Wikipedia map of LGBT employment discrimination laws

Reading some reactions to the ENDA hearing today, I came across a blog post from Focus on the Family. [Forgive me for not linking to it, but my hit on their page was one too many. I am loathe to drive traffic to their blog.]

“So why aren’t we talking more about the religious liberty rights of for-profit religious corporations?  I haven’t seen a reasonable defense for denying a religious exemption to them, and I would argue that there isn’t one.”

Says the writer of the post. And indeed, current religious exemption law is on his side. Title VII  of the Equal Pay Act of 1963 says that the law that prohibits discrimination on the basis of religion:

“…shall not apply to an employer with respect to the employment of aliens outside any State, or to a religious corporation, association, educational institution, or society with respect to the employment of individuals of a particular religion to perform work connected with the carrying on by such corporation, association, educational institution, or society of its activities.” [Emphasis mine.]

According to the Wikipedia entry on ENDA,

“Religious organizations are provided a special exception to this protection, similar to the principles of the Civil Rights Act. Non-profit membership-only clubs (except labor unions) are likewise not bound to this rule.”

I would argue that religious organizations, for- and non-profit alike, should not be allowed to discriminate on the basis of religion, sexual orientation, or gender identity in matters of employment. I can see that a person employed as, say, a minister, would have to belong to the religion as a job qualification. But do their accountants and school bus drivers have to drive and subtract with the blessing of the right God?

The wording of the 1963 act is a little odd: “…to perform work connected with the carrying on by such corporation, association, educational institution, or society of its activities.” Connected with the carrying on of its activities–what does that even mean? Anything the organization does falls into that category. I’m sure the wording is purposely broad, but maybe it should be narrowed.

In this time of rampant unemployment, is it right to deny someone work because of sexual orientation, gender identity, or religion? Gayness is not an evangelical movement. It is not a virus. Letting heathens and queers in the door does not loose the foundation of the house of God. Giving these organizations the right to discriminate is sanctioning their claim to godliness; in fact it is tacitly agreeing that God would discriminate, too. On behalf of my queer Christian friends, I am offended.

As for the original question posed by the blogger as to why for-profit corporations should not be included in the exemption, I say this: Non-profit organizations are regulated. There are rules about how they conduct business, what business they conduct, and how they spend their money. Corporations, on the other hand, have much more freedom. They can apply all of their profits, for example, to lobbying, if the owners want to. They can freely endorse and fund candidates in elections. They can, in other words, more easily affect who governs and how. (If you don’t believe me, just look at how the insurance companies are influencing health care reform.)

It stands to reason, then, that special rights (and I use that term thoughtfully) granted to religious non-profits should not apply to for-profit corporations of any kind. The point of a religious organization (in theory) is to promote and uphold the religion. The point of a company is to reap profits. Why should professed religion exempt them from the rules of the corporate road?

I invite those with more than my paltry understanding of the law to comment further.

Bookmark It

Hide Sites