Methodist Church Defrocks Lesbian Pastor
I read of this courtesy of Google News.
Wasn't there a similar case with the Boy Scouts a few years back? A gay scoutmaster (go figure) or something? As I recall, the courts ruled that the Boy Scouts could discriminate, since they were a private institution. I assume the same logic would apply here: the Methodist Church may decide who may or may not be a pastor based on whatever criteria they choose, since they are a private organisation.
This just seems wrong to me. Private companies are bloody well not allowed to discriminate on sex, colour, or creed. Why are religious institutions or the Boy Scouts?
Finally, would the fact that the Methodist Church has undoubtably taken federal money thanks to Our Fearless Leader's faith-based initiatives change anything? It would seem to me that if the Feddy Gov is handing money around, it should be allowed to set a few guidelines.
IANAL, so if someone could explain the legal precedent for this, I would appreciate it. One must understand something vile in order to change it, I suppose.
posted by Josh Glover @ 11/01/2005 07:27:00 PM
8 comments
8 Comments:
Boy Scouts of America v. Dale, 530 U.S. 640 (2000). Supreme Court held that having a homosexual scout leader was inconsistent with the values the Boy Scouts attempt to instill in its members, in that the Boy Scouts teach their members that homosexuality is wrong. Therefore application of NJ's public accommodation laws (which would forbid discrimination of this sort) to the Boy Scouts in this situation violated their First Amendment freedom of association.
5-4 opinion, Rhenquist wrote the majority. There is some pretty crappy reasoning in there that the 3d Circuit pointed out in its Solomon Amendment case FAIR v. Rumsfeld. The FAIR case will be argued before the Court in December.
Hasn't the Catholic Church recently launched an initiative to keep homosexuals from joining the seminary/becoming priests? I don't think it was going to oust any already ordained gay priests, but I think there was something about changing seminary admission standards. Anyone else hear about this? [too lazy to Google it]
I've read a couple of articles regarding that topic, Harris, and you are correct, sir. As far as the Methodist case goes, I agree with Josh in principle that the same standards regarding discrimination for private company employment should be implemented in the church and other such organizations. However, churches are largely non-profit (beware the church that is arranged as for-profit), and as such, are held to a completely different set of guidelines than those that govern private companies. That discrepancy behind me, I don't feel the government has any right whatsoever to tell any private company or organization, provided they do not receive any form of government funding or government contract work, who they can hire, or more intrusively, who they must hire. How did I change this post response from one regarding the Methodist Church to my view on hiring quotas? Magic, my friends. Magic.
The Methodist Church would be treated exactly the same as the Boy Scouts in this instance. Under Dale, if a private organization has as one of its main goals/functions instilling certain values in its members, and those values conflict with the message allowing a certain member to join would send out, then the org can boot that member and be protected from anti-discrimination laws by their First Amendment right to freedom of association.
In fact, the FAIR case (and a case my judge decided call Burt v. Rumsfeld), takes this proposition and held that this means private universities (in these cases, law schools) do not have to allow any organizations, even the military, to be involved in their official on-campus recruiting programs if they will not sign an anti-discrimination pledge like everyone else. And, more importantly, the government cannot withhold funding because of this ban (as the Solomon Amendment tries to do), because forcing universities to include discriminators in their programs, when universities have policies designed to instill the value of non-discrimination in their students, violates their freedom of association rights under Dale. And the government cannot withhold funding based on violating a recipient's First Amendment rights (although it can for other reasons).
Of course, the better argument for this situation is a First Amendment compelled speech argument, but that's for another day.
I guess the legal argument makes sense. In the case of the Methodist Church, I wonder why gay and lesbian pastors do not simply move on to a church that is more accepting of their lifestyles? The Presbyterian Church, for example, seems to be teeming with gay / lesbian / transgendered pastors. :)
Thanks for the explanation!
Employment regulations that infringe upon the dogma of religious institutions are intrusive and exceed the government's scope of responsibility.
Religious institutions should be kept clear of such regulations so that they may practice their teachings without submitting them for approval to the authority of the state.
Personal opinions aside related to equality in the workforce, it seems to be another of those issues which may have a ‘right and wrong’, but not a ‘right and wrong’ appropriate for the state to determine.
Could you imagine mandating a mosque to employ a Jewish person or a woman as an imam?
I don't mean to belabor the point, I'm just trying to understand the legality of the issue. But, what about companies that are not religious organizations per se but that embrace certain religious values as part of their corporate mission? In other words, let's say an evangelical Christian has a business selling shovels. He runs his company based on his Christian beliefs and chooses to hire like-minded individuals. Is he allowed to discriminate/not hire those with divergent beliefs, i.e. atheists, Catholics, Jews, Muslims? Or is he not protected because religion is not a core function of his business?
I believe, and its been awhile since I looked at the case law, that if the organization/business does not have the teaching or instilling of values on members (i.e. part of its raison d'etre is not expression, just trying to sell shovels), then it would have to follow state public accommodation laws, or similar anti-discrimination laws. That's because the state's decision to pass an anti-discrimination law and enforce it would not infringe on the business's First Amendment rights because the business is not trying to say anything. It falls to the state's inherent police powers.
Other lawyers, am I screwing this up?
Post a Comment
<< Home