Bush Administration wants to Legalize Religious and Sexual Orientation Discrimination in Hiring (federally funded)

tnitsuj

Diamond Member
May 22, 2003
5,446
0
76
In the name of religious freedom and charity of course....

From the Washington Post

washingtonpost.com
Bush Backs Religious Charities On Hiring
Hill Is Urged to Ease Bias Rules on Groups That Get U.S. Funds

By Mike Allen and Alan Cooperman
Washington Post Staff Writers
Wednesday, June 25, 2003; Page A01


President Bush called on Congress yesterday to make it easier for federally funded religious groups to base their hiring decisions on a job candidate's religion and sexual orientation.

A White House position paper sent to Capitol Hill argues that "religious hiring rights" are part of religious organizations' civil rights. "When they receive federal funds, they should retain their right to hire those individuals who are best able to further their organizations' goals and mission," the document says.

H. James Towey, director of the White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives, said in an interview that he found great confusion about hiring laws when he met with officials of charities throughout the country. "It's been abundantly clear that the religious hiring issue is a real barrier for a lot of faith-based organizations," Towey said. "And if faith-based organizations are deterred from providing services, the real losers are the poor."

Administration officials said the policy, months in development, takes a stand that Bush has long held but has not previously spelled out.

The White House document calls on Congress to clarify a confusing and sometimes contradictory area of law. Since 1972, Title VII of the federal Civil Rights Act has said that religious groups can hire staff members based on religious beliefs, which at least one court has interpreted to include views on sexual orientation. But the laws that authorize some federal social service programs, such as job training, prohibit any group that receives federal funds from discriminating on the basis of age, gender, race or religion.

No broad federal law bans discrimination in hiring based on sexual orientation, but some state and local laws do.

The White House position paper does not change administration doctrine, but it puts Bush in a much more aggressive position on a highly charged issue. It comes as his reelection campaign is picking up speed, and it demonstrates that he continues to work on proposals backed by religious organizations even though he has been unable to win passage of the broad "faith-based initiative" he advocated in the 2000 campaign.

The Rev. Ronald J. Sider, head of Evangelicals for Social Action, a 3,000-member group that encourages evangelical Christians to work for the poor, said the White House seems to be making "a more aggressive, vigorous attempt to explain to the public what the situation is and to make the case for religious freedom in hiring."

"It indicates that they're serious -- and they darn well better be, because it's crucial to a whole lot of us," he said. "I think the administration understands that the very identity of faith-based organizations is at issue in hiring rights."

Towey, who outlined the administration's position yesterday in a speech at the national conference of Volunteers of America in Fort Worth, noted that President Bill Clinton signed four laws -- including the 1996 welfare reform act -- that allowed religious organizations receiving federal funds to hire on a religious basis.

However, Christopher E. Anders, a lobbyist for the American Civil Liberties Union, said the changes Bush seeks would institutionalize religious bias. "The administration can sugarcoat it as much as it likes," he said, "but the idea has no traction in Congress."

The goal of Bush's "faith-based initiative" is to help religious charities compete for federal funds for a range of social services, such as soup kitchens, job training and addiction treatment. Two years ago, an early version of the legislation called for exempting religious groups not only from federal discrimination laws but also from state and local statutes.

Those proposed exemptions were a major reason the legislation floundered. Congress passed a watered-down version this spring that provided tax benefits to all charities but gave no special protections to religious groups.

House Republicans and the Bush administration now seek to include exemptions from discrimination laws in individual bills that reauthorize federal social service programs. For example, language allowing hiring on the basis of religion is contained in the Workforce Investment Act, the country's main job training legislation. It passed the House on May 8 and awaits Senate action.

A bill reauthorizing the Head Start program for the next five years contains a similar clause. The House Committee on Education and the Workforce approved that bill on a straight party-line vote last week, and it could come to the floor in July, said David Schnittger, spokesman for the panel's chairman, Rep. John A. Boehner (R-Ohio).

Bush's position paper says the administration will let the courts decide whether state and local bans on hiring discrimination should apply to religious organizations. Some conservatives want to eliminate such bans in cases involving religious groups that believe the hiring of gays and lesbians, for instance, would be contrary to their mission.

"The president will urge the courts to provide guidance on whether faith-based organizations are required to comply with state and local ordinances that restrict their ability to participate in federally funded formula and block grant programs," the document says.

Rep. Robert C. "Bobby" Scott (D-Va.) plans to introduce legislation today that would nullify regulatory decisions by the Bush administration that permit employment discrimination by some religious organizations.

The Rev. Barry W. Lynn, executive director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, called the White House proposal "another last-ditch effort by Bush to save his faith-based initiative."



© 2003 The Washington Post Company

 

CaptnKirk

Lifer
Jul 25, 2002
10,053
0
71
Christian Conservative Republican Base - Remember ?
Must be coddled at all costs to general public.
 

dabuddha

Lifer
Apr 10, 2000
19,579
17
81
From what I read, it seems he only wants to legalize it for religion organizations. If this is true, then it makes sense to me. Why would a Jewish organization want any anti-Semites in their group? Unless I read it wrong which is most likely true since I only skimmed over it.
 

tnitsuj

Diamond Member
May 22, 2003
5,446
0
76
Originally posted by: dabuddha
From what I read, it seems he only wants to legalize it for religion organizations. If this is true, then it makes sense to me. Why would a Jewish organization want any anti-Semites in their group? Unless I read it wrong which is most likely true since I only skimmed over it.

Since when was anti-semite a religion?

 

tcsenter

Lifer
Sep 7, 2001
18,905
556
126
Bush Administration wants to Legalize Religious and Sexual Orientation Discrimination in Hiring (federally funded)
I got a news flash for you...its already "legal" to discriminate against people based on their sexual preference, and in certain instances, their religion. Cracker Barrel, Boy Scouts of America, et al.

There is a certain amount of latitude that is certainly acceptable to protect freedom of association.
 

SuperTool

Lifer
Jan 25, 2000
14,000
2
0
Originally posted by: tcsenter
Bush Administration wants to Legalize Religious and Sexual Orientation Discrimination in Hiring (federally funded)
I got a news flash for you...its already "legal" to discriminate against people based on their sexual preference, and in certain instances, their religion. Cracker Barrel, Boy Scouts of America, et al.

There is a certain amount of latitude that is certainly acceptable to protect freedom of association.

As long as the federal funds aren't paying for it. Discriminate all you want, just don't ask me to pay for it.
 

tnitsuj

Diamond Member
May 22, 2003
5,446
0
76
Originally posted by: tcsenter
Bush Administration wants to Legalize Religious and Sexual Orientation Discrimination in Hiring (federally funded)
I got a news flash for you...its already "legal" to discriminate against people based on their sexual preference, and in certain instances, their religion. Cracker Barrel, Boy Scouts of America, et al.

There is a certain amount of latitude that is certainly acceptable to protect freedom of association.

That only applies to privately funded organizations. You start taking federal money you start having to apply equal opportunity in the protected categories of which religion is one, and yes sexual orientation is not yet a reocognized and protected class under Federal law.

You are perfectly free to associate all you want with whomever you want if you don't take federal money, but that is not what the thread is about is it????? news flash...my ass.

NOTICE THE (FEDERALLY FUNDED) IN THE THREAD TITLE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
 

tcsenter

Lifer
Sep 7, 2001
18,905
556
126
As long as the federal funds aren't paying for it. Discriminate all you want, just don't ask me to pay for it.
Well laws prohibiting discrimination are indeed just another form of discrimination. We can and do draw the line.

Should someone be forced to hire a drag queen or a cross dresser? And not even a really good drag queen, either. I'm talking like a 200lb manly cross-dresser with a five o'clock shadow and dismal fashion sense. I'm sure these people didn't 'choose' to have this desire or urge to dress like women. They were born with it.
 

tnitsuj

Diamond Member
May 22, 2003
5,446
0
76
Originally posted by: tcsenter
As long as the federal funds aren't paying for it. Discriminate all you want, just don't ask me to pay for it.
Well laws prohibiting discrimination are indeed just another form of discrimination. We can and do draw the line.

Should someone be forced to hire a drag queen or a cross dresser? And not even a really good drag queen, either. I'm talking like a 200lb manly cross-dresser with a five o'clock shadow and dismal fashion sense. I'm sure these people didn't 'chose' to have this desire or urge to dress like women. They were born with it.

You are bringing up cases that are not covered under law and are absurd to the extreme. Where in federal equal opportunity law does it say anything about drag queens and cross dressers, or child molesters, or guys who like to light fires etc.

Thier are several categories in which you can not discriminate in hiring including such things as age, sex, race, religion, disability etc. if you are using federal funds.
 

Alistar7

Lifer
May 13, 2002
11,978
0
0
I agree, no federal funds will be issued unless you have a non-christian hermaphrodite homosexual in your organization, all in favor?
 

dabuddha

Lifer
Apr 10, 2000
19,579
17
81
Originally posted by: tnitsuj
Originally posted by: dabuddha
From what I read, it seems he only wants to legalize it for religion organizations. If this is true, then it makes sense to me. Why would a Jewish organization want any anti-Semites in their group? Unless I read it wrong which is most likely true since I only skimmed over it.

Since when was anti-semite a religion?

I never said anti-Semitism was a religion. I said it should be ok for a Jewish organization to not allow anti-Semites in their organizations.
 

tnitsuj

Diamond Member
May 22, 2003
5,446
0
76
Originally posted by: dabuddha
Originally posted by: tnitsuj
Originally posted by: dabuddha
From what I read, it seems he only wants to legalize it for religion organizations. If this is true, then it makes sense to me. Why would a Jewish organization want any anti-Semites in their group? Unless I read it wrong which is most likely true since I only skimmed over it.

Since when was anti-semite a religion?

I never said anti-Semitism was a religion. I said it should be ok for a Jewish organization to not allow anti-Semites in their organizations.

No one is asking them to. What does that have to do with discriminating based on religion and sexual orientation. Stay on topic man....

 

tcsenter

Lifer
Sep 7, 2001
18,905
556
126
Where in federal equal opportunity law does it say anything about drag queens and cross dressers, or child molesters, or guys who like to light fires etc.
What's the difference between homosexuality and cross-dressing? I mean, unless you're arguing that cross-dressers 'chose' to have an obsession, urge, or desire to dress like women?

And what about pedophiles? If nobody 'chooses' their sexual orientation, how could anyone argue that pedophiles 'chose' to find children sexually stimulating?

And what about pyromaniacs? You think they weren't born with their obsessions/complusions?
 

tnitsuj

Diamond Member
May 22, 2003
5,446
0
76
Originally posted by: tcsenter
Where in federal equal opportunity law does it say anything about drag queens and cross dressers, or child molesters, or guys who like to light fires etc.
What's the difference between homosexuality and cross-dressing? I mean, unless you're arguing that cross-dressers 'chose' to have an obsession, urge, or desire to dress like women?

And what about pedophiles? If nobody 'chooses' their sexual orientation, how could anyone argue that pedophiles 'chose' to find children sexually stimulating?

And what about pyromaniacs? You think they weren't born with their obsessions/complusions?


Cross dressing and homosexuality are not the same...and neither of them have been deemed protected yet. I couldn't tell you the psychology of it..becuase frankly I am not qualified.

Last time I checked pedophelia was a crime. It doesn't matter if they chose to do it, or it was wired into them or whatever it is a crime and in most cases a felony. You could make the argument that you made above, but it is ridiculous. You are not required to hire criminals.

Same thing goes for pyromaniacs.

Again, your cases are absurd and do not relate to the question at hand.

Are you seriously saying that refusing to hire a pedophile or a pyromaniac is the same as refusing to hire a Jew in a federally funded organization?

 

Alistar7

Lifer
May 13, 2002
11,978
0
0
Sodomy is illegal in some states still.....


Colleges who are all male/female still have students that recieve federal funding....

IMHO if you take federal money you cannot use any discriminatory factors in hiring, isn't this also illegal for private business? At least in a civil manner?
 

tnitsuj

Diamond Member
May 22, 2003
5,446
0
76
Originally posted by: Alistar7
Sodomy is illegal in some states still.....


Colleges who are all male/female still have students that recieve federal funding....

IMHO if you take federal money you cannot use any discriminatory factors in hiring, isn't this also illegal for private business? At least in a civil manner?

please refer to relevent US Statues from EEOC:



II. What Discriminatory Practices Are Prohibited by These Laws?
Under Title VII, the ADA, and the ADEA, it is illegal to discriminate in any aspect of employment, including:

hiring and firing;
compensation, assignment, or classification of employees;
transfer, promotion, layoff, or recall;
job advertisements;
recruitment;
testing;
use of company facilities;
training and apprenticeship programs;
fringe benefits;
pay, retirement plans, and disability leave; or
other terms and conditions of employment.
Discriminatory practices under these laws also include:

harassment on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, disability, or age;
retaliation against an individual for filing a charge of discrimination, participating in an investigation, or opposing discriminatory practices;
employment decisions based on stereotypes or assumptions about the abilities, traits, or performance of individuals of a certain sex, race, age, religion, or ethnic group, or individuals with disabilities; and
denying employment opportunities to a person because of marriage to, or association with, an individual of a particular race, religion, national origin, or an individual with a disability. Title VII also prohibits discrimination because of participation in schools or places of worship associated with a particular racial, ethnic, or religious group.
Employers are required to post notices to all employees advising them of their rights under the laws EEOC enforces and their right to be free from retaliation. Such notices must be accessible, as needed, to persons with visual or other disabilities that affect reading.

Note: Many states and municipalities also have enacted protections against discrimination and harassment based on sexual orientation, status as a parent, marital status and political affiliation. For information, please contact the EEOC District Office nearest you.
EEOC Hiring FAQ
 

tcsenter

Lifer
Sep 7, 2001
18,905
556
126
Are you seriously saying that refusing to hire a pedophile or a pyromaniac is the same as refusing to hire a Jew in a federally funded organization?
Well pedophiles "can't help" who they are, right? Isn't that the defense of homosexuality? They were born with it, therefore its not a behavior they can help? Its not a 'lifestyle choice' because they 'can't help it'?

Actually, pedophilia is not a crime. Child molestation is a crime, but the implicit desire or obsession with children as sexual objects isn't a crime because you can't criminalize thoughts.

So what if some guy comes out and publicly admits to being a pedophile but he has not committed acts against children?
 

HappyGamer2

Banned
Jun 12, 2000
1,441
0
0
well churchs and there whatever are for the weak, Jesse The body was right on that one.

here is a good one about 3 years ago my little sister whom was in college at the time went to work for a church day care center, you would not beleive the questions they asked her, and the rules and conditions of her employment. lots of sex questions and rules etc, but the big one was drinking, no drinking of beer period is allowed, this is off the job , even if you were on vacation in mexico. not a drop if caught fired period.

she doesn't drink a drop anyhow, but she didn't like being told how to run her own life.
 

konichiwa

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
15,077
2
0
Originally posted by: tcsenter
Where in federal equal opportunity law does it say anything about drag queens and cross dressers, or child molesters, or guys who like to light fires etc.
What's the difference between homosexuality and cross-dressing? I mean, unless you're arguing that cross-dressers 'chose' to have an obsession, urge, or desire to dress like women?

There isn't an intrinsic difference. Both are sexual preferences. But in a workplace, it is completely legitimate to not hire a transsexual/crossdresser because of the simple fact that many customers (and coworkers) will be frightened/offended by him/her. That leads to less sales, lower morale in the company, etc. That's a legitimate excuse to not hire someone. Because they're gay or jewish isn't.

And what about pedophiles? If nobody 'chooses' their sexual orientation, how could anyone argue that pedophiles 'chose' to find children sexually stimulating?

That's easy. Sure, you might say pedophilia is a sexual orientation, but an inherently non-consensual one. That makes it illegal and harmful, whereas homosexuality is neither of those.

And what about pyromaniacs? You think they weren't born with their obsessions/complusions?

Again, see above.
 

ConclamoLudus

Senior member
Jan 16, 2003
572
0
0
Originally posted by: Gonad the Barbarian
federally funded religious groups
WTF? How are there even such things in the first place?

Because they help people. There's a soup kitchen down the street from me and I'm glad they are receiving federal funds to feed the homeless. I don't agree with this proposal by Bush though. Unfortunately whether it passes or not they'll probably think of those things during the hiring process anyways and silently discriminate, concious or not.
 

tcsenter

Lifer
Sep 7, 2001
18,905
556
126
There isn't an intrinsic difference. Both are sexual preferences. But in a workplace, it is completely legitimate to not hire a transsexual/crossdresser because of the simple fact that many customers (and coworkers) will be frightened/offended by him/her. That leads to less sales, lower morale in the company, etc. That's a legitimate excuse to not hire someone. Because they're gay or jewish isn't.
Its not legitimate to be offended by homosexuals? Do tell why. Because "they can't help it"?

See above. Peat and repeat.
 

maXroOt

Member
Jun 25, 2003
59
0
0
some of u guys need to understand a few things about gender identity ...

homosexuality is VERY different from crossdressing. something like 90% of crossdressers are straight.

drag queens are generally homosexuals who dress as the opposite sex as a performance type of thing

now, when u talk about someone in the work place that dresses as the opposite sex, that person is most likely a transsexual. most CD's dont just go to work dressed up, those that dress all the time and are going to have surgery and all that are transsexuals, which is different from CD or drag queen.


and i dont know why some of u are talking about pedophilia ... that is COMPLETELY unreated to sexual orientation or gender orientation. some of u seem to be implying that they are 1 in the same, and that is so horribly wrong.

and this entire thing about whether or not these people can help it ... it is a combination of nature and nurture for the most part. but transsxuals have been classified as a "mental disorder" meaning they cant help it. and if one goes through surgery and all that, they do legally become a female

and i definetly agree that there should be no federal funds allowed if discrimination is involved