Religious Discrimination to Become Legal

[Apocalypse]

Originally posted by Odin
Many big private colleges are somewhat religious.

Colleges like money though. It'd probably be like most private high schools...if you don't attack the religion, they won't care.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Odin


Many big private colleges are somewhat religious.

A majority aren't. And anyone who doesn't take public money at all (a la Bob Jones University) has the right to engage in whatever discrimination in admissions and hiring they want anyway, since they're beyond government regulatory power.)

That doesn't prevent lefties from getting jobs at Harvard and Yale, though.

[The Templar]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat


The "rule" is to hire whoever you want until the state imposes some regulatory scheme on hiring practices. Churches aren't generally subject to state regulatory power (that pesky little Establishment Clause), so the original "rule" of hiring who you want still applies.

Right. Go out and hire all white people when qualified minorities apply in droves to your company and watch the litigation begin. Fire a Jew for being Jew and we'll see you in court - losing your case. Nope, there are plenty of regs that have to be followed when hiring and firing.

Moreover, you might have noticed that I said churches SHOULD have to follow the same rules as everyone else, not that they currently have to. Why should churches get special privileges? It's bad enough that they don't have to pay taxes ... (that's a government subsidy to religion right there!)

Finally, the establishment clause has nothing to do with this. The establishment clause prevents the establishment of religion, not the enforcement of equal opportunity with respect to religion. This is quite the opposite of what the establishment clause prohibits.

[The Templar]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat


A majority aren't. And anyone who doesn't take public money at all (a la Bob Jones University) has the right to engage in whatever discrimination in admissions and hiring they want anyway, since they're beyond government regulatory power.)

That doesn't prevent lefties from getting jobs at Harvard and Yale, though.

Not in hiring they don't. If you demonstrate racial bias in Bob Jones's hiring policy, they'd be taken to the cleaners. They have other ways of discouraging minority participation.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by DinoDoc

The idea is backed by a court ruling and intended to keep religious groups from dropping out of the federal program, said Rep. Mike Castle, R-Delaware, the bill's sponsor.

Does anyone know the Court ruling Castle is refering to?

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by The Templar
Right. Go out and hire all white people when qualified minorities apply in droves to your company and watch the litigation begin. Fire a Jew for being Jew and we'll see you in court - losing your case. Nope, there are plenty of regs that have to be followed when hiring and firing.

Uh, maybe you should move from Alphabet city to "Hooked on Phonics" or whatever it takes so you can read. Then try to reread my post, and sound out each word carefully, and see if you can find your mistake.

Moreover, you might have noticed that I said churches SHOULD have to follow the same rules as everyone else, not that they currently have to. Why should churches get special privileges? It's bad enough that they don't have to pay taxes ... (that's a government subsidy to religion right there!)

Well, SHOULD is a fairy tale world. I'm just informing you as to reality.

Finally, the establishment clause has nothing to do with this. The establishment clause prevents the establishment of religion, not the enforcement of equal opportunity with respect to religion. This is quite the opposite of what the establishment clause prohibits.

That's why there's no taxation, right, the Establishment Clause doesn't prevent the enforcement of tax laws?

[Dinner]

This law make sense.

Notice how it allows religious institutions to promote their own faith. Isn't that the whole reason for religion?

You mean people teaching at Catholic schools have to be Catholic?

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by The Templar


Not in hiring they don't. If you demonstrate racial bias in Bob Jones's hiring policy, they'd be taken to the cleaners. They have other ways of discouraging minority participation.

Show me how many whites are employed by the Nation of Islam?

The mechanism is simple. A religious organization can have essentially any tenets and any membership requirements it pleases, unless those conflict with compelling public interests. (Thus human sacrifice is out. )

It is perfectly legal for a religion to exclude members based on race, or require that female adherents strictly follow Sharia, and may not work outside the home, etc. This membership requirement is then the basis for the statutory right to hire members of the religion preferentially to non-members. Thus a two step pattern of membership restriction and preferential hiring of members allows any form of discrimination in hiring.

"Other ways of discouraging minority participation" is doublespeak. If it exists, it's bias. They don't have to have a written "hire no darkies" policy but are free to use "other ways" to accomplish the same effect.

You don't have a clue how discrimination litigation works - nobody other than an avowed white supremacist group is stupid enough to publish explicitly illegal hiring policy - ALL discrimination claims are based on documenting an alleged pattern of behavior that is "other ways of discouraging minority participation." Ever heard of people suing alleging "hostile work atmosphere" "intimidation" etc?

********

DD - the cases referred to are most likely the flock of voucher related cases that have gone through different appellate courts.

The most interesting case up before SCOTUS on the general subject is Locke v. Davey, an appeal from the State of Washington to SCOTUS of Davey v. Locke, 299 F. 3d. 748 (9th. Cir. 2002) relating to state law Blaine Amendments in state constitutions. Interestingly, the 9th Circuit held in favor of religious organizations receiving funding, due the the state not being able to demonstrate a compelling interest in favor of preventing funding.

SCOTUS already ruled in Zelman v. Simmons-Harris 536 US 639 (2002) on the subject of publicly funded vouchers not violating the Establishment Clause when parents used them at private, religious based schools.

edit - dropped HTML tag killed some text.

You're welcome, DD.

[DinoDoc]

Thank you MtG.

[Dis]

I'm beginning to think athiests are paranoid

[Berzerker]

Sava -

It's becoming more and more evident that civil rights have no place in Bush's America.

You have a civil right to a job?

BECAUSE THEY ARE FUNDED BY FEDERAL MONEY! I don't know about you, but I don't want my tax dollars supporting discrimination.

Strange, you want to discriminate against them. But aren't you advocating discrimination by requiring teaching credentials? They just have different credentials...

[Berzerker]

MtG -

Interestingly, the 9th Circuit held in favor of religious organizations receiving funding, due the the state not being able to demonstrate a compelling interest in favor of preventing funding.

SCOTUS already ruled in Zelman v. Simmons-Harris 536 US 639 (2002) on the subject of publicly funded vouchers not violating the Establishment Clause when parents used them at private, religious based schools.

Does the establishment clause authorise funding religious institutions through a proxy - the parent? How about some other part of the Constitution?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Does the establishment clause authorise funding religious institutions through a proxy - the parent?

The problem is how you read it. If you read it as Congress shall make no law regarding a relgion ('establishment of religion' meaning Church) then forbidding funding to a school because of its religion would violate that. Because you are making law regarding religion (even though it is to the detriment of that religion).

If you read as Congress can't set up a state religion ('establishment of religion' meaning state church), you may make an argument that state funded schools are akin to setting up a state religion.

[Ben Kenobi]

DD:

http://www.cnn.com/2002/LAW/06/27/scotus.school.vouchers/

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Does the establishment clause authorise funding religious institutions through a proxy - the parent?

The problem is how you read it. If you read it as Congress shall make no law regarding a relgion ('establishment of religion' meaning Church) then forbidding funding to a school because of its religion would violate that. Because you are making law regarding religion (even though it is to the detriment of that religion).

If you read as Congress can't set up a state religion ('establishment of religion' meaning state church), you may make an argument that state funded schools are akin to setting up a state religion.

It actually says both, interestingly enough.