Posted on 05/20/2021 9:12:30 PM PDT by MarvinStinson
Unfortunately any legal action against the college will come under the fair housing act which does not have a nexus to accepting govt funds. All housing, private, public, dorms, temporary shelters etc. are prohibited from discrimination in housing.
By interpreting the word “sex” in the statute to include gender identity the reach of the fair housing act reaches everyone and everywhere. The only potential relief for the college is the religious freedom act which this judge appeared to have discounted/ignored.
Insanity.
Where is this a condition regarding the directive directing federal agencies "to combat discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity." It is an extension of The Fair Housing Act, a federal law enacted in 1968 that prohibits discrimination in the purchase, sale, rental, or financing of housing—private or public—based on race, skin color, sex, nationality, or religion.
However, the [House Report 116-56 on the EQUALITY ACT states in part,
In addition to constitutional and statutory protections for religious free exercise and freedom of association, several exemptions in civil rights statutes provide further protection for religious entities in certain circumstances. For instance, Title II of the 1964 Act, which covers public accommodations, contains an exemption for private clubs and other establishments that are not open to the general public, and H.R. 5 does not amend this exemption in any way.\41\ With respect to houses of worship, it is clear that when houses of worship provide spaces and services to congregants and worshippers, and not to the public at large, they are not acting as places of public accommodation. This has been the case in the more than five decades that this exemption has been in effect. Moreover, clergy operating in their ministerial capacity would never be compelled to perform a religious ceremony in conflict with their religious beliefs, even when working in a place of public accommodation.
Title VII of the 1964 Act contains an explicit exemption for religious organizations from its general prohibition on employment discrimination. This exemption allows religious corporations, associations, and societies to limit employment to members of their own faith. The exemption also extends to schools, colleges, and universities owned, supported, controlled, or managed by a religious organization. Also, courts and the EEOC have recognized that Title VII requires that employers provide accommodation for an employee's sincerely-held religious beliefs and practices where the requested accommodation does not impose an undue hardship for the employer. Examples of such accommodations include allowing the wearing of head coverings that conflict with workplace dress codes, prayer breaks, and schedule changes to accommodate religious observances.
Additionally, the Supreme Court has recognized a ``ministerial exception'' with respect to the employment practices of religious organizations.\42\ Under this exception, rooted in the First Amendment, religious employers are exempt from nondiscrimination laws to the extent that an employment practice concerns employees who play roles with respect to the teaching or inculcating of faith.\43\ This exception applies broadly to include not only those employees who hold formal ministerial positions, but can also include any employee who organizes religious services, theology professors, and church music directors. It would not, however, apply with respect to employees serving in purely administrative, custodial, or janitorial roles.
Title VI of the 1964 Act, which prohibits discrimination in federally-funded programs, does not prohibit discrimination on the basis of religion. Therefore, religious entities are free to discriminate on the basis of religion when making decisions regarding employment or who may receive services from these programs and are free to determine who is and is not a member of their respective faiths.\44\
Beyond the 1964 Act, the Fair Housing Act also specifically exempts those religious organizations that provide preferences to members of their own religion from its nondiscrimination provisions.\45\ That exemption, however, is not available to a religious organization that discriminates in its membership based on race, color, or national origin.\46\
What’s next? Maybe they should tell Orthodox Jews not to have separate seating for men and women at their services?
Why limit sexual social engineering’s scope?
I don’t think the Christian baker in Colorado took government money.
“Why do liberals have a hard on to make sure that every higher institution has unisex bathrooms?”
Simple, to show us WHO IS BOSS now, since we’ve spent our time, instead, bickering with each other and trying to purge out RINOs by replacing them with Democrats.
Surely, this stupid decision will be appealed?
s
Judge rules Roman rules togas and wine for all.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.