Churches in Oregon won't be able to discriminate against gays

arbilad · Head Chef

Churches in Oregon won't be able to discriminate against gays

Roper · Senior Bucketkeeper

Hmmm. I wonder if we could get the ACLU on our side this time with their "seperation of church and state" mantra.

arbilad · Head Chef

I can see a potential problem for the church in Oregon. I do not see the church hiring homosexuals for anything. For instance, I can see some homosexual suing the church to be allowed to work in the temple cafeteria. I can easily see them making the argument that a cafeteria is not related to the main mission of the church. And I can see a liberal judge accepting that argument. But there is no way that the church will allow a homosexual to work in the temple cafeteria. We would then have a situation where the church was openly disobedient to a ruling of the court.

Roper · Senior Bucketkeeper

Do temple cafeteria workers get paid?

If so, then they just remove the pay and make that position an official calling.

Cat Herder · Understander of unimportant things

I think it would be very easy for the Church to avoid any of it. We do not have a paid clergy, so no worries there, and anything that is done now for support type things in temples that are not already handled by service missionaries could be transferred over. That would include an maintenance workers and the like. Worse case scenario, a temple cafeteria has to be shut down (welcome to the world of everyone in the world who does alright with the small temples).

Our Church has a well documented primary mission... remember the three fold mission statement that has been around for how many decades? Perfect the Saints, Missionary Work, and Redeem the Dead. Everything that is done in the Church is organized under and supports one or more of those three.

The wisdom of The Lord puts to shame the cunning of wicked people.

arbilad · Head Chef

Roper wrote:

Do temple cafeteria workers get paid?

If so, then they just remove the pay and make that position an official calling.

The head of the cafeteria usually is - it's a hard position to fill. You need someone who is an experienced manager in the food industry who's willing to put in 40 hours a week or more into running the cafeteria. It's hard to find that in either a volunteer or a service missionary.

arbilad · Head Chef

Cat Herder wrote:

I think it would be very easy for the Church to avoid any of it. We do not have a paid clergy, so no worries there, and anything that is done now for support type things in temples that are not already handled by service missionaries could be transferred over. That would include an maintenance workers and the like. Worse case scenario, a temple cafeteria has to be shut down (welcome to the world of everyone in the world who does alright with the small temples).

Our Church has a well documented primary mission... remember the three fold mission statement that has been around for how many decades? Perfect the Saints, Missionary Work, and Redeem the Dead. Everything that is done in the Church is organized under and supports one or more of those three.

The wisdom of The Lord puts to shame the cunning of wicked people.

Cat, you're looking at things from a logical viewpoint - we have three well documented missions of the church. But a liberal judge is not going to judge things from a logical standpoint.

And I haven't read through all of senate bill 2 yet, but it seems that it's not just limited to paid workers. Would the church not be discriminating against a homosexual if they did not allow him in the temple? I happen to agree with them disciminating against them in that case, but a liberal judge might not agree. They would argue that just because someone is homosexual doesn't mean that they can't help the church fulfill the mission of redeeming the dead. That's terribly wrong. But surely you aren't accusing liberal judges of being logical, are you?

The Lord does protect us, but he doesn't make us immune from persecution. Just look at the early history of the church.

Mahonri · Senior Bucketkeeper

Sounds as if come July when my son arrives, he'll be in the epicenter of babylon.

I don't think that the Church will have a problem... but could you imagine the ACLU getting involved in our behalf??? That'd be like sitting at the dinner table with ol scratch.

Cat Herder · Understander of unimportant things

One of the things you are forgetting here is that this could not supercede any other job qualifactions an employer can and is allowed to impose legally. Otherwise, the judge / ruling then starts to define job qualifications and mandating them to all employers.

The supposition I think a couple of you are operating under is that this would preclude the right of the Church from having it as a requirement for an employee to be: 1. a member of the Church; 2. worthily holding a temple recommend. For the government to force the Church to drop either or both of those job qualifications would be tantamount to government interference in the practice of religion, and today would be quickly found to be illegal and unconstitutional.

The Church does not advertise employment opportunitys stating it is an equal opportunity employer in the first place, so that also says something. For a state assembly or activist judge to unilaterally and against the voice of the people make sexual preference a protected class does not equate to every possible employer having to give a protected class special dispensation.

Is it something that we should be concerned about? Sure, and we should do what we can to prevent it. But I don't think it is the same as "the sky is falling" attitude that the article takes

palmon · Senior Member

Some time ago the church was sued for mandating that those making the garments hold temple recommends. I believe that the church lost.

arbilad · Head Chef

But Cat, that is exactly what the new law would do - a judge would review the case and determine if the requirement that the person be a member in good standing is related to the main mission of the church. And the judge gets to define that mission.
Just because people would be outraged by a bad judicial decision doesn't mean that there are no bad decisions. There are plenty of them. For instance, the will of the people is overwhelmingly against government seizing land through eminent domain to give to private developers. But a Supreme Court decision allowed just that.
Heck, there was one state (I think it was Texas) where some people were suing because they got excommunicated from their church. I don't know how that one turned out, but the fact that the judge didn't just throw the case out is appalling.

Cat Herder · Understander of unimportant things

Support your claims with proof and not just anecdotal stories folks. I do not disagree that this is a bad bill, but the verbage does not support what WNN is claiming.

You know, I find it interesting that WNN did not even link to the verbage of the bill. I had to go to the ACLU to find a link for it... rolleyes

SECTION 3. ORS 659A.006 is amended to read:
659A.006. (1) It is declared to be the public policy of Oregon that practices of discrimination
against any of its inhabitants because of race, color, religion, [color,] sex, sexual orientation, na-
tional origin, marital status, [national origin,] age or disability are a matter of state concern and
that [such] this discrimination not only threatens [not only] the rights and privileges of its inhab-
itants but menaces the institutions and foundation of a free democratic state.
(2) The opportunity to obtain employment or housing or to use and enjoy places of public
accommodation without discrimination because of race, color, religion, [color,] sex, sexual orien-
tation, national origin, marital status, [national origin,] age or disability hereby is recognized as
and declared to be a civil right.
(3) [However, this section shall not be construed to prevent] Nothing in this chapter prohibits
a bona fide church or sectarian religious institution, including but not limited to a school, hospital
or church camp, from preferring an employee or applicant for employment of one religious sect or
persuasion over another when:
(a) That religious sect or persuasion to which the employee or applicant belongs is the same as
that of [such] the church or institution;
(b) In the opinion of [such bona fide church or sectarian religious institution] the church or in-
stitution, such a preference will best serve the purposes of [such] the church or institution; and
(c) The employment involved is closely connected with or related to the primary purposes of the
church or institution and is not connected with a commercial or business activity [which] that has
no necessary relationship to the church or institution, or to its primary purposes.
(4) Nothing in this chapter prohibits a bona fide church or sectarian religious institution
from taking any action with respect to employment, housing or the use of facilities based
on a bona fide religious belief about sexual orientation.
(5) Subsection (4) of this section applies only if the employment, housing or the use of
facilities is closely connected with or related to the primary purposes of the church or in-
stitution and is not connected with a commercial or business activity that has no necessary
relationship to the church or institution, or to its primary purposes.

From my reading of this, the only possible place this could impact for the Church would be Church owned businesses (like a commercial farm -- not a welfare farm). The temple is central to the Church's mission, so even if you have paid employees on maintenance or cafeteria or the like, it is still central to the Church's mission. But, what trumps in the other areas is that a church is still allowed to prefer an employee or applicant of their own church over those not of their church. So, you wouldn't have to worry about non LDS homosexuals being able to get through the screening process. And, LDS people who participate in homosexual behavior that would then apply for the job would not meet other minimum requirements for selection. I see nothing in there that states sexual preference as a protected class supercedes all other job requirements as mandated by a religious institution.

bokbadok · Senior Bucketkeeper

Thanks Cat, for posting the text of the bill. I always prefer reading the source material to having it interpreted for me by the media.

arbilad · Head Chef

Cat, I find it interesting that you're talking about accuracy, but you quote the name of the newsource incorrectly. And I had already read the text of the bill from the Oregon legislature website. It's easy - you go there, type in the bill number, and it shows it on screen. I would have linked to it except that it's a dynamic link, and so it doesn't work when copied.
My complaint rests upon the last paragraph of the text you so kindly linked:

(5) Subsection (4) of this section applies only if the employment, housing or the use of
facilities is closely connected with or related to the primary purposes of the church or in-
stitution and is not connected with a commercial or business activity that has no necessary
relationship to the church or institution, or to its primary purposes.

That's what I've been saying all along: if the courts interpret the primary mission of your church differently than you do, you're sorry out of luck.

Other states laws incorporating homosexuals as a protected class don't qualify the exemption for churches. That paragraph is what is causing the uproar. And I think you're putting a lot more faith than I have in liberal judges by trusting them to correctly interpret what is good and right.
You have to ask yourself: why put in that limit on the exemption? Why not just give them a blanket exemption on not hiring homosexuals for any position within a church, no matter what part of that church?

Cat Herder · Understander of unimportant things

arbilad wrote:

Cat, I find it interesting that you're talking about accuracy, but you quote the name of the newsource incorrectly.

WNN... WND... Sheesh... give me a good papercut and pour lemon juice on it why don't ya...

arbilad wrote:
That's what I've been saying all along: if the courts interpret the primary mission of your church differently than you do, you're sorry out of luck.

I still don't see where it says the court is given the right to determine what is and is not a church's core mission. Though I agree that this sort of bill is egregiously wrong, this is where I think too much assumption is being made.

arbilad wrote:
Other states laws incorporating homosexuals as a protected class don't qualify the exemption for churches. That paragraph is what is causing the uproar. And I think you're putting a lot more faith than I have in liberal judges by trusting them to correctly interpret what is good and right.
You have to ask yourself: why put in that limit on the exemption? Why not just give them a blanket exemption on not hiring homosexuals for any position within a church, no matter what part of that church?

Well that has a bunch of loaded sentiments all rolled into one. Oregon is perhaps one of the most "progressive" political spots in the U.S. They always feel they need to be on the cusp of pushing the envelope and force social engineering on their citizens and the nation as a whole. From what I hear, the governments of all three pacific coast states are pretty much without a solid base in morality and decency. I am putting absolutely no faith in liberal judges to do anything but what enriches them. I think it is pretty clear why they are not doing a blanket exemption for churches. They are trying to regulate religion. That is also why ultimately this will fail for them. I feel this is something that if it impacts the Church, it will be taken all the way to the top in the judicial process, just as the Church was behind the BSA all the way to the Supreme Court on the BSA's right to freedom of association on having the say into hiring or otherwise allowing anyone who does not subscribe to being morally straight to be part of the BSA. There is ample precedent at higher levels that can strike down the narrow interpretation of this Oregon bill, should it pass.

edited to correct italics

-- Edited by Cat Herder at 09:41, 2007-04-09

salesortonscom · Wise and Revered Master

A few years back when the church got actively involved with passing the marriage initiative here in California. There was a real concern that the state would actually require LDS bishops and other objecting clergy to perform gay marriages or face jail time for discrimination. There are enough nutty judges out there that can make law in situations like this. I believe Oregon falls in the 9th circuit court of appeals territory so the chances of this getting overturned even in Federal court short of the supreme court are slim. I would be concerned in Oregon also that some activist judge would force the church to hire homosexuals. There is currently a battle going on over a private Christain school's firing of a teacher because she went and got knocked up out of wedlock. The private Christain school obviously is trying to teach a certain set of moral principles to its students but there is a growing cry against the school and the courts may ultimately rule against them. We have gotten to the point where judges have gone from merely interpreting the laws of the land to actually legislating from the bench and there are enough in the system that things can turn out badly in this situation.

arbilad · Head Chef

Cat, the text of the bill may not say "Courts have a right to review", but liberal courts excel at claiming rights that they were never granted. Besides, say, to use an example from the article, a homosexual applies for the position of secretary to a pastor. The pastor then denies him the position because he's gay. The gay man sues because he is very qualified for the position (the liberals love to set up "test cases" like that where they can effect social change through the courts), and feels that the work a pastor's secretary does is not central to that church's mission. Who gets to interpret whether that position is related to the church's central mission? Is the court going to automatically accept that pastor's interpretation? If such a case comes before a court, the court is absolutely going to spend time determining what the church's actual mission is.
The Massachusetts court said that the government has no legitimate interest in determining which couples can get married. Did anyone give them the power to decide that? No. It was a power that they created for themselves.

Roper · Senior Bucketkeeper

And in reference to the establishment clause, if we apply the same standard of seperation to the state that has historically been applied to the church, this legislation is clearly unconstitutional.

Cat Herder · Understander of unimportant things

Gay Rights Bill Passes Oregon House

Well, it looks like this is going to go into law in Oregon... but, as said earlier, I don't feel the Church is going to have a problem defending against it should something come up.

The second to the last sentence in the article has the clause I was thinking of, but couldn't come up with... access to a public accomodation. Our Church's temples (as well as callings within a ward or stake or the Church) are not public accomodations, nor are most if not all the Church owned business entities (farms, etc.).

salesortonscom · Wise and Revered Master

I can see this being challenged in Federal Court under the establishment clause. The sword cuts both ways.