State RFRA and nonreligious groups thathaveconscientiousobjections to antidiscrimination laws

[Ed Darrell]

I should have read this thread, too.
   
  I think the Scouts' position on homosexuality is a tricky one.  Boy Scouting's principal interface with the public is the unit, the Boy Scout Troop, Cub Scout Pack, Venture Crew, Sea Scout Ship.  Those units are essentially franchises "owned" by other groups, functioning under approval of BSA.  At one point most units were sponsored by religious groups -- the Latter-day Saints are the largest sponsor of Boy Scouting in the U.S, with the Methodists in second place -- but there has been a shift away from churches in recent years, if my statistics are accurate.  In any case, many religious groups do not share the National Council's views on homosexuality, especially with regard to leaders.  While most Muslim units would share the view of the Mormons on homosexuals in leadership positions, many, if not most of the mainline Christian denominations could be in an interesting position of having clerics in the organization who have full approval of oversight bodies, but who would !
 be
 ineligible for membership in the church's sponsored Scout unit, because of sexual orientation.  Consider what would apply were this position reversed, that the BSA National Council required sponsoring organizations to allow homosexuals as leaders:  How would such a rule be interpreted with regard to Mormon, Catholic, or Muslim sponsors?  
   
  In the end, Scouting may not be enough of a religious monolith to be able to make use of RFRA.
   
  Ed Darrell
  Dallas

Paul Diamond <pauldiamond at btconnect.com> wrote:
  A problem is that the Govt. enters the 'moral arena' in an ideological (not 
societal sense)in which a particular viewpoint is promoted. (ie. 
homosexuality is good, or not good). Either position tempers opposition.

Thus, whilst the State should promote the percieve good at the 'commanding 
heights' of society (marriage) - should the State be in the sex education 
business, for instance- or should parents be free to elect the boy scouts 
version of sex education? For the state to withhold funding to a Christian 
organisation on its view of sexual ethics would be to impermissable enter 
the moral realm.



----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Volokh, Eugene" 
To: "Law & Religion issues for Law Academics" 
Sent: Wednesday, March 01, 2006 11:25 PM
Subject: RE: State RFRA and nonreligious groups 
thathaveconscientiousobjections to antidiscrimination laws


I'm trying to get at a couple of different questions. All arise
in the context of subsidies that are generally available to a broad
range of people or organizations who satisfy certain relatively
objective criteria (e.g., unemployment compensation, tax exemptions,
student organization funds, access to classrooms after hours, and the
like):

1. Are religious objectors entitled to an exemption from
subsidy conditions, so that they get the subsidy even if they don't (for
religious reasons) comply with the condition?

2a. Can groups such as the Boy Scouts claim similar religious
exemptions even if their members and officers come from many
denominations, yet share a few basic religious principles (e.g., some
degree of religiosity, and a belief in the impropriety of
homosexuality)?

2b. Can groups claim similar exemptions even if their beliefs
are cast as deeply held conscientious belief, rather than religious
belief?

I'd love to hear what people say in response,

Eugene

> -----Original Message-----
> From: religionlaw-bounces at lists.ucla.edu
> [mailto:religionlaw-bounces at lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Alan
> Brownstein
> Sent: Wednesday, March 01, 2006 3:19 PM
> To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
> Subject: RE: State RFRA and nonreligious groups that
> haveconscientiousobjections to antidiscrimination laws
>
>
> Sorry to be so late responding to your post, Eugene. But I
> wonder if you could clarify the focus of your issue. Are you
> asking whether religiously motivated conduct can ever be
> taken into account when a state decides whether or not it
> will subsidize an organization or an activity? (That is, the
> state can only take religiously motivated activity into
> account in awarding subsidies if doing so satisfies strict
> scrutiny review.) Or are you asking a narrower question that
> only applies to the more limited set of benefits that arise
> in free speech cases (access to government property, access
> to fundraising drives, access to schools,
> etc.)
>
> Alan Brownstein
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: religionlaw-bounces at lists.ucla.edu
> [mailto:religionlaw-bounces at lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of
> Volokh, Eugene
> Sent: Monday, February 27, 2006 4:27 PM
> To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
> Subject: State RFRA and nonreligious groups that have
> conscientiousobjections to antidiscrimination laws
>
> Say that a state has a RFRA that's written much like
> the federal RFRA. And say that a state or local government
> body decides to exclude all groups that discriminate based on
> race, sex, etc. in selecting officers, speakers, or members
> from various benefit programs (access to government property,
> access to fundraising drives, access to schools, etc.).
>
> 1. The Catholic Church is excluded from the benefit
> because it discriminates based on sex in selecting priests.
> It raises a RFRA objection to the exclusion, arguing that it
> has a sincere religious belief that only men may be priests.
> What should the result be?
>
> 2. The Boy Scouts are excluded from the benefit
> because it discriminates based on sexual orientation in
> selecting scoutmasters and members. It raises a RFRA
> objection to the exclusion, arguing that it has a deeply felt
> conscientious belief that it would be wrong for them to put
> homosexuals in role modeling positions, or that it would be
> wrong for them to put young boys in positions where there is
> especially likely to be erotic attraction between them (as
> there is if some of the members are known to be homosexual).
> This is a belief based on our religious traditions, the Scout
> leadership says; and in any event, even if that's not
> religious enough (since we belong to so many different
> religious traditions), it's based on deeply held
> conscientious beliefs, see Seeger and Welsh. What should the
> result be?
>
> Eugene
> _______________________________________________
> To post, send message to Religionlaw at lists.ucla.edu
> To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password,
> see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw
>
> Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be
> viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read
> messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives;
> and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the
> messages to others.
>
> _______________________________________________
> To post, send message to Religionlaw at lists.ucla.edu
> To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password,
> see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw
>
> Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be
> viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read
> messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives;
> and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the
> messages to others.
>
_______________________________________________
To post, send message to Religionlaw at lists.ucla.edu
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see 
http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw

Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as 
private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are 
posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or 
wrongly) forward the messages to others.


-- 
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 268.1.1/271 - Release Date: 28/02/2006


_______________________________________________
To post, send message to Religionlaw at lists.ucla.edu
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw

Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.ucla.edu/pipermail/religionlaw/attachments/20060302/a07e8e3c/attachment.html