From Vasyl in e-mail
As it turns out, I’m the confused commenter on Rich Miller’s site about the gay rights bill. ?Here’s my quickie analysis:
1) The gay rights bill does not amend the exclusion for religious organizations. ?The bill’s language gets codified within the section of the Section of the Human Rights Act that uses a definition of employer that excludes religious organizations (to a limited extent) — so the bill would automatically exclude religious organizations.
2) Here’s how I read the religious exemption, with bracketed material to help organize the language:
“Employer” does not include any religious
? ? [1] corporation
? ? [2] association
? ? [3] educational institution
? ? [4] society
? ? [5] or non-profit nursing institution conducted by and for those who rely upon treatment by prayer through spiritual means in accordance with the tenets of a recognized church or religious denomination
[this exclusion applies] with respect to the employment of individuals of a particular religion to perform work connected with the carrying on by such corporation, association, educational institution, society or non-profit nursing institution of its activities.
3) Once the exclusion is parsed out, it seems that a religious institution can hire only members of its own religion. ?So, a Catholic school (e.g.) can hire only practicing and faithful Catholics. ?Thus (and in accordance with Catholic teachings), a Catholic church must hire celibate homosexuals, but may refuse to hire homosexuals who engage in same-sex relations. ?A religious institution that believes the mere state of being gay is sinful (i.e., you can’t be a member of the religion if you’re gay), could refuse to hire that person.
4) So, why did Carol Ronen say what she said? ?My best bet is that the staff analyst read only the bill, and not the already-existing statute. ?(Btw, that’s the flaw in the Anaclerio memo.) ?So, when Ronen was asked about religious insitutions, she simply answered with her opinion rather than with a legal analysis. ?The opinion got reported in the Sun Times, and LaBarbera goes off on his rant. ?I’d like to see the transcript of the debate before going with the short quotes in the Sun Times article to determine legislative intent.
So, I hope that makes things clearer — or maybe it makes things muddier.
_______________________________________
This is the same as how I read the law and the past restrictions put on who is affected by anti-discrimination laws. My Matt Hale example isn’t meant as satire, but as a real exception to the law that has long been allowed.
For those who insist differently, the same is held true along gender lines or the Catholic Church would be hiring Female priests as would several conservative Protestant denominations that do not allow female ministers.
ArchPundit