Bush offers unambiguous support for publicly-funded employment discrimination
Bush’s “faith-based” initiative has more flaws than I could outline in one blog post, but the point that has consistently limited its political success deals with employment.
Faith-based ministries can already apply for government contracts; Bush’s talk about “discrimination” against religious groups is nonsense. When these ministries receive public funds, however, there are strings attached, one of which is a requirement that groups receiving tax dollars cannot discriminate in hiring.
Tax-exempt religious ministries, which rely solely on contributions from adherents, can hire and fire for any reason. They can discriminate against applicants based on religion, sexual orientation, marital status, etc. These groups, in short, have an exemption from civil rights laws. They’re privately funded, so they can adopt any employment practice they please.
The Bush administration, is desperate to change the rules. The president wants to direct public funds from the federal treasury to religious ministries and allow these groups to continue to discriminate. Thus, the administration would be adopting a federal policy of publicly-funded employment discrimination.
We’ve known that this was the White House position since the president initially unveiled his faith-based scheme in January 2001. To make sure there were no ambiguities, however, the White House has crafted a new position paper on “religious hiring rights” that articulates Bush’s support for religious groups discriminating in employment with public funds.
As the Washington Post explained in a front-page article today, the Bush administration’s new position paper explains, “When [ministries] receive federal funds, they should retain their right to hire those individuals who are best able to further their organizations’ goals and mission.”
The White House apparently thought this document was necessary to elucidate what administration officials saw as an ambiguity in the law. On the one hand, federal law permits religious groups to discriminate in hiring. On the other hand, federal law prohibits publicly-funded discrimination.
This hasn’t been a problem in the past because no one has wanted so explicitly to give ministries tax dollars before. That Bush, he’s quite the groundbreaker.
The administration is already casing this in spin. Bush, they say, isn’t endorsing publicly-funded employment discrimination, he’s supporting “religious freedom in hiring.” One sounds bad, one sounds good. Is there a difference between the two? Of course not.
What does this mean in the real world? It means you could apply for a job that is paid for with tax dollars but face discrimination — legally-permissible discrimination — for being the “wrong” religion, or for being a woman, or for being gay, or for being a single mother. It means a church could post a sign in its window that says “No Jews or Catholics Need Apply,” and even if that job was financed by the government, such a policy would be legal.
Let’s be clear, this isn’t about a ministry hiring a religious leader to deliver sermons. If a church or temple is hiring a pastor, the ministry is already prohibited from using public funds to pay for that religious leader, so there’s no threat of impermissible discrimination.
This is about a ministry contracting with the government to perform a secular public service, such as running a homeless shelter or a soup kitchen.
The administration would have us believe that a publicly-funded ministry must have “religious hiring rights” so that a Baptist church, for example, could only hire Baptists to ladle soup to the hungry, even if the soup and the salary are financed by taxpayers.
This is wrong, morally and legally. If Congress goes along with the White House’s approach, I know of a few friends who’ll be anxious to take this to court to see if the federal judiciary agrees with the administration’s agenda.
It’s also worth noting the way in which the administration wants to have its cake and eat it too. Bush says the federal government can and should give public funds to faith-based ministries because these groups will be performing a secular public service. It’s constitutional, he argues, because it’s no different than the state contracting with a non-religious service provider. Taxpayers are financing a secular service, so it doesn’t matter if it’s a faith-based group providing the service, right?
But the point is it’s not just about providing a secular service. As the administration’s new position paper makes clear, the White House wants these groups to be able to get our tax dollars and discriminate in hiring. Why? Because, as the administration sees it, these ministries should hire those “best able to further their organizations’ goals and mission.” That’s ridiculous. If it’s a secular service subsidized by a secular government, the ministry’s “mission” should be irrelevant.
After all, a Baptist doesn’t ladle soup any better than a Catholic.