|
|
  
Special Class Protections for Self-Alleged Gays: A
Question of "Orientation" and Consequences
A public policy analysis
by Tony Marco
Copyright Tony Marco, 1991-1994, all rights
reserved
Previous | Table
of Contents | Next
"Religious Exceptions" in "Gay Rights" Laws Deceptive and
Transitory At Best
Local and state "gay rights" legislation often gains public acceptance
when such legislation contains compliance "exceptions" for religious
organizations. Typically, clauses stating that religious denominations
will not be compelled to hire "someone not a member of the denomination
in question" or other such wording give an illusion of protection for
religious organizations against gay militant aggression. Cursory
analysis reveals that these protections (1) place religious
organizations in an unflattering light at best; (2) at worst will prove
only temporary.
- As author Stephen Bransford has observed, at best these kinds of
allowances for church impunity against enforcement of "gay rights" laws
place churches and religious organizations in an unflattering public
light. Gay militants are able to continue attacking the church as "the
only institution in society that is allowed to `discriminate against
gays,'" and other such disinformation.
- Parachurch ministries are usually not protected at all under "gay
rights" bills with "religious exceptions." Non-compliance clauses
customarily written into these bills by gay militants most often say
something like: "Religious organizations need not hire individuals
not of their denominations. Most parachurch
organizations are non-denominational, i.e., denominational affiliation
is not a condition of employment. Therefore, these organizations have
no real protection from the threat of "discrimination" lawsuits for
refusing to hire gay individuals.
- Anyone may conceal his/her "sexual orientation," meet membership
requirements in a denominational church, then suddenly claim to be gay
and demand church employment. As most "gay rights" laws' "religious
exceptions" are phrased, denominational churches thus enjoy no real
protection against the threat of gay militancy.
- The U.S. Supreme Court, in Bob Jones University vs. Simon
(1983), ruled that the beliefs of any tax-exempt religious organization
must be "approved by public policy" in order for an
organization to retain tax-exempt status. According to Constitutional
attorneys, this may well mean that, under the guise of "preventing
religious subsidies" the Federal government has the power to completely
regulate religious beliefs according to Federal dictates. If
gays gain inclusion in the Federal Civil Rights Act of 1964 -- or some
other new gay-protective federal legislation is enacted -- promotion of
the militant gay political agenda will be the "public policy" of the
United States. In that event, any "gay rights" bill "religious
exceptions" will splinter like balsa-wood in a hurricane.
It would be naive indeed for religious individuals and organizations to
assume that gay militants are ignorant of the implications of Bob
Jones University vs. Simon..
Previous | Table
of Contents | Next
Email this to a friend
copyright
© 1995-2008
Leadership U. All rights reserved.
Updated: 13 July 2002
|