agencies receiving tax payer funds.  This sort of bigotry ought to be a reminder that 29 states still have no employment non-discrimination protections despite many years of HRC and EV shaking down supporters for money both organizations have failed to deliver on these basic legal protections. Now, in Virginia they have attacked one of their strongest allies. In my view, major changes in their leadership is needed.  But back to Trump and his lauding of bigotry.  Here are highlights from Think Progress:

Donald Trump openly endorsed discrimination by foster and adoption agencies, speaking at the National Prayer Breakfast Thursday morning.

After welcoming Chad and Melissa Buck, a couple from Michigan who he applauded for having adopted five children, he said, “Unfortunately, the Michigan adoption charity that brought the Buck family together is now defending itself in court for living by the values of its Catholic faith.”

“We will always protect our country’s long and proud tradition of faith-based adoption,” he added. “My administration is working to insure that faith-based adoption agencies are able to help vulnerable children find their forever families while following their deeply held beliefs.”

The case Trump referred to is a lawsuit the ACLU brought on behalf of two same-sex couples challenging Michigan’s law granting adoption agencies a license to discriminate, even if they receive state funding.

One of the couples behind the suit, Kristy and Dana Dumont, sought adoption services from St. Vincent Catholic Charities in July 2016 and again in March 2017. The agency told them it did not work with same-sex couples.

During a February 2015 Michigan House hearing on legislation that would protect adoption agencies from being punished for discriminating, St. Vincent’s director of clinical services defended the bill, testifying that the agency would be affected otherwise, as it employed such discriminatory practices. “If they let us know that they’re unmarried, or they’re gay or lesbian, we immediately recommend, make a referral to another agency,” they said.

But the ACLU didn’t sue St. Vincent or any other particular agency that was taking advantage of the law. It sued state officials directly, seeking to overturn the law altogether. The agency, along with the Bucks, chose to intervene in the case to help defend the discriminatory law for which it had previously advocated. If the same-sex couples’ case succeeded, the agency claimed, it would be forced to shut down.

Trump’s assurances at Thursday’s prayer breakfast come weeks after his administration granted a waiver to a South Carolina foster care agency, granting them license to ignore an Obama administration rule prohibiting discrimination. Miracle Hill, an evangelical protestant agency, not only refuses to serve same-sex families but had also refused to place children with a Jewish family.

Anti-LGBTQ groups have prioritized passing more of these laws allowing child placement agencies to discriminate across the country while still receiving public funding in recent years. An effort to chip away at marriage equality, these campaigns demonize same-sex parents, provide special privileges to Christian agencies, and normalize subsidizing discrimination with taxpayer money.

Countering "Religious Liberty" Stealth Attacks on Non-Discrimination Laws

One of the big lies being advanced by Christofascists and the parasite of the "professional Christian" class is that LGBT rights and non-discrimination protections infringe on their religious liberty and, therefore, can be freely ignored.  It's an argument that would have left the Founding Fathers dumbfounded since their concept of religious freedom was very straight forward: all could worship in the church or temple of their choice, no one would be forced to financially support a church body of which they were not a member, and one's religious beliefs could not disqualify you for office.  Nowhere in this concept was religion viewed as giving one a license to ignore whatever law one disliked and/or restricted your right to discriminate against or abuse other citizens. Now, in addition to the flood of Republican/Christofascist "religious freedom" laws, one sees increased efforts by schools and colleges to seek an exemption from compliance with non-discrimination laws while still sucking on the tit of taxpayer funding. A piece by blogger friend - and fellow LGBT blogger summit attendee - Karen Ocamb in Huffington Post looks at the growing efforts of Christofascist to place themselves above the law and an effort underway in California to de-fund educational institutions engaging in discrimination.  Here are highlights:

The LGBT community has been dealing with social conservatives and the anti-gay religious right blatantly killing or circumventing LGBT equality since 1977 when Anita Bryant and the Rev. Jerry Falwell’s Moral Majority overturned a gay rights ordinance in Dade County, Florida, then the 40th such gay rights law in the country. The Bryant-Falwell “Save Our Children” crusade painted gays as sinful perverts and sexual predators who threaten children. That effort was stopped in California with the defeat of the anti-gay Briggs Initiative in 1978, which halted the initiative-focused momentum until 1986 when the AIDS crisis resurrected simmering anti-gay hatred.

Today, after much work on the ground and through the state legislature, California stands as a shining beacon for LGBT equality — but the religious right has not given up its crusade. After the Human Rights Campaign revealed last year that a number of religious-based colleges and universities applied for exemptions from Title IX that would enable them to blatantly discriminate against LGBT students and employees, out California Assembly member Evan Low and State Sen. Ricardo Lara authored legislation to require academic institutions that receive state funds to not discriminate (AB 1888, authored by Low and sponsored by Equality California and the National Center for Lesbian Rights) and reveal their applications for “religious liberty” waivers (SB 1146, authored by Lara and sponsored by Equality California).

But stealth attacks and unfettered LGBT-bashing in the name of “religious liberties” seems to be the new normal by forces determined to overturn any progress made on the LGBT equality front — as evidenced by the stunning display of arrogance in Congress on Thursday.

“Speaker Ryan chose to disregard his previous promises of regular order and held the vote open so that he could convince some in his party to change their affirmative votes. It’s shameful that some would go to such great lengths to attack the LGBT community,” said California Rep. Ted Lieu in a statement. “[A]llowing discrimination in the workplace doesn’t encourage productivity, it drastically harms it. As history consistently illustrates, those who support forms of discrimination are always proven wrong.”

The anti-LGBT congressional sneak attack comes on top of strident reaction from a plethora of states to the U.S. Departments of Justice and Education May 13 guidance instructing the country’s schools that they must ensure transgender students and teachers equal access to educational opportunities and facilities that match their gender identities — or risk federal funding or other repercussions.

“Under Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, schools receiving federal money may not discriminate based on a student’s sex, including a student’s transgender status. The guidance makes clear that both federal agencies treat a student’s gender identity as the student’s sex for purposes of enforcing Title IX,” says the DOJ press release.

The response from Republican governors has not been pretty. As Think Progress points out, governors or top elected officials from Kentucky, Utah, Oklahoma, Louisiana, Idaho, Mississippi, Michigan, Arkansas, Texas, Alabama, Indiana, Georgia, Tennessee, as well as, famously now, North Carolina (the DOJ has sued the University of North Carolina) all look at the guidance as federal overreach they will ignore.

In addition to the “states rights” argument, social and religious conservatives argue that “religious liberty” trumps federal, state, and local anti-discrimination laws protecting LGBT rights.

The bill that has some religious-based universities and colleges gasping for divine help is Low’s AB 1888, described by Equality California as “the Cal Grant Disinvestment in Discrimination.“ That bill would deny Cal Grant funding to colleges and universities that seek a “religious liberties” waiver from Title IX in order to circumvent federal LGBT protections. Students who apply to an explicitly religious-based discriminatory school will not be eligible to receive financial Cal Grant aid to attend that specific school and the school could also face substantial financial loses.

“This bill would require, commencing with the 2017-18 academic year, each Cal Grant participating institution, ... to certify ... that the institution shall not subject a student or employee of the institution on the basis of, among other things, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, or gender expression, and that the institution shall not apply for, or receive, a waiver by the United States Department of Education from nondiscrimination requirements for the receipt of federal funds,” the AB 1888 summary reads.

Similar measures are need in every state in America.   It is far past time that the Christofascist demand for special rights be defeated and institutions need to decide whether they want to engage in discrimination and bigotry or receive taxpayer funds.  No taxpayer should be required to indirectly fund institutions that discriminate against them. 

Congressional Republicans Target Gays Rather Than Address Health Emergencies

Anti-LGBT bigot Rep. Steve Russell

Funding to address Flint, Michigan's lead poison laced water supply is languishing in Congress, blocked by Republicans - who, in my personal view do not give a damn about the victims since most are African American.  Similarly, funding to address the Zika virus menace to women and their unborn babies and other vulnerable Americans remains dead in the water thanks to Congressional GOP intransigence.  But Republicans do have time to introduce and push for passage of legislation that would undercut President Obama's executive orders prohibiting anti-LGBT employment discrimination.  It's behavior typical of the GOP's Obama derangement syndrome and its also typical of the GOP controlled Congress which has been the worse do knowing Congress in generations. The GOP ignores the needs of average Americans while pandering to the wealthy and religious extremists.  A piece in the Washington Post looks at this new GOP effort to authorize anti-LGBT discrimination and to grant special rights to right wing Christians.  Here are highlights:

The measure, introduced by freshman Rep. Steve Russell (R-Okla.) at 12:30 a.m. as the House Armed Services Committee prepared to pass the defense bill, would require the government to give religious organizations it signs contracts with exemptions in federal civil rights law and the Americans Disabilities Act.

Those laws do not ban discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity. So the legislation would effectively override the executive order President Obama issued in 2014 prohibiting federal contractors from such discrimination.

The amendment provides an exemption for “any religious corporation, religious association, religious educational institution or religious society” contracting with the government. It quickly prompted heated exchanges between Russell and committee Democrats, who said it was purposefully unclear.

The measure, approved 33-29 on a mostly party-line vote at 2 a.m., could signal that the backlash in numerous states against LGBT anti-discrimination laws is now moving to Congress.

Stacy said that defeating the amendment on the House floor and in the Senate is now one of Human Rights Campaign’s top priorities. By late Thursday, a coalition of 42 civil rights groups called the Coalition Against Religious Discrimination had sent the committee a letter opposing the amendment.

It “would authorize taxpayer-funded discrimination in each and every federal contract and grant,” the letter said of the measure. “The government should never fund discrimination and no taxpayer should be disqualified from a job under a federal contract or grant because he or she is the ‘wrong’ religion.”

Stacy said the language in the amendment also would apply to organizations that receive federal grants. “If the government says, we’re going to fund a homeless shelter, they can refuse to hire an LGBT person to staff it even if 40 percent of the people they’re serving are LGBT,” he said.

Democrats accused Russell of trying to mask what his amendment would really do: Allow federal contractors to discriminate against LGBT employees.

“The way this amendment is written, it doesn’t matter if you are a religious organization,” said Rep. Adam Smith (D-Wash.), the committee’s ranking member.

“You can basically be a private contractor and this just gives you the right to discriminate if you decide you just don’t want to do business with gay people or with anybody else for that matter on a discriminatory basis within a protected class.”

It is far past time that all religious exemptions be eliminated. Outside of their own houses of worship and in organizations that receive no taxpayer funding whatsoever, the modern day Pharisees need to be compelled to comply with non-discrimination laws like every other citizen.  The undeserved special rights need to end.  As for Rep. Russell, I wonder how long it will be before we learn that he's cheating on his wife, been found in bed with a boy, has been implicated in molesting young girls, or involved in criminal corruption.  Those most concerned about what goes on in other people's bedrooms are the ones you need to be worried about. 

Congressional Republicans Setting Sights on Same-Sex Marriage Law

With all of the problems facing America one would think that pandering and self-prostituting one self to hate filled religious extremists would be far down the priority list.  But not so with Congressional Republicans who seem to have their sights set on passing some form of license to discriminate law to pander to knucle dragging, spittle flecked Christofascists.  Never mind that the effort is an affront to the concept of religious freedom envisioned by the Founding Fathers.  Nope, it's all about granting special rights to a class of people who reject science, equality, and modernity itself.  A piece in the New York Times looks at the GOP forces of darkness at work.  Here are excerpts:

Legislation granting protections for tax-exempt organizations and individuals objecting to same-sex marriage on religious or moral grounds is gathering momentum in the House. The bills, drafted by Representative Raúl R. Labrador, Republican of Idaho, and Senator Mike Lee, Republican of Utah, already have 130 co-sponsors. On Thursday, the Republican Study Committee, the largest, most organized group of conservatives in the House, demanded a vote.

“All religious Americans deserve assurance that they can carry out their conscience without a federal government crackdown,” said Representative Bill Flores, Republican of Texas and the committee’s chairman.

At the same time, wary Republican moderates have quietly drafted a novel alternative that would actually expand legal protections for gay men and lesbians. Their legislation would narrow the scope of protection offered to groups declining services to same-sex couples seeking to marry.

The brewing dispute is coming at a delicate time for the Republican Party. Donald J. Trump, the billionaire businessman seeking the Republican nomination for president, has stirred up Hispanic voters with the anti-Mexican and illegal immigration diatribes he has delivered since beginning his campaign.

Republican leaders have found themselves once again caught in a wedge between the conservative sentiments of the majority of their conference and the more liberal social trends in the nation at large. Asked about the First Amendment Defense Act, which is the name of the bill to protect tax-exempt organizations and individuals objecting to same-sex marriage on religious grounds, House Speaker John A. Boehner of Ohio on Thursday was careful not to dismiss it even as he declined to embrace it.

The bill proposed by moderates, though, would attach two provisions expanding protections long-sought by gay rights groups: the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, which outlaws workplace discrimination based on sexual orientation, and an amendment to the federal Fair Housing Act to add sexual orientation and gender identity to the list of protected characteristics of housing seekers.

“This opens up a can of worms, and Congress needs to show it can do two things at once: protect religious freedoms and provide legal protections for nondiscrimination,” Representative Charlie Dent, Republican of Pennsylvania, said Friday.

Mr. Dent told his colleagues in a closed-door meeting on Tuesday that they were risking the same protests from business leaders and other gay rights supporters that Gov. Mike Pence of Indiana prompted in March when he signed legislation allowing businesses to refuse services to same-sex couples.

His appeal was greeted with silence, he said, but “the message was delivered.”  “I would really hate to see the Indiana nightmare turn into a national debacle,” he said.

At the same time, Republican leaders made it clear they saw a need for a legislative response to the court’s action. Without legal protection, Republicans fear religious broadcasters could lose their federal licenses if they do not grant same-sex marriage benefits to employees. Faith-based charities like World Vision, which rely on government grants, could face pressure . . 

“The right to believe is fundamental. The right to use taxpayer dollars to discriminate is not,” Sarah Warbelow, legal director of the Human Rights Campaign, said Friday.

The moderate Republican alternative would draw religious protections narrowly, ensuring that they shielded religious nonprofit organizations from threats to their tax-exempt status and other federal benefits because of their adherence to heterosexual marriage, according to a one-page description of the legislation circulating in the House.

HRC has it right: if these organizations want to discriminate, they have a simple option - stop taking taxpayer money.   If their operations cannot survive without government funding, then so be it. 

"Christian" Colleges Must Choose Between Bigotry and Public Funds

Freedom of religion was intended by the Founding Fathers was intended to mean that no citizens would be forced to belong to an established church or profess a faith they did not support through forced attendance such as was the norm in colonial Virginia.  One could freely choose one's house of worship.  It was not intended to mean that one could receive public funds and then turn around and discriminate against members of the taxpaying public who did not subscribed to a particular sect's belief system.  Yet that is precisely what a number of so-called Christian colleges - I view them as modern day Pharisee colleges - are seeking to do: receive public funds and grants yet openly discriminate against LGBT students and citizens.  To me, the choice is clear: cease discriminating or give up the public funding.  It's really that simple.  Give up public, taxpayer derived funds and be free to be as bigoted and Pharisaic as one wants.  A piece in the Richmond Times Dispatch looks at the ongoing controversy that will likely ultimately impact a number of gay hating "Christian" colleges and universities in Virginia.  Here are excerpts:

His [Gordon College president D. Michael Lindsay] stand last July came at a cost — to him and the school — that he never anticipated: broken relationships with nearby cities, the loss of a key backer for a federal grant, a review by the regional college accrediting agency, and campus protest and alumni pushback over whether the school should maintain its ban on "homosexual practice" as part of its life and conduct standards.

After coming under fire for its ban on hiring faculty in same-sex relationships, Eastern Mennonite University in Virginia decided this year to delay a decision on whether to uphold the policy, which means it won't be enforced for now. World Vision, a Christian international relief agency based in Washington State, said last March it would hire employees in gay marriages, but quickly backtracked after drawing condemnation from evangelical leaders and losing thousands of donors. At several evangelical colleges, students have formed advocacy groups for gay acceptance, such as OneWheaton, at Wheaton College in Illinois.

Lindsay's support for an exemption from a civil right for gays unleashed long-simmering campus tensions over the school's assertion that it has created a safe place for lesbian and gay students, while maintaining a conduct policy that singles them out.
Mayor Kim Driscoll of Salem responded by ending Gordon's contract to manage the city's Old Town Hall. Salem's Peabody Essex Museum ended its academic relationship with the school and withdrew support for Gordon's grant application to the National Endowment for the Humanities. The New England Association of Schools & Colleges started a review of the controversy.

"He made a mistake in signing it," said James Trent, a sociologist and Gordon professor for 11 years who supports eliminating the ban on "homosexual practice." ''The middle ground begins to wear when you're oppressing people. How do you slightly oppress someone?"

Here in Virginia, Regent University and Liberty University among others need to be forced to decide whether they want public funds or to continue to practice bigotry and discrimination. They are free to decide on the latter, but the cost needs to be that the rest of the taxpaying public is not forced to indirectly subsidize it.   They should not be able to have their cake and eat it too.