<p>"When are religious institutions allowed to ignore federal laws that may conflict with their faith?"</p>
<p>Debates centered around Title IX issues constantly deal with how to balance the rights of federally funded institutions with the rights of individuals associated with that institution. Are some forms of discrimination tolerable if an institution's religious standards require it to be selective about what is morally acceptable in its community?</p>
<p>Spotting errors in the first few paragraphs skimming through, I doubt if that article can be trusted. </p>
<p>What errors did you spot?</p>
<p>Yes, some forms of discrimination are tolerable based on religious grounds as freedom of religion is an essential to making who we are. A government has no right to impede on one’s train of thought when it doesn’t physically harm someone. The freedom of religion allows people to make choices and religious institutions make their choices based on religious views. If they feel God will be angered if they accept somebody who goes against, in their view, God’s values, they can reject that person. The government has no right to make choices the religious institutions feel go against God as for them it’d be morally unacceptable. </p>
<p>Also, the gender discrimination act shouldn’t apply to choices people make in how they identify, but rather what gender they actually are. If these institutions are meant for boys or girls only, they’re only meant for biological males or biological females. There are no blurred lines in that sense and religious institutions that only accept biological males or biological females, shouldn’t be forced to enroll the opposite biological gender. Overall, colleges that are religious get the choice to enroll whichever biological gender they choose due to freedom of religion. Freedom of religion is among the most important freedoms we humans are entitled to.</p>
<p>@realtwinkie </p>
<p>I don’t think that physical harm is the only concern or consideration. Using that argument not only is discrimination of most types legal, but so is other acts like verbal harassment. Under that definition, your logic would also argue for the legalization of segregation. No one is physically harmed right? So we can deny them access to anything private we own, even if it is open to the public.</p>
<p>Regardless of your beliefs, you should not be allowed to discriminate against people. Beliefs are subjective, and therefore cannot be applied objectively onto others who do not share your beliefs.</p>
<p>You are using an argument of freedom, but discrimination is literally taking the freedom of others.</p>
<p>These religious institutions have certain criteria required in order to gain admission and that includes being a biological male or biological female for some of these colleges and under that basis, those that cannot be considered a biological male or biological female cannot be admitted if it conflicts with the criteria. Also, @PengsPhils if you believe in making hate speech illegal, that is so far against the freedom of speech that it’s downright censorship by the government who’d choose what words we can or cannot say. The government doesn’t have the responsibility of picking which opinions are legal or illegal no matter how outlandish to the rest of Americans. Also, segregation publicly violated a person’s right to enter wherever they choose, regardless of race so I’m not I’m support of that. Segregation can’t be legalized due to the Supreme Court’s decision on it being unconstitutional, but that is based on race which is outside the realm of choice. I think that the freedom of religion is protected as long as it doesn’t cause physical harm or discriminate against a quality an individual didn’t choose. These students choose to identify as transgenders but Blacks didn’t choose to be Black in the 60s.</p>
<p>On any matter that a religious institution participates in interstate commerce, they cannot discriminate. Hiring a non-affiliated employee- they participate in public hiring, selling, buying from non-participating people they give up the right to discriminate.If they take any government $$ they have to follow all government rules</p>
<p>Anybody who’s ever taken a dollar bill is taking government money but that doesn’t take away the freedom of speech or religion. By those standards, anybody who’s used government currency has given up their freedoms which is completely false. Also, in the past two weeks, we’ve seen SCOTUS include religious exemptions for many laws like those on contraception, abortion, and what should include this.</p>
<p>@realtwinkie </p>
<p>I am not in favor of making hate speech illegal, nor did I say that. The government does not have a place in saying what opinions you can have, but the minute you start affecting others, they have a say in your actions. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>So does this. You are denying them entry to a school who you offer admission to anyone else. Black and white schools anyone?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You choose to identify as religion X. Does that mean we can discriminate against you? Of course not. Regardless, I disagree that its a choice as well, but I am guessing that is a categorical disagreement until evidence rules one way or the other there.</p>
<p>Once again, discrimination impacts people, and you can’t discriminate based on a subjective belief, no matter what it is. You are taking away freedoms still.</p>
<p>There are many forms of discrimination that the government chooses to protect against and not protect against. There is age, religion, skin color, ethnic origin, biological gender, disability, career status, wealth, personal history, etc. The government doesn’t protect against every one of these discriminations of course as there are many complications that can be drawn with some of these categories that are difficult to manage like sexual orientation. When you give different sexual orientations more freedom, you limit freedom of religion further and further. People in private matters can discriminate in that discrimination is loosely defined as its degree can vary from lynching of a person to calling somebody old as an insult, but I do think moral beliefs one can discriminate upon.</p>
<ol>
<li><p>You choose your religion, not your gender identity is an argument I would make. But, as mentioned before, we won’t get anywhere there, so I will move on not using this point.</p></li>
<li><p>The government would protect all of those if they began to face discrimination widely. I think we have already placed laws protecting most and if not all of those. If one were to discriminate radically against any of them, I would think there would be and would support a push for protective laws.</p></li>
</ol>
<p>Now, to the case at hand:</p>
<p>Religious freedoms infringed: the right to discriminate in regards to access services offered to all people.</p>
<p>Personal freedoms of an entire group of people: an education at a particular institution, which could be either the most affordable or one of the few if not only options for the local, poor, or those who would require scholarship and would have been offered one based on merit and/or aid.</p>
<p>Religions are not being asked to change their beliefs. They are not being asked to pay any amount of money. In fact, they are being asked to accept money. They are simply being asked to accept all people when they offer a service to the public. Once again, claiming privatization entitles selection of any kind isn’t any sort of real argument for the reasons given in the first post I made.</p>
<p>Finally, a hypothetical.</p>
<p>What if person X believed that any educated person with short hair was immoral. That education was reserved for those with long hair.</p>
<p>Should we support those beliefs being discriminated upon? Short hair is a choice isn’t it? And we can’t infringe on the beliefs of person X because it’s important that the world he lives in is moral based on the belief he chooses.</p>
<p>Under the Establishment Clause (as interpreted by Everson v. Board of Education, the key landmark ruling), the government can’t use taxpayer money (or anything else at its disposal) to favor one religion over others, to disfavor all religions, or to favor all religions. Taxpayer money given to a university that is then used to discriminate and not only exercise the religion that the university is affiliated with but to push that religion onto the student body and into other communities, imho, violates the spirit of the First Amendment.</p>
<p>Also, it’s pretty ignorant to say that someone is “really” a male or “really” a female; that in itself is transphobic because it claims a lack of difference between biological sex and gender. It’s like walking up to a transwoman:</p>
<p>“Look, I know you have gender dysphoria and all. But please go shop in the men’s section because you’re really a man.”</p>
<p>There was a time when we deemed it a form of “freedom” to let insitutions using taxpayer money segregate their student body or only accept races they deemed fit for such an institution. It’s fine for such repugnant institutions to merely exist- but they have no right to take taxpayer money and use it to enforce such horrid policies.</p>
<p>It is a choice and there are somewhat similar forms of this kind of discrimination like on sports teams and businesses but in this case it’s against long hair and having beards. It really is a choice and if people find if immoral, they shouldn’t be forced to accept them. Also, single-sex schools only accept people of one biological gender and adding another gender goes against their religious policy so it really shouldn’t be forced on them. Religions are being asked to go against their beliefs and they won’t accept money to do so. There’s nothing wrong with the school owners exercising their freedom of association to not associate with those they find immoral. If a Neo-Nazi applied to a Jewish school, he’d get rejected and there’d be absolutely no debate but when a person with a ? for a gender gets rejected from a single-sex school, there is debate which is preposterous. </p>
<p>Also, @dividerofzero I’m not arguing for taxpayer money to favor a religion. Im arguing that a religion institution has a free will to use their own morals in their criteria. How is it ignorant to say what gender somebody actually is when I’m stating facts? If you have male reproductive parts, you’re a male. Same goes vice versa for women. The only people with an actually legitimate claim are hermaphrodites as they don’t choose a combination of reproductive parts male and female. Furthermore, I’m not telling men and women what clothes to shop for as. I really don’t care about that as that says nothing about gender identity since I could buy a skirt as a joke or part of a lost bet. I don’t want taxpayer dollars to favor a religion. I’m saying they should be allowed to keep their policies without using taxpayer money. Lastly, that’s the first time I’ve ever heard of transphobia.</p>
<p>@realtwinkie Yes, that’s totally fine- as long as they don’t use taxpayer money to support their morals.</p>
<p>You’re only under the illusion that you’re just “stating facts”- in fact, “I’m telling it how it is” is the exact same excuse used by racists, misogynists, etc. Gender dysphoria is widely documented in studies.</p>
<p>Moreover, having certain genitalia does determine your sex but your hormones determine whether you’re comfortable being “male” or “female” or third gender. These are deeply personal experiences and to say that someone is “really male” or “really female” is essentially denying someone’s very real experience and very real mental state. Just because your biological sex and gender are the same doesn’t mean that biological sex and gender are the same thing.</p>
<p>And let’s suppose you’re still not convinced- after all, it’s the Internet and valid points here are no reason to actually change your mind because your voice is the only one that really matters. However, imagine the absolutely tragic effects of behaving the way you do if what I’m saying is true- transgender people are already several times more likely to be homeless, commit suicide, etc. Do you really feel okay saying that someone’s discriminatory beliefs override the well-being of these people and human decency as a whole? </p>
<p>So, anyhow, chromosomes determine sex, not gender. If you don’t believe me, look at the studies- “gender dysphoria” is a good thing to start with. Humans are complex; just one part of meiosis doesn’t determine your identity.</p>
<p>Yes, I think these universities should be welcome to keep their policies without the benefit of public funding. I believe we both agree on that.</p>
<p>As for the last sentence, you’ve probably never heard of the subaltern either. Or bobbit worms. Doesn’t mean those things are any less real. I’m pretty sure people in the 14th century could’ve used “I’ve never heard of racism” to continue legitimizing that form of discrimination.</p>
<p>Bigotry is bigotry, and I personally believe that conservative Christian universities should be nuked from space. If I manage to get the power to do so, I hope you’ll continue defending individuals’ right to exercise their personal beliefs.</p>
<p>Federal law is subservient to the Constitution which guarantees freedom of religion. The US Constitution is the Supreme law. </p>
<p>Atheist liberals who want to force their worldview onto churches and religious educational institutions have no right to do so. Just look at the Hobby Lobby case.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Do you also believe Islamic schools should be nuked from space?</p>
<p>@dividerofzero
Politically, I might be the bane of your existence but socially, we’d probably get along just fine. I also didn’t mean to try to make transphobia seem less real, it’s just the lgbt brings up seemingly new terms left and right. Additionally, we are all bigoted in some way towards liberals or conservatives, religion or irreligious, young or old, attractive or unattractive and your intolerance for conservative Christian churches is bigoted itself. Also, based on that research you brought up, it appears many transgenders have real psychological problems that need to be sorted out. Finally, if you nuked all the bigots, there’d be nobody left including your hatred towards conservative Christianity.
@NWIStudent
Rick Perry said he believes in freedom of religion but that Texan actions shouldn’t be dictated by a minority of atheists. Also, l find liberal atheists (as a group, not all) to be the most bigoted as they bash Christians on many threads for yahoo or huffington post. Thank SCOTUS for the Hobby Lobby case. Democrats are now trying to repeal some Religious freedom act. Hopefully our freedom of religion and thought don’t get shattered into pieces.</p>
<p>@realtwinkie</p>
<p>Yeah, I completely agree. Honestly, I believe in God and go to church but would not be considered a super religious type, but atheists anger me to no end when they try to impose their worldview on the country when they constitute 1 percent of the population. For example in Oklahoma when the 10 Commandments were put up in the statehouse, an atheist group wanted a Satan sculpture belongside it. While they have a right to do so, the action is clearly done to antagonize people. Anyone who has studied history understands the Judeo Christian roots of our laws, which is why the 10 Commandments are found in the Capitol building. </p>
<p>As a former super liberal turned Constitutional conservative libertarian Republican (I mix my philosophies), I tend to think that you can change people by reminding them of the fact that the Constitution is the basis for our laws. The Constitution was intended to protect us from people like Sebelius.</p>
<p>@NWIStudent and @realtwinkie </p>
<p>This is getting pretty political and pretty clear that no one’s minds will be changed anytime soon, but please look at the arguments that have been made. I have addressed the arguments you have made and shown the flaws in each one. Dividerofzero brings up a good point with transphobia but I figured I would leave that out of the argument as yes, it is all very new common terminology. But yes, do keep in mind the difference between gender and sex, its catching on quick.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Non-religious people are 16% of the world.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Have we not heard of church and state separation here? And did you not just finish talking about how the ten commandments should be on a government building not two lines ago? Doesn’t that seem a little forced?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The supreme court is a political entity that governs a single country. A ruling does not show that something is categorically right or wrong. In fact, 44% of the court doesn’t agree with it. This isn’t a black and white issue, and a supreme court ruling doesn’t make it one. Justices are merely people, and if you haven’t noticed, the executive and congressional branches tend to fight a lot over who gets on it because of the implications in government. I don’t think morals are determined by political fights in the US government.</p>