In Theory: Bill would bar exemption from Title IX

A bill making its way through the California Legislature would limit religious colleges’ ability to claim an exemption from federal Title IX laws barring discrimination against LGBT students and faculty.

Under California Senate Bill 1146 — which passed the state Senate in May and is currently undergoing amendments in the state Assembly — only institutions preparing students for pastoral ministry would be allowed to claim a religious exemption.

In any other religious school receiving federal money, students who believe they have been discriminated against due to their sexual orientation could sue the college.

Human Rights Watch calls the Title IX religious exemption “a license to discriminate.”

In California, at least seven religious colleges have applied for the exemption, including Biola University, Simpson University and William Jessup University.

Some see the bill as a way to ensure LGBT students are protected, while others feel it would infringe on religious freedom.

“In many ways it’s an existential threat to religious colleges that want to live according to the principles of their faith in their community,” Quincy Masteller, general counsel of Thomas Aquinas College in Santa Paula told the Catholic News Agency.

Q: Should religious colleges receiving money from the federal government be allowed to claim a exemption to Title IX regulations?

Wow. Let us be clear — religious institutions want the right to discriminate against the LGBTQ community. How does this relate to ethics; how is this American; how is this showing concern for humanity? They claim their “values” demand they discriminate. Why is this ridiculous notion even entertained? Since when is this country or religious freedom about allowing discrimination? I seem to remember slavery was justified dogmatically as well. Should we reinstate other discrimination on religious grounds?

Let’s understand this even further. If they don’t get all-encompassing exemptions, they at least want special exemptions for pastoral care programs to have the right to discriminate? Consider what pastoral care is. It’s emotional support for “all god’s children.” How exactly is discrimination emotional support?

I am sick and tired of churches playing the victim by reverse claims of religious discrimination. There is no such thing in this instance. They are being underhandedly and deceitfully polemical in order to redirect the issue.

The religious right is so fond of saying the same thing over and over regardless of truth. So, please indulge me as I yet again repeat what David Silverman of American Atheists said: “Cloaking your bigotry in religion doesn’t make it any less bigoted and calling you out on your bigotry isn’t persecution, its accountability.” But, unlike the religious right’s disingenuous mantras, this statement is actually true.

Joshua Lewis Berg
Humanist Celebrant

First of all let me make clear that I am against all forms of discrimination be it sexual, national, racial or governmental.

Looking at the Title IX exemptions for religious institutions being narrowed to only ministerial students looks like the government is discriminating against the universities who are discriminating against LGBT students in the first place. The 1st Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, the ultimate Federal law, states that, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”

While discrimination in any form is wrong, the California Senate, which is supposed to act in concert with the Constitution, is for certain prohibiting the free exercise of religion by limiting the Title IX exemption to only ministerial students. The basic moral axiom here is two wrongs don’t make a right.

Now before I am attacked for supporting discrimination at all, let us remember that the Declaration of Independence also guarantees us “inalienable rights, such as life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.” Being LGBT does not mean you give up any of your rights as an American. We don’t know the sexual orientation of the blind lady with the scales. So, remember, red, white and blue are still resident colors of all rainbows.

Rabbi Mark Sobel
Temple Beth Emet
Burbank

When I attended Biola University, I had to sign a faith statement as well as agree to a particular moral code. If I recall correctly, the code was a no drinking/fornication/occultism policy for all students. Most new students signed the statements and agreed to never drink until they graduated. Devil worship was likely not going to be anyone’s practice who chose to attend Biola anyway, and sex-before-marriage was just off the table for most biblically obedient Christians (regardless of Biola’s stated requirement).

Now, as far as these codes went, they were incumbent upon all students. There were no provisions for applicants who wanted to learn at Biola, but who would sacrifice to Satan on their off hours, or who spent their study time getting hammered at dive bars, or who practiced promiscuity to their heart’s desire. These were reasonable, moral prohibitions that the government had no problem with until now.

But think, if there was to be no heterosexual sex, there certainly would be no homosexual, pedosexual, or beastiasexual, or Q-sexual (latest addition to LBGT) or any other sexual behavior or positive representation. Sex is morally confined to male/female marriage and nothing else, biblically speaking. This is a school that inculcates biblical morality, not one that teaches secular auto mechanics or which doesn’t concern itself with the souls of its pupils.

The point of the school’s existence is to produce godly alumni. If then, there are those who would object to the school’s moral code, then they ought to find themselves places to attend that don’t mind immorality and have no objection to perverse lifestyles. This is what it boils down to: a politically motivated group, that defines itself by its peculiar sexual proclivities, striking out against the good morality of a Christian institution, simply because that institution receives government funding like every other university in the country, but requires them to sign the same moral statement I did. They hate the morality, so they hate the college, and they want to punish it by defunding its mission.

Look, there are women’s colleges, historically black colleges and universities (HBCU) and many institutions that receive aid, and which select their attendees based on gender or race — yet they still qualify for government monies because they exist to benefit this country by providing education to distinct demographics (just like Biola). Suppose the school wanted to train chefs, but a lobby of food haters and anti-cooks demanded equal representation in the staff and student body, would that make any sense? No, it would be a recipe for disaster, and so is this ridiculously discriminatory California bill.

Rev. Bryan A. Griem
Tujunga

I am opposed to exemptions to Title IX regulations or to the rules of any other federal aid programs. I do not want my tax dollars going to institutions who are allowed to discriminate. Religious colleges can very easily “live according to the principles of their faith in their community” by simply not accepting federal money.

Attorney Mastellar gives two examples that he describes as “conduct or activity that violated our Catholic character”: a transgendered male seeking to live in a women’s dorm or a same-sex wedding taking place in a campus chapel.

In either scenario, it strikes me as extremely unlikely that the individuals would have any interest in using the facilities at a Catholic college. Be that as it may, if an institution is receiving federal assistance they ought to have to abide by all the laws and regulations that apply to any other recipients.

This is not a threat to anyone’s personal freedom to practice their religion. This is equal treatment under the law.

Roberta Medford
Atheist
Montrose