Congress Moves To Except Religious Schools From Gay Rights Laws

[TechBear_Seattle]

I hope every last one of the pork-fornicators who vote in favor of this bill contracts a bad case of trichinosis in their reproductive organs.

Congress Moves To Except Religious Schools From Gay Rights Laws
by Paul Johnson, 365Gay.com Washington Bureau Chief

(Washington) Private Christian colleges would be excepted from local and state non-discrimination laws under a proposed amendment to the Higher Education Act - a move that would allow the schools to legally reject LGBT students.

The amendment, proposed by Rep. Chris Cannon (R-Utah), would prevent accrediting boards from making adherence to non-discrimination laws a requirement.

The measure passed the House last week and is currently before the Senate.

The article continues at http://www.365gay.com/Newscon06/04/041706colleges.htm


Added: Some info on the Higher Education Act

[Ian David]

1. Of course, they'll still take our tax dollars and vouchers. n/t

[kiraboo]

2. Doesn't that just make you feel ill? Our money at work,

fostering bigotry and hatred. When it's not being used to wage illegal war, that is.

[saigon68]

40. Just so long as Priests are Free to "DATE"

[BOSSHOG]

3. Would this not be a precedent?

Colleges can now discriminate against "christians" or minorities or left-handers or any other group. This is the kind of evil that republicans spray on our country.

"Prevent from making adherence to non-discrimination laws a requirement."

Let the republican borne discrimination spread.

[TechBear_Seattle]

6. Nope.

The revised law would still prohibit discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, age or disability. Schools that refused to admit Christians, racial minorities or left-handers (disability?) would be in violation of federal law and would have all federal funding revoked.

[KansDem]

4. It appears religious groups want to step outside society to live...

I say, "Fine, let them." Just get the hell out of the political process too!

[TechBear_Seattle]

11. They already have that right. This change still gives them federal funds

The Higher Education Act has to do with federal funding of higher education, the "tax-payer money" that is at the heart of the military recruitment on college campuses issue. This revision clarifies that, if a school kicks out GLBT students because they are GLBT, they would still be allowed to collect federal education money. Colleges can already kick out GLBT students (see this article) but they risk losing state and federal funding if they do.

[W_HAMILTON]

13. Maybe this is a good thing...

I doubt it will pass, but if it does, then it gives some legal backing to schools that want to kick the recruiters out because they disagree with their discriminatory policies.

It will at least set up some interesting legal battles, since private schools could argue that these religious private schools are allowed to reject people based on their beliefs and still receive federal funding, therefore they should be allowed to reject recruiters based on their beliefs and still receive their funding as well.

[xchrom]

15. i'm sure they will think about that recruiter thingy

and see that isn't done.

[W_HAMILTON]

18. They can try...

...but that doesn't mean it will stand up in a court of law. As I said, it will at least open up a whole new can of worms in that whole battle over allowing recruiters on campus.

I know I wouldn't want to be the one to argue why a religious school should have the right to discriminate as they please (and still receive public funding), whereas a corresponding "regular" private school cannot. Maybe if Republicans keep filling the courts with backwards-ass judges, then it will stand up. But otherwise, I'm not so sure.

[mondo joe]

23. Well actually it doesn't say a religious school can discriminate "as

they please". It instead offers an explicit list of the groups that can't be discriminated against.

[mondo joe]

16. I don't see how.

If the legislature allows schools one specific discrimination, it does not follow that the schools can choose to apply it in other ways.

The difference here is that the legislature is deciding what is allowed.

[W_HAMILTON]

20. Apparently their reasoning is...

...that since "gay people" go against their beliefs, then they shouldn't be permitted to allow them on their campus or risk losing funding. The other schools can use that same argument, and say that since they don't believe in entities that discriminate against sexual beliefs, they shouldn't be forced to allow those types on their campus either.

They can essentially argue, "well, if these schools can disallow certain groups of people based on their beliefs, yet still receive funding, why can't we do the same?"

[TechBear_Seattle]

21. The reason it would not work is the way the laws are written

The revised Higher Education Act does not let schools discriminate on the basis of their beliefs. It merely add a list of categories that schools may not discriminate against if they wish to continue receiving federal funds, and GLBT is not on that list. A different law states that schools which do not allow military recruiters on campus will not receive federal funds. Different laws, different applications; it will be extremely unlikely that they will have any bearing on one another in court.

[W_HAMILTON]

24. And the reason the law is being changed...

...is because of these schools complaining that they shouldn't be forced to allow these people on campus if it goes against their beliefs. These things don't exist in a vaccuum. If they did, Roe V. Wade wouldn't have been decided the way it was either.

[TechBear_Seattle]

25. The why is irrelevant

The courts must apply the law as written. If there is no justification in the law itself, the courts may not consider a justification.

[W_HAMILTON]

26. Believe me, it can be challenged in court

And there would be a number of ways they could attack it. Whether they win or not would probably be determined what the makeup of the court is, but there's plenty there that can be challenged.

[mondo joe]

22. But that would ignore the languaage of the legislation.

It's specific to groups and those groups do not include gays - it isn't a law about general beliefs, as I understand it.

[Bill McBlueState]

5. as usual

Groups that constantly brag about their moral superiority over the rest of us want a free pass to be immoral in their hiring and admissions processes.

[sharp_stick]

7. So with this it would be OK if

I wanted to start a school without black people? Then again maybe I could start a school that blocked republicans.

On edit, found my answer. Asshole repukes want to somehow only block gay's and yet keep other discriminitory rules although I still can't see how that would hold up.

Also, it had to be some asshole from Utah that thought this one up. Sorry to all you poor Utah liberals, but shit, it must be a bitch to live in a State that stinks so much of the republican party?

[FiveGoodMen]

46. No need to start a school that blocks republicans...

...just teach real facts at said school and the Repukes will all leave on their own.

[msongs]

8. R - Utah gee what religious cult could be behind this?

hope all those utah-ists are not wearing poly cotton clothes.

Msongs
www.msongs.com/impeachbush.htm

[sharp_stick]

10. If they've got poly cotton I've got my rocks all lined up

We've got to get rid of the abomination don't we?

[bowens43]

9. Will they also be able to legally reject

minority students if they so chose? Amazing Republicans want to legalize discrimination.

[TechBear_Seattle]

12. No

The revised law would still prohibit discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, age or disability. Schools that refused to admit Christians, racial minorities or left-handers (disability?) would be in violation of federal law and would have all federal funding revoked.

[RaleighNCDUer]

31. I think the point is, if they get away with passing such a law that

legalizes targeted discrimination, next time they will pass another law that legalizes a different target for discrimination -- such as an exemption that allows a religious school to refuse to admit people of a different religious faith; or an exemption that allows a school of a particular sect to refuse to admit women, because of their religious restrictions on social contact between the genders. Eventually, if they can make legal arguments for these circumstances (like the Boy Scouts discriminating against atheists) the anti-discrimination laws will be gutted and we will have precedent for "white separatist" schools refusing to admit minorities.

[fshrink]

14. Good.

Let them put themselves in their own retarded ghettos. They live in LaLa Land anyways.

[xchrom]

17. my gay tax dollars going to support 11th century bigotry.

that's right you blood sucking leeches and tapeworms -- my GAY tax dollars support your hatefull asses.

and lurking freepers from red states -- you don't support yourselves either -- my gay tax dollars go to your ass backwards states so you can live in hateful bliss.

try pulling your own hateful weight for a change.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

28. Couldn't you make some kind of "tax strike"?

Burn your tax forms and refuse to pay in a very public fashion? Like the draft notice burners of the 60s-70s?

[xchrom]

29. and go to jail.

to make that statement.

and all of us who live in blue states support the lunes in red states because they can't manage to ''do'' for themselves what with all their anti-government hate.

[pschoeb]

19. Another example of Republicans love for State rights

:sarcasm:

[LynnTheDem]

27. Theocratic America; home of the Talibornagain.

Where the United States Discrimination replaces the "quaint" Constitution.

[noonwitch]

30. If the schools are also refused any federal money....

No loans, no grants, no scholarship money from the federal government. If you want federal money, you can't discriminate. If you want to discriminate, you can't get federal money.

I still would wonder why any gay student would want to attend a school that doesn't want them there. There aren't that many of those type of schools, and it's not like any have superior academic ratings to your average public university or college. Hell, Bob Jones U (I can't believe a school that won't admit gays has the initials BJU, but I guess that's another topic) isn't even accredited. The only situation I where I can see this is if the gay student has parents who are holding tuition money over their (adult) kid's head to make him or her attend a christian school, which is a family matter, not a government one.

There are christian schools run by the mainline protestant denominations that don't discriminate against gays-Olivet College in Michigan is a UCC school, Adrian College is a UMC school, Heidelburg in Ohio is UCC, etc. Gay christian students can attend those schools without any problems. I haven't heard of Notre Dame kicking students out for being gay, either, for that matter.

[The Stranger]

32. We need to re-think this whole notion of "God."

At the very least, freedom from religion needs to be at the forefront.

[enlightenment]

33. I question the whole thing, but especially as it applies to

trans-people.

Wouldn't that violate the "sex, gender" protection of the Higher Education Act?

[W_HAMILTON]

36. lol, good point

Oh well, I guess it's refreshing to know that if I want to avoid all the gay discrimination that's out there, I can get a sex change to get around the rules. How nice of the fundy's to leave us an out...

Even though of course that would not be the case, since as a person pointed out on the GLBT boards, transgendered people are like on the back of the gay bus as it is, much less having equal footing with every other person. So while your point makes sense, of course these wacko's would find some way around it.

[enlightenment]

69. Agreed.

My son is FtM -- I've learned a great deal about the ins and outs over the past few years.

Still, it's a potential legal challenge point, even if the GLB part of the community shuns the "T" part.

[arwalden]

34. Christian Hate-Based Education.

Isn't that lovely?

[shenmue]

35. What a bunch of jerks

They're going to force out gay kids, make them transfer, possibly losing credits and costing more money, and screw up their dreams in life. What assholes!

:grr:

I have no sympathy for religious fanatics. Congress has no right to establish any religion.

[BigDDem]

37. Not to worry

Im sure Mary Cheney and Uncle Tom's Log Cabin will be all over this.

[BR_Parkway]

38. I keep saying we should form a religion based on being gay - single

Jesus, hanging out with a dozen unmarried guys (in sandals even!) and his own fag-hag! While lecturing people on the evils of heterosexual divorce. C'mon, that's explicit endorsment. We could even call it the Gospel of Man (hmmm, notice he didn't mention that whole 1 man/1 woman thing...)

No more legal discrimination, instant tax breaks. We can have our own holidays.

[ForPeace]

39. How about exempting them instead?

n/t

[TechBear_Seattle]

41. The spelling errors were in the original news story

365Gay is a decent source for news, but not if you are a spelling and grammer fetishist :hi:

[sui generis]

42. so all a student has to do is say "I'm not gay"?

or more precisely, all anybody has to do to steal your tuition reimbursement is to accuse you of being presumably gay?

I say we require evidence of gayness. Please, let's start a list of criteria right here on DU.

I'll start, because we wouldn't want to keep out heterosexual metrosexuals.

1. Not going steady with a girlfriend.
2. Shaves balls, hmmmmmm.
3. Shaves ass, hmmmmm squared.
4. Blubbers while watching Bridges of Madison County
5. Knows the names of the final three contestants on American Idol, Amazing Race, and Survivor.
6. Has suspiciously well groomed hair, fingernails, or dorm room.
7. Occasionally finishes an exclamatory statement by bobbing head, glaring, pursing lips and snapping fingers (oh no I dint)
8. Says Oh No He di'int while doing #7

Okay I'm exhausted. Calling in reserves.

[bee]

68. Balls inspections. Picture that. roflmao

But... who would serve on the Balls Inspection committee? :shrug:
:rofl:

[sui generis]

43. wait a second, so they withhold federal funds if military recruiters

are shut out, and yet they take our gay tax dollars, funnel them to the Department of Education, and then give funds to these universities that refuse to teach people who are presumed gay.

Tsk tsk - incidentally I wonder how many dems are supporting this? He asked innocently. Might be an interesting answer.

[TechBear_Seattle]

44. I was wondering about that, too

:hi:

I did a Google search on "Higher Education Act" and "Cannon" and found: http://www.house.gov/cannon/Press2006/03-30-2006.htm, a bland press release which at least gave the name of the bill, H. R. 609.

I then looked up the bill at the Library of Congress (select Bill Number and enter HR 609.) I found some interesting stuff in section 103 of the bill, which amends Title 20, 1011a. If enacted in to law, the first two sections of the law would read (text within {- -} will be removed and bold text will be added by the bill. I have underlined parts to draw the reader's attention to them):

Sec. 1011a. Protection of student speech and association rights

(a) Protection of rights

It is the sense of Congress that no student attending an institution of higher education on a full- or part-time basis should, on the basis of participation in protected speech or protected association, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination or official sanction under any education program, activity, or division of the institution directly or indirectly receiving financial assistance under this {-chapter-}Act, whether or not such program, activity, or division is sponsored or officially sanctioned by the institution{-.-}; and

(2) It is the sense of Congress that--

(A) the diversity of institutions and educational missions is one of the key strengths of American higher education;

(B) individual colleges and universities have different missions and each institution should design its academic program in accordance with its educational goals;

(C) within the context of its institutional mission, a college should promote intellectual pluralism and facilitate the free and open exchange of ideas;

(D) students should not be intimidated, harassed, discouraged from speaking out, discriminated against, or subject to official sanction because of their personal political, ideological, or religious beliefs; and

(E) students should be treated equally and fairly, including evaluation and grading, without regard to or consideration of their personal political views or ideological beliefs.

(3) Nothing in paragraph (2) shall be construed to modify, change, or infringe upon any constitutionally protected religious liberty, freedom, expression, or association.

(b) Construction

Nothing in this section shall be construed--

(1) to discourage the imposition of an official sanction on a student that has willfully participated in the disruption or attempted disruption of a lecture, class, speech, presentation, or performance made or scheduled to be made under the auspices of the institution of higher education, if the imposition of such sanction is done objectively, fairly, and without regard to the student's personal political, ideological, or religious beliefs; or

(2) to prevent an institution of higher education from taking appropriate and effective action to prevent violations of State liquor laws, to discourage binge drinking and other alcohol abuse, to protect students from sexual harassment including assault and date rape, to prevent hazing, or to regulate unsanitary or unsafe conditions in any student residence.

So it seems here that the whole point has nothing directly to do with federal funding of colleges; what we have here is Congress acting to allow students to spew whatever religious based bigotry they want without fear of being reprimanded by the school, much less held accountable to the school's anti-discrimination policies. My apologies for not researching this earlier.

As for who voted for it, I found a roll call here, with the bill passing the House on March 3, 2006. The breakdown is:

Democrat: 14 YES; 180 NO; 7 N/V
Republican: 207 YES; 18 NO; 5 N/V
Independent (Bernard Sanders): 1 NO

Democrats voting YES were: Dan Boren, Bud Cramer, Henry Cuellar, Charles Gonzalez, Rubén Hinojosa, Charles Melancon, Solomon Ortiz, Major Owens, Collin Peterson, David Price, Silvestre Reyes, Lucille Roybal-Allard, John Salazar, and Gene Taylor.

Democrats not voting were: William Clay, Jim Davis, Lane Evans, Sheila Jackson-Lee, Gregory Meeks, Dutch Ruppersberger, and Diane Watson.

Republicans voting NO were: John Campbell, Tom Feeney, Jeff Flake, Scott Garrett, Joel Hefley, Jeb Hensarling, Nancy Johnson, Walter Jones, Steve King, James Leach, Frank LoBiondo, Jerry Moran, Ron Paul, Jim Saxton, John Shadegg, Rob Simmons, Cliff Stearns, and Dave Weldon.

Republicans not voting were: Spencer Bachus, Wayne Gilchrest, Darrell Issa, Jeff Miller, and Todd Tiahrt.

[sui generis]

80. Thank You Techbear - A++ to you for that

:toast:

From my sweetie via email, who refuses to post but comments on everything:

It is a one-two punch, specifically designed to enable the lawsuits in Georgia and elsewhere, where students are suing their universities to force them to repeal their non-discrimination policies because they infringe on their fake so-called "christian" values.

But again, we're not fighting the good fight.

We have to face the fact that most people don't give a shit about us and if we are going to win anything it will only be because we can frame it in the bigger picture that everyone can understand.

This is another example of conservatives pushing forward with the lunatic agenda without thinking the consequences througth.

These guys just voted for a law with religious protections that are so broad they would, in effect, withhold federal funding from universities that tried to quiet extreme groups who preach "death to all christians" because their religious beliefs find christians morally repulsive and worthy of extermination. That kind of speach and those views would be protected by this law.

If we can get that message out -- this law will never pass the Senate and will die in committee.

squawk about how it's hurting us and it will pass.

[EFerrari]

48. I wanna list of the mofos that voted for this. How to get one? n/t

[TechBear_Seattle]

49. Read my thread, just above yours :hi: n/t

[EFerrari]

50. Thank you, TechBear. I was afraid to read the thread

because this wig is only just barely still attached.

:hug:

[dusty64]

56. 14 Dem?

assholes do and 18 rethugs don't. Why am I surprised my piece of shit "rep" supported this and to think not a word of it in the corporate media.

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2006/roll081.xml

[TechBear_Seattle]

45. Information about this bill, its effects, and its apparent intent

See the post I made elsewhere on this thread, here.

[EFerrari]

51. My bigger half is going on the air tomorrow moring here in SF.

I'm going to give him that list of Democrats and we'll build a bit around it -- Hall of the Shameless or something.

And he will read their names on the air to an interested audience. F8ck these bigots.

:toast:

[EFerrari]

47. Wtf? IT PASSED THE HOUSE?

WHAT THE FUCK IS THE MATTER WITH THIS CONGRESS? :wtf:

I confess to not having read this thread yet. I hope that I find a list of the House f3ckers that voted for this obcenity. Because that list need to be published EVERYWHERE and these m3therf2ckers need to get some feedback.

:nuke:

[EFerrari]

52. Vote it up. folks. Your tax dollars at work discriminating against

your fellows.

:nuke:

[DIKB]

53. A Dem should respond

by proposing a bill that cuts ALL government funding/grants/loans

I personally think religious institutions should lose accreditation as universities.

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

65. It depends on the religious institution.

I went to a Methodist college for awhile. I'm not a Methodist. The dean was a gay Methodist minister. We were required to take one religion or philosphy class. I took sociology of religion. It was taught by a Catholic, but the class wasn't biased towards any religion.

So basically, I think that if they have discrimatory policies, they should lose accreditation but not if they're simply run by a religious group. Most of them just historically have religious ties, but it has little to do with the current academic setting.

[DIKB]

78. Good point.

It had slipped my mind that Harvard and Yale had religious backgrounds.

Though as hard a stance I want to be taken, it's extremely hard to make an argument when the military discriminates based on sexuality.

The militant christians need to be stopped, and we need to do everything we can to fight for equal rights for all. The struggle for civil rights is a LONG way from over.

[EFerrari]

54. I'm just gonna keep kicking this until DU notices. n/t

[bee]

55. This is an absolute fucking outrage.

Every last bastard who votes for this should be charged with a fucking hate crime. What next? Christians allowed to beat gays? This is vile, disgusting, wretched. Who in the House supported this piece of shit legislation? Anybody know? And is anyone trying to stop this? What the fuck!!!!
:nuke: :nuke: :nuke:

[dusty64]

57. The new

"majority" leader mr. boner himself, surprise!

[bee]

59. It just blows my mind that they can get away with this shit.

Im scanning through the bill right now trying to find the part theyre talking about - & I cant help but wonder if anyone in Congress even READS these things. I mean, is it possible that they dont even know what theyre voting for?

[TechBear_Seattle]

62. "Im scanning through the bill right now trying to find..."

See response #44.

[TechBear_Seattle]

61. Beat gays? No. However...

If this is signed in to law, anyone would be able to say, "Homosexuals are vile perverts; they are evil, despicable subhumans; they are a malignant cancer on society; they corrupt all that is good and pure; they are horrid, rabid dogs and should be put down as quickly as possible" provided that they finish with, "I say this because my religion tells me this is so." With that closing line, this law states that they may not be punished because of their school's anti-discrimination rules in any way.

I feel so much better about that. Don't you? :sarcasm:

[bee]

64. Thanks for post #44. You rock. :)

I must have read that part a hundred times and I knew I just wasnt getting it. Your explanation totally cleared it up for me.
This whole thing pisses me off so much. You know, I thought I expected 'anything' from these dickhead republicans by now, but this goes way beyond what even I imagined. Giving the fundies a free pass to hate is complete and utter bullshit. And watch them scream 'hate crime' every time somebody punches one of them in the mouth. which is exactly what these hating bastards deserve, imho. This has to be stopped, its unacceptable. period. I wish I knew what to do. :mad:

[dusty64]

71. Thats OK,

hate is a double edged sword and they can also receive whats coming to them. The backlash against the extreme right is coming and it isn't going to be pretty for them. Lets see if they can take it as well as dish it out.

[bee]

72. youre right. Because if ones personal religious belief

is that fundies are ignorant hate-spewing knuckle-draggers who, despite being dangerously homophobic, exhibit an unrelenting desire to be shoved up everybodys ass. Then I guess one would be free to say that without repercussions as well. No?

[readmoreoften]

67. nice way to break it down

that's what it boils down to. my religion says that you're perverted subhuman scum that should be wiped off the face of the earth and i pray for the day that you burn in hell for eternity. and if you criticize my beliefs then you are a bad person.

[rocktivity]

58. Those colleges should be "excepted" from federal funding, too!

:mad:
rocknation

[Maven]

60. This will NOT stand up to judicial review.

There is relevant precedent. Wait and see.

[readmoreoften]

66. With the judges these days, I don't feel too safe. n/t

[mondo joe]

73. What's the precedent exactly?

[Maven]

75. The courts would probably draw analogies to other cases

rejecting special exemptions to laws serving a legitimate state interest based on religious grounds. Off the top of my head, I can't remember case names, but i can recall such cases in every realm from narcotics laws to reproductive rights.

In other words, this is nothing new.

[mondo joe]

76. But in any of those cases diid the legislature craft a law specifically

to allow the exemption?

I believe not.

[Maven]

77. Yes. The (Supreme) Court has struck down such legislation before.

Edit: I'll get on Lexis and see what I can pull up when I have a moment. ;)

[alfredo]

63. Why the "special rights" for religious schools?

[EFerrari]

70. Because they give special donations to Republican candidates.

I think I'm now officially too cynical to live.

:(

[alfredo]

79. Frame it as realism.

Not a cynic, I'm a realist.

[Neecy]

74. well, isn't this special

How I dearly love being singled out for "special rights"!!

Wow...I can't join the military - can't upset the killing machine with our pervy ways. I can't get married (thanks, Bill, for signing the groovy 'Defense of Marriage Act' even though you got loads of campaign dollars and millions of votes from gay and lesbian Americans - nice slap in the face, that was!). Now I'm being told that I might offend the tender sensibilities of Christians whose whipped-up hatred gets lots of dollars into fundie ministries and I can be kicked out of one of their pretend 'universities'. Meanwhile, their hate speech goes completely unchecked while I'm racking up 'special rights' faster than you can say "hate speech leads to hate crimes - check out Nazi Germany!"

I can even elect a Republican pResident by getting fundies to flock to the polls to keep me in my place and refuse to allow me a fundamental right allowed to every other American, even retarded second cousins! Wheeeeeeee! Kansas allows children to marry, but not me! Any more 'special rights' and I might just fucking puke!