Georgia Lawsuit with Charitable Choice Implications
gbaylor at CLSNET.ORG
Wed Oct 16 13:14:37 PDT 2002
The other statements I made, quoted in the story, reflect that I do in fact understand the plaintiffs' theory: that the receipt of government funds deprives a religious organization of its freedom to maintain its religious character through its employment practices.
Moreover, I think it is important to understand that *the state* did *not* ask the Home to refrain from discriminating on the basis of religion and sexual orientation in employment as a condition of receiving payments to offset the costs of caring for children. Third parties (Aimee Bellmore and Alan Yorker) are essentially attempting to impose restrictions that did not previously exist -- by claiming that Title VII's religious exemption violates the Establishment Clause when invoked by a religious employer that receives funds from the government.
Gregory S. Baylor
Director, Center for Law & Religious Freedom
Christian Legal Society
4208 Evergreen Lane, Suite 222
Annandale, VA 22003
(703) 642-1070 x 3502
(703) 642-1075 (fax)
GBaylor at clsnet.org <mailto:GBaylor at clsnet.org>
From: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
[mailto:RELIGIONLAW at listserv.ucla.edu]On Behalf Of Marci Hamilton
Sent: Wednesday, October 16, 2002 11:54 AM
To: RELIGIONLAW at listserv.ucla.edu
Subject: Re: Georgia Lawsuit with Charitable Choice Implications
I love this supposedly high-minded reasoning. What is at stake is the freedom of religious organizations WHO TAKE GOVERNMENT MONEY to maintain their character. They assume the risk of intrusion when they take the money.
In a message dated 10/16/2002 9:38:04 AM Eastern Standard Time, JMHenderson at ACLJ-DC.ORG writes:
> "What is at stake here is the freedom of religious organizations to maintain their character - their religious
> character," Baylor said.
More information about the Religionlaw