Dunno. Should Catholic and Islamic charities be allowed to accept federal funding and discriminate on the basis of gender?
You answered my question, so I’ll answer yours:
“Free exercise” doesn’t mean you get to do whatever you want under the name of religion. My understanding is that the courts have felt free to limit religious activity when and if the state has a compelling interest in limiting that activity – but that its reasons for limiting the activity must be religiously neutral (i.e., I can’t limit the sacrifice of animals within city limits, but I can limit the slaughter of livestock within city limits, as long as I’m not doing so just so that I can really limit animal sacrifice). Is this correct?
I also think the state has a compelling interest in limiting employer discrimination against employees. Although in a perfect market, a competitor would drive a bigoted employer out of business, we don’t live in a perfect market, and I believe it’s incontrovertible that many bigoted employers are doing just fine.
Given the state’s compelling interest in limiting employer discrimination, I see no reason why religious organizations should receive some sort of bigot exemption. Yes, I do believe that Phelps should face discrimination charges if he refuses to hire a gay secretary.
And that’s not even getting into the federal funding issue which others have cogently raised.
Daniel
Ah, but then you run into the problem of the state making religious determinations for the religion, which is quite problematic. I assume the problem Dewey refers to for the Catholics is the male-priesthood. The Catholic faith holds that the priesthood is, by nature, a male function and therefore cannot be conferred upon women. Under doctrine, a “female priest” is as believable as a “square circle”: you just can’t do it. (Yes, I realize individual Catholics disagree, but that’s another topic.) Yet in the U.S., I would assume priests qualify as “employees” of a diocese: they draw a salary and earn benefits in exchange for their services. It might be argued that the salary to the priest and his services to the church are incidental gratuities, but I doubt that argument would hold water.
Point being, can the Church lawfully discriminate against female priests? If you argue yes, and a court ordered gender integration within the priesthood, you’d have the problem of the state dictating religious policy to a faith. I think it goes without saying that it’s going to get really sticky, really fast.
Yeah, well, my thread’s better.
Seriously, I started mine in IMHO in hopes of avoiding the sort of rancor which has often gone hand in hand with GD threads, plus I was more interested in opinions as to how people thought SCOTUS would vote rather than what people thought about the rightness or wrongness of sodomy laws, homosexuality, etc. Just getting through the first page of the GD thread has already shown me more rancor than I care for outside of the Pit so I don’t know if I’m going to be able to slog through all of it.
My humble little IMHO thread, though, is as always at y’all’s disposal.
No. In fact, no religious organization should get any federal funding at all. It treads too close to violating the establishment clause. In fact it does violate the establishment clause because it forces the government to decide what is or is not a “legitimate” religion.
I’ve always thought this was an odd view. It seems to me that if the government is handing out funds on a religion-neutral basis, there’s no cause for the argument that it is violating the establishment clause. Why should a secular food pantry have access to government funds but a church-run food pantry be denied those same dollars?
Churches either need to decide whether they want to be treated with a blind eye by the government or not. Do they want to be exempt from antidiscrimination clauses and from paying taxes? Fine – but don’t complain when they’re exempt from receiving federal dollars. Do they want to receive federal dollars? Fine – but then they shouldn’t get to discriminate based on gender, religion, race, etc., and they should have to pay taxes just like everyone else.
It’s the inconsistency that becomes such a problem. I’m willing to accept the argument that Res laid out allowing churches to discriminate in matters central to their faith (although if a secretary isn’t a religious position, I still don’t think it should be eligible for Phelpsian discrimination) – but if I accept that argument, then I’m not going to feel bad about treating churches differently when it comes to federal funds.
You can have your cake, or you can eat your cake. Decide which.
Daniel
I’m the sort of person who believes that if you’re being supported by a particular organization, that organization gets a say in what you can and can’t do. And if it is a company or person’s policy not to sanction (approve of/allow) X thing to happen, and they are endorsing a particular organization that allows X thing to happen, then the second organization should either end its financial dependence on the former organization or change its policies/practices/etc.
And I personally don’t really care what particular beliefs a religion has about what a specific type of person (gender, orientation, ethnicity, whatever) is or is not allowed to do. If you aren’t going to follow the rules regarding non-discrimination policies, for example, then you don’t get to be on the happy fun list, so to speak.
So, for example, no religious-funded private universities or colleges should get any governmental monies at all? Even the Catholic college I used to work for in California where Catholic students barely formed a plurality, let alone a majority? Would students who went to such institutions be denied all forms of student aid that the government had any hand in?
I’m all for the “establishment clause,” however one may see that, but I don’t see how, say, taking Pell grants away from students furthers that cause.
But it’s not religion neutral. Certain religions such as Paganism, Wicca, Scientology and Nation of Islam have been declared “ineligible” for funding. The government is making subjective judgements about which religions are entitled to federal funds and which are not. To say that Catholic charities are a legitimate religious enterprise but an Earth religion food shelf is not is an unequivocal and unconstitutional endorsement of one religion over another, is it not?
There’s a difference between giving aid to the students and giving aid directly to the colleges. Yes, students should be eligible for loans and grants but no church is entitled to tax-payer money.
So, say, government funding of research at Notre Dame’s chemistry department or studies by Baylor University’s sociology department are straight out then?
Because bigamy and incest ain’t consentual.
A child cannot give consent and in a bigamous relationship, someone hasn’t given consent or it was polygamous.
Fenris
Ya know, as long as it’s come up in this thread, may we put a nail through the heart of the “civil rights laws force employers to hire people” canard? I defy anyone to quote me a statute which has survived constitutional challenge which forces any private employer to hire anyone. Civil rights laws don’t “force” anyone to do anything. What they do is remove from legal consideration factors and attributes of potential employees which are unrelated to their ability to do the job, or require employers to make reasonable accomodations for those employees who are otherwise qualified to do the job. No one’s “forced” to hire anyone and I for one would appreciate if such talk was removed from the discussion.
Actually, IIRC, incest is illegal (parent/child; sibling/sibling) in most states regardless of ages,
Well, that’s a problem with the specific legislation, not the broader principle I was talking about. If the act in question utlilized solely secular criteria in deciding what charities recieved government aid, and dispensed such aid on that criteria without reference to the religious affiliation, if any, of the recipient charity, would you still be bothered by that use of government funds?
As wring points out, invalidating laws against incest is not the same as invalidating laws against child molestation. It’s wrong to be intimate with a child regardless of whether or not they are related. Incest laws naturally also apply to relations between adult members of the same family.
You’re simply wrong on the second point. Bigamy is not defined in relation to the lack of consent of any party. Indeed, you could substitute the word “polygamy” and it wouldn’t change the law any; I suspect bigamy is the preferred term because in common usage it implies a multiple-party marriage rather than an open sexual relationship.
It is impliedly understood that “forced” means “make this choice or pay money damages.”
even so, DCU, in my seminars about hiring and so on, it’s emphasized to obey the law (as in ‘do not inquire about race, religion, family status’ etc.), however, on a practical basis, it’s damned difficult to prove (sufficient for those cash payouts you’re talking about) that protected info was ‘the’ reason some one wasn’t hired (unless, of course the interviewer was an absolute ijiot in which case that’s your liability, not the law).
So while Fred P **couldn’t ** say "I did not hire Tequilla Mockingbird for the position as a secretary ‘cause she’s a god hatin’ heathan of a certain ethnic persuasion, with little kids at home and I suspect she dates other women, too’ , he could refuse to hire her on any one of thousand other grounds.
It’s nearly impossible to have two identical candidates for a position, one w/a protected attribute and one w/o. I was under the impression that the bulk of the big discrimination suits were won on the basis of class data - ie, here’s this factory located in a heavily minority neighborhood, and the ‘entry level, general employment everybody’s probably qualified for this one’ positions were 99% white.
Straight out as far as I’m concerned. any government money which can be granted to a private university can be better spent on a public one.
In theory I think it would be OK, but I don’t trust the government in practice to truly maintain that objectivity. They already haven’t.