Forums | MacLife

How does that differ with the quote I gave from that website?
Clearly it requires that abortion be given as an option to receive the funding, as my source claimed.

Back to the point - this doesn't help your case that salvation army shouldn't receive funding. The funding received by the salvation army goes to help pay for the non discriminatory charity work that they do.

If you claim that because the religious side of the organization (which the receivers of charity do NOT have to subscribe to) is benefiting - then clinics that receive Title X funding and perform abortions are in violation of Title X.

If you want Planned Parenthood to continue receiving Title X funds under the claim that the specific money received is not paying for abortions, then you have to also acknowledge that the specific money received by Salvation Army for their charity work is going to non discriminatory charity and had nothing to do with who the religious organization does and does not hire.

btw - the bottom line is still the same.

The government may not discriminate against (or for) religious charity organizations, and constitutionally has no place making the rules of how a religious organization is to be run - including their position on the sinful nature of the homosexual lifestyle.

Separation of church and state means the government does not interfere with the policies of the church and the church does not interfere with the policies of the government.

It does not mean that faith based organizations can not seek assistance from government funding established to help charitable causes. That would be discrimination in its own right - and really no different than the government firing an employee for tithing to his church.

The government funds are to provide charity to those in need, and that's what they get for the money they spend. If they don't get it, then cut the funding.

This is why faith based ministries have signs posted stating that you do not have to be present for the sermon and prayer to get the meal, etc.

Last edited by resedit (2007-08-28 12:47 am)

resedit wrote:

How many of you can name a soup kitchen in your town that is not run by a faith based organization?

These guys aren't faith-based.

http://www.uwpv.org/index.php?id=95

Now, can we talk about AT&T and cencorship? Or at least impeaching Cheney? Or Gonzo? Or maybe something completely insane, like what calibre bullets were used at the VaTech dorm (I'd wager that would be .22, fwiw.)

Blocking distribution is censorship. When it's done by the gov, that is.

resedit wrote:

btw - the bottom line is still the same.

The government may not discriminate against (or for) religious charity organizations, and constitutionally has no place making the rules of how a religious organization is to be run - including their position on the sinful nature of the homosexual lifestyle.

Where are you getting your information from?  You've been misinformed if you believe that any consensus exists in this area or if you believe that these rulings have been wholly derived from the Constitution.  They weren't. 

The Salvation Army is not a state actor and cannot be sued for religious discrimination in hiring even though it receives government funding to administer social services, a federal judge has ruled.

Southern District Judge Sidney Stein, in Lown v. The Salvation Army, 04 Civ. 1562, also held that discrimination alleged against the Salvation Army cannot be attributed to the government agencies that contract with the organization.

But in a victory for former and current Salvation Army employees represented by the New York Civil Liberties Union, Stein refused to dismiss claims against New York City's Administration for Children's Services alleging that the relationship between the agency and the Salvation Army violates the Establishment Clause.

And the judge said the Salvation Army could be sued under the laws of New York state and New York City for allegedly retaliating against two employees for pursuing their discrimination claims.

Stein addressed the government's motion to dismiss first, finding the complaint lacked any allegation that the government defendants' "respective decisions to fund SSC programs ran afoul of the Equal Protection Clause."

"Plaintiffs never allege that the government defendants expressly classified on the basis of religion, intended to discriminate, nor possessed animus in the execution of the contracts at issue," and, in fact, "the contracts at issue existed before the Salvation Army initiated the Reorganization Plan and they included provisions that the Salvation Army not engage in unlawful employment discrimination."

On the Establishment Clause claim, Stein found the plaintiffs had standing to sue as taxpayers challenging the fact that 10 percent -- "the traditional religious tithe" -- of the face value of the SSC government contracts was diverted to the Salvation Army, allegedly to be used for religious purposes.

And the judge went on to find the complaint stated a claim that could go forward for discovery because there was a "reasonable inference" that government funds were used to enforce SSC's compliance with the Reorganization Plan and "that the Salvation Army may be using government funds to support indoctrination of clients who the government defendants compel to participate in SSC programs."

The Salvation Army claimed it was exempted from antidiscrimination laws by specific statutory exceptions, and he agreed that "the broad language of the federal exception bars all" of plaintiffs' claims under Title VII, which normally bars religious discrimination but "does not apply to religious organizations discriminating on religious grounds in employment."

Similarly, "the narrower language of the state and city exceptions precludes plaintiffs' discrimination claims," he said.

But they do not bar the state and city claims for retaliation brought by former executives of SSC who claim they were "constructively terminated" -- forced into resigning -- for pursuing the discrimination charges at issue in the case.

Link.

Yes, we're off topic.

If you haven't noticed before, I'm not one who particularly cares what direction any given thread goes in.

MaBell is the sole ISP etc for the vaunted iPhone. Anyone concerned about that?

Can we talk about boobies, now?

user wrote:

Can we talk about boobies, now?

They are noted for their tame behaviour, having no natural predators, and when innocently alighting on sailing vessels are easily captured and eaten.

Ribtorus wrote:

user wrote:

Can we talk about boobies, now?

They are noted for their tame behaviour, having no natural predators, and when innocently alighting on sailing vessels are easily captured and eaten.

Would this be the Canadian boobies that have no hunters?