“It’s not hard to understand why faith-based organizations need to discriminate on the basis of religion to maintain their essentially religious character,” Mr. Rosen wrote. “A Jewish organization forced to hire Baptists soon ceases to be Jewish at all.”
The problem is, government funded tasks are not essentially religious. There's also the nonsense that a single Baptist in the midst of a Jewish owned organization causes the organization to no longer be Jewish. Unless they're asserting the equally absurd argument that one Baptist would cause an influx of Baptists that must be hired.
When you're talking about leadership positions in a religious organization, faith and knowledge of doctrine is a legitimate job requirement. There's no need to legally validate discrimination to protect them. And the government isn't paying for leadership positions in churches.
Mr. Rosen also noted that “without the ability to discriminate on the basis of religion in hiring and firing staff, religious organizations lose the right to define their organizational mission enjoyed by secular organizations that receive public funds.” If Planned Parenthood could refuse to hire people disagreeing with its views about abortion, why should churches, mosques and synagogues not have the same right?
Is Planned Parenthood federally funded? Besides, anti-abortion types cannot properly council folks who have decided to have an abortion. Again, we're talking job requirements here.
Add to that the fact that Planned Parenthood is neither church nor state and so the separation of church and state doesn't apply to them any more than anti-discrimination law applies to family businesses with like 20-30 employees.
Obama Sets Off a Debate on Ties Between Religion and Government
By PETER STEINFELS
On Tuesday, Senator Barack Obama did his best to reclaim for Democrats the idea of partnerships between government and grass-roots religious groups — and except for six little words he did a very smooth job.
