Obama Force Religious Groups To Pick Faith Or Funding
Please, forcing contractors to not fire gay people purely over their sexual orientation is not “pick faith or funding.” It’s “don’t spit on gay people” and “don’t look at gay people as being lower in dignity.” This won’t affect churches.
Keep in mind that he is removing the exemption from religious organizations (consider, for example, religious organizations that have contracts with the government to provide social services).
See this from the (left-wing) Talking Points Memo
Obama’s LGBT Hiring Executive Order Will Not Include Religious Exemption
President Barack Obama plans to sign on Monday a long-awaited executive order prohibiting discrimination against LGBT people by federal contractors, and it will not include the broad religious exemption sought by religious leaders.
The Huffington Post reported on Friday that Obama’s order will add sexual orientation and gender identity to an existing non-discrimination order that covers race, sex and religion. A White House official confirmed the report to TPM. It will not include any general religious exemption for religious employers.
Right, but churches aren’t federal contractors, so it’s pretty much irrelevant. I can’t think of a single federal contractor that would be justified (from a Catholic perspective) in firing someone purely for being gay.
Businesses and religious groups are not morally obliged to hire or keep people who practice sexual perversity.
This won’t affect churches.
It will. Catholic charity organizations receive funding from the government,so they will be punished for refusing to hire or keep homosexual employees.
< But some groups wanted Mr. Obama to go further to protect religious groups in carving out an exception. One example of such protections would allow a Catholic charity that believes sex outside heterosexual marriage is a sin to keep its government financing if it declined to hire a gay man. >
In the case of civilian priests who say Mass at military chapels in the US, they are. During the shutdown, these priests were barred from saying Mass at on-base chapels because of their status as federal contractors who were part of the sequestration.
Then why did religious groups demand exemption from the legislation?
A federal contractor is any person or business that has a contract with the federal government and receives money from the government for its services. Catholic organizations have contracts with the federal government and receive funding from it.
I can’t think of a single federal contractor that would be justified (from a Catholic perspective) in firing someone purely for being gay.
Catholic institutions have moral codes which forbid employees from violating Church teaching.
I wasn’t aware that civilian priests hire anyone in their capacity in the military .
It’s not a matter of sexual orientation… Catholic organizations have hired gay people. That’s not a problem. The Church and Church organizations always assume you are Chaste.
However, if a Catholic Church employee (for example a teacher or Catholic Charities Executive publicly goes against Church teaching, they can get fired.
For example, a single teacher gets pregnant and says she’s not going to get married and tells the kids she’s moving in with the boyfriend, can get fired. This happened to two Catholic school teachers who were dating each-other and worked in the same school.
Also happened to a gay teacher (who everyone knew was gay). One weekend he got “married,” was public about it, so was fired.
These rules are designed to silence the Church. The enemies of the Church are using SSM to attempt to silence the Church.
We are being attacked and it’s time all Catholics and Orthodox wake up and proverbially fight back.
It’s not about hiring … It’s about the government continuing to contract out to religious organizations.
Catholic Charities will no longer receive grants and contracts from the Government. Catholic Universities will no longer receive federal grants and contracts for federal funded studies, Catholic priests will no longer be allowed to say mass on federal bases or be part of the military Chaplin corps.
That’s what’s going on. This isn’t about protecting someone from getting fired for simply being gay (which is already against the law and rightfully so).
When is he going legislate anti-straight, anti-traditional, and anti-Christian bias? Until someone starts doing these, I ignore the stupidity which comes from a fallen world from fallen people who relish in their fallen state.
A Christian has to be killed before it’s considered persecution by the government. For everyone else, the standard for being considered persecuted is when someone gets offended.
It’s actually not. ENDA still has not passed in federal law. Only 29 states bar employers from doing it. 21 states are completely fine with employers firing employees purely for being attracted to members of their own sex.
True. But this Obama ruling isn’t really about protecting gay employees. It’s about attacking the Church. Why? Because of the no religious organization exemption.
People who self-excommunicate themselves cannot be employed by the Church. And I would argue that they wouldn’t want to work for the Church anyway (unless they were trying undermine it).
Just like I can’t publicly say I disagree with everything my company stand for, employees and agents of the Church can’t either. For example, Nancy Pelosi would have been fired along time ago if she worked for the Church.
Obama is making Catholic Charities and other Catholic organizations say “there is nothing sinful about homosexual sex” or lose federal contracts and grants.
This is a direct attack on the Church and is deliberate.
I disagree with this.
I think that someone working in a ministry role has this applied to them absolutely. This includes teachers, CCD/RCIA instructors, volunteers at parishes/parish side events, etc. But I just can’t personally fathom the idea that someone, by virtue of having premarital sex of any kind, should be fired from, say, a Catholic homeless shelter. It makes no logical sense to me :shrug:.
Also, an actively gay person, even a married gay person, does not excommunicate themselves. Excommunication is a very, very specific thing that only applies to a few acts. Yes, they are committing sin of grave matter, but they do not excommunicate themselves.
I agree with you regarding the difference between “ministry roles” vs non-ministry roles. But I would argue that Catholic Charities executives, councilors, etc are all ministry roles.
In regards to excommunication, you are right… Wrong word. But we don’t really have one for people who bar themselves from Communion due to illicit marital statuses (I used to be one of these people).
Catholic School teachers, Parish Employees and Diocesan executives should all be Chaste too. Meaning if they get pregnant outside of marriage, they better get married fast.
Anyway, my point is that anyone who is in an illicit marriage or trial-marriage cannot be employed by the Church in a ministry or leadership role. If an employee does something that would make them ineligible to be a God Parent, then the Church should be able to fire that person if deemed necessary.
Catholic Charities should stop taking funding from the government. Then they are free to discriminate. Period.
Of course, we will see the actual verbiage of this EO on Monday so this is a bit of speculation on everybody’s part now.
I’ve been involved, on both sides, with government acquisition, for a long, long time. My understanding of how the FAR works, based upon that experience, is that FAR clauses that require these types of actions impose requirements on the entire organization doing business with the government, not just people or business units that have the contract.
FAR 22.8 covers Equal Employment Opportunity. What is required for compliance with this clause is that the company, as a whole, must have a written EEO policy in place (for the entire company, not just those people or business units that do business with the government). They must also have a written affirmative action program in place to actively recruit minorities and women. They must also report statistics to the government. Again, not just for those people who are doing federal work, but for the entire company.
Currently, there is a religious exemption in that FAR section:
FAR 22.807 (b)(7) Contracts with religious entities. Pursuant to E.O. 13279, Section 202 of E.O. 11246, shall not apply to a Government contractor or subcontractor that is 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. Such contractors and subcontractors are not exempted or excused from complying with the other requirements contained in the order.
However, if news reporting is correct on this EO to be signed Monday, that religious exemption will go away. My understanding is that this EO will expand the definitions in FAR 22.8 to include “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” (again, without the religious exemption.
USAspending.gov reports any number of acquisitions with Catholic Charities (it also reports any number of acquisitions with various Catholic dioceses, as well, but on a vastly smaller scale). Any number of Catholic organizations (both Catholic Charities and various dioceses) are registered in SAM (System for Award Management)…meaning that they are set up to have contracts with the government.
You mentioned in another post a “ministerial exemption” – I assume you are talking about Hosanna Tabor. That would not apply here as Hosanna Tabor involved the government ordering a religious entity that had no other connection to the government to alter its personnel policies. It was a standard EEOC case, not a case involving acquisition.
You mentioned ENDA. Again, if ENDA was ever to pass Congress, the religious exemption would not apply as the religious entities exempted in ENDA are not doing business with the government.
Bottom line is that the government’s position would be that they are not trying to restrict the religious liberty of the entity in question. However, if that religious entity wishes to do business with the government, then it must abide by the government’s rules.
Here would be your example. Hypothetical, but fully within the scope of reason:
On the 1st of November, 2014, The Catholic Diocese of Sioux Falls SD is awarded a $9.5 million, 5 year, contract by the Bureau of Indian Affairs to provide health clinics on Indian reservations within the diocesan boundaries. About 90 days after the contract award, a representative from the OFCCP shows up to perform a compliance audit on the diocese. Trying to be helpful, the OFCCP auditor brings a sample EEO statement and suggests that the diocese implement that sample statement as policy in order to be compliant (and it just says that they fully support the provisions of the Civil Rights Act, EO _______, EO _______, and EO _______. The diocese cooperates and does so. About a year later, a lesbian second grade teacher decides to get married to her long-time partner and posts wedding pictures on her Facebook. She subsequently is fired for violating the morality clause in her contract.
What happens then? The (former) teacher files an EEOC complaint. She also files a complaint with the Department of Labor. The DOL OFCCP office steps in, investigates, and finds that the diocese has violated the provisions of the new and improved FAR 22.8.
They take the following actions:
- They publicize the name of the Diocese of Sioux Falls and that it is disciminatory
- They require that the contract be immediately cancelled
- They debar the diocese from receiving future federal money
- They refer the case to the DOJ for criminal prosecution.
(don’t believe me? Read FAR 22.809 for yourself)
I know it sounds crazy, but that’s the way that it works. Of course, it’s all up to how strictly the government chooses to enforce a regulation. But I think we can agree that the Obama Administration is very, very vigorous in matters relating to LGBT…so I don’t really think that it is an unreasonable scenario (frankly, it depends upon how much the LGBT advocacy groups and the media push for an aggressive resolution).
How about Catholic universities. I just looked up the Jesuit university I went to in SAM and it has a federal contract. I suspect most universities in the US do also. Federal contractor covers alot of ground.
So let me turn the situation around with a hypothetical. Let’s say I don’t support LGBTQ as a protected class, but I am hard up for money and get a job with GLAD. Do you think they would be justified in firing me if they found out that I was a member of Westboro like church that directly opposed what the organization stood for?
I don’t think any catholic entity would fire someone for being gay, but acting upon it publically (e.g. entering into a simulation of marriage with a same sex partner) could, and should, result in dismissal. How can a religious organization proclaim they teach the truth while turning their back on things happening under their own roofs?
Right now I think we can safely assume they it would be a fairly aggressive push. If my lesbian niece is any indication, then many LGBT advocates want any organization opposed to normalization of homosexuality torn down and thrown aside. To paraphrase her, she supports multiple pronged attacks using any and all perceived vulnerabilities to destroy “bigoted organizations”.