Leadership U. EasyGift

Academics
Humanities
Social Sciences
Sciences
Theology
Academic Integration
Faculty Offices

Departments
Current Issues
Publications
Conferences/Events
Apologetics
Ministry Tools
Bible Studies
What's New

Special Interest
Past Features
Other Sites
Help LU
About LU
Privacy Policy
Link to LU
Feedback

Navigation
Site Map
Site Index
Advanced Search
Browsing Help
LU Home


LU Updates
Receive
LU-Announce

subscribe

 
     
ConversationsResource Center

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.

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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