OT: religious exemption to non-discrimination EO?

[paulflorez]

President Obama will soon be signing an executive order barring discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity by federal contractors. Several anti-gay religious groups and leaders (e.g. Catholic Charities, Rick Warren) have sent him this letter, asking to be exempted from the EO:
http://apps.washingtonpost.com/g/documents/local/letter-to-obama-from-faith-leaders/1072/

Should federal contractors be able to refuse to hire or provide the contracted federal services to a group while also accepting taxpayer funds, which would include the tax dollars paid by members of that group, if hiring/servicing that group would be a violation of their religious beliefs?

[Doofrat]

Pretty much the crap you’d expect from a religious lobbyist. No real reason why they want to persecute the gays, just a general threat to the “common good” “national unity” and somehow to “religious freedom”.

Would anybody be surprised if the KKK organized a religion that saw black people as evil and then lost out on Federal contracts because they wouldn’t allow blacks to work for them?

Maybe the contractors can prove their faith by not bidding on Federal contracts and instead rely on God to support them?

[UCGal]

I have a friend who’s a social worker for Catholic Social Services. They know she is not Catholic and never will be.

That said – part of her job is assisting low income women/families… she is not allowed to bring up the topic of family planning at all. She does answer questions when asked specifically – but cannot volunteer information of any kind. That’s part of working for a social services agencies that is managed by the Catholic Church, but funded in part, by the US government. Obviously birth control is legal, and there are clinics that make it available at low cost for low income folks – but she can’t talk about it unless very directly asked. Even then, it’s discouraged. If the agency were privately funded, then they could even eliminate answering a direct question.

Now – to the question at hand. I don’t think any employer should be allowed to discriminate based on race, gender, religion, or sexual orientation. Obviously there are exceptions to this for actual churches (not just church affiliated agencies) – but churches themselves, don’t get federal funds. The Catholic church is free to ban women from the priesthood, etc. They are free to disallow gay priests (yeah, good luck with that one.)

But employers who are not actual churches should not be allowed to discriminate – and that should include gender identity. They can establish dress codes etc to make sure that gender identity is not overt… as long as it is applied evenly to gay and straight alike.

[CA renter]

[quote=UCGal]I have a friend who’s a social worker for Catholic Social Services. They know she is not Catholic and never will be.

That said – part of her job is assisting low income women/families… she is not allowed to bring up the topic of family planning at all. She does answer questions when asked specifically – but cannot volunteer information of any kind. That’s part of working for a social services agencies that is managed by the Catholic Church, but funded in part, by the US government. Obviously birth control is legal, and there are clinics that make it available at low cost for low income folks – but she can’t talk about it unless very directly asked. Even then, it’s discouraged. If the agency were privately funded, then they could even eliminate answering a direct question.

Now – to the question at hand. I don’t think any employer should be allowed to discriminate based on race, gender, religion, or sexual orientation. Obviously there are exceptions to this for actual churches (not just church affiliated agencies) – but churches themselves, don’t get federal funds. The Catholic church is free to ban women from the priesthood, etc. They are free to disallow gay priests (yeah, good luck with that one.)

But employers who are not actual churches should not be allowed to discriminate – and that should include gender identity. They can establish dress codes etc to make sure that gender identity is not overt… as long as it is applied evenly to gay and straight alike.[/quote]

Don’t forget the church’s tax-exempt status. That’s a tax expenditure, so one could argue that they do get federal funds.

Wouldn’t it be funny if they could be forced to abide by non-discrimination laws since they are partially publicly funded? I’d love to see that. Then, they could put their money where their mouths are and opt to pay taxes instead of “contributing to an immoral lifestyle” by hiring gays and others whose lifestyles they disapprove of. 😉

[SK in CV]

[quote=CA renter]Don’t forget the church’s tax-exempt status. That’s a tax expenditure, so one could argue that they do get federal funds.

[/quote]

They get a double tax-exemption. Not only are their net profits not subject to income tax, contributions made by donors are deductible for many people. In some localities, real estate owned by religious organizations are exempt from property taxes.

While calculations of the dollar value of these exemptions is difficult, it’s been estimated the cost of religious tax exemptions is as high as $71,000,000,000 per year. That’s double the amount spent on the two largest tax subsidies for other industries (financial and utilities).

[scaredyclassic]

[quote=SK in CV][quote=CA renter]Don’t forget the church’s tax-exempt status. That’s a tax expenditure, so one could argue that they do get federal funds.

[/quote]

They get a double tax-exemption. Not only are their net profits not subject to income tax, contributions made by donors are deductible for many people. In some localities, real estate owned by religious organizations are exempt from property taxes.

While calculations of the dollar value of these exemptions is difficult, it’s been estimated the cost of religious tax exemptions is as high as $71,000,000,000 per year. That’s double the amount spent on the two largest tax subsidies for other industries (financial and utilities).[/quote]

Yeah but in terms of productivity 71 billion is nothing for the number if immortal souls safely shepherded into heaven who otherwise would be roasting in hell. I’d say easily we’d be willing to pay as Americans 10 million per soul safely saved by churches. We are making out like bandits. We should probably be paying the churches directly.

[CA renter]

[quote=SK in CV]
They get a double tax-exemption. Not only are their net profits not subject to income tax, contributions made by donors are deductible for many people. In some localities, real estate owned by religious organizations are exempt from property taxes.

While calculations of the dollar value of these exemptions is difficult, it’s been estimated the cost of religious tax exemptions is as high as $71,000,000,000 per year. That’s double the amount spent on the two largest tax subsidies for other industries (financial and utilities).[/quote]

Very true!

[paulflorez]

I think we are already compromising in ways that both protect religious freedom and persecuted groups and that there is room for continued compromise in the future.

Personally, I think the definition of a religious organization is too loosely defined. I would categorize an organization as religious in nature if they
A) Hired only people of the same faith
B) Provided services to only people of the same faith (excluding services that are free)
C) Performed functions that were inline with well defined religious beliefs.

That being said, I can accept compromise. I can accept the more loose definition of any non-profit that is privately funded and follows a set of religious principles be eligible for exemption as a religious organization. I can also accept the compromise that tax-exemption be interpreted not as a form of public funding.

I draw the line at exemptions allowed for for-profit companies and non-profits operating with public funds. The harm done to the groups which are targeted for discrimination greatly outweighs the meager additional protections for-profit and publicly funded non-profits gain.

[Author]

Posts