Freedom of Religion

In California, with No Real Opposition Left, LGBT Activists Target Religious Colleges

If you're trying to make a Catholic college accept married gay couples, maybe just accept that you've won this war and stand down.

|

Biola University
Ana Venegas/ZUMA Press/Newscom

Let's start with the understanding that the government should neither be funding nor meddling with religious colleges at all. (We will pause for a moment for some readers to yell that that the government shouldn't be funding any colleges, religious or secular). But they do. They have for a long time and they will continue to do so. So before talking about the circumstances and rules through which the government funds and sets rules for religious colleges, we will have to acknowledge the current environment.

As religious institutions, these colleges are able to receive federal exemptions from complying with some nondiscrimination laws that contradict church teachings. California lawmakers are targeting these exemptions with a bill that will meddle with religious schools over whatever rules they might have that allow them to engage in some types of discrimination. To be more specific: SB 1146 is looking to find ways to punish religious schools that are not on board with accepting sexually active gay students, gay marriage, and transgender students.

There was a bill proposed that flat-out cut state grants going to schools that engaged in such discrimination. This bill has been held in committee since May. SB 1146 is different and a bit more subtle, but still puts the state in position of meddling with religious schools. It requires that any religious school that seeks an exemption from state or federal discrimination laws to make all that information available publicly, so the state can put together an online list of colleges that have gotten the exemption.

The bill furthermore declares that colleges that receive funding from the state can be privately sued for violating the state's non-discrimination laws. It states that religious schools that have sex-segregated housing and restrooms must accommodate the selected gender identities of students. The schools may enforce religious-based practices as long as they equally apply to students regardless of sexual orientation or gender identity.

There are very narrow exemptions for schools that exist solely for the purpose teaching the propagation of a particular religion (like seminaries), and institutions that have previously been admitting students of one sex may continue to do so.

The push for these new rules are not coming from within the church. They're come from LGBT organizations yanking around the dimensions of the Overton Window to interfere further and further with private religious practices they find detestable. The executive director of Equality California, which is pushing the bill, told NBC it was "about discrimination."

But it's about discrimination based on a religion's clearly defined beliefs, which themselves are protected by the First Amendment. And in contrast to the kind of widespread discriminatory behavior that has inspired civil rights movements, we're talking about a small number of colleges with a specific population that has chosen to be there. In NBC's reporting, one student actually worried about the bill because she chose to go to a religious college to "integrate [her] faith in [her] major."

For those who are not interested in living under the rules of the religions that have brought these colleges into existence in the first place, California has no dearth of options. California is not a state where students have trouble finding colleges to attend. In a response from the Los Angeles Archdiocese, Archbishop Jose Gomez and Bishop Charles Blake note "It is important to remember that no one is compelled to attend a private religious college or university. Those who do so make a deliberate decision because they are seeking an academic environment and community in which they can live, learn and serve with others who share their beliefs, values and aspirations."

This bill feels like nothing so much as activism that can't acknowledge that it has won the day and relax for even one second. And the wording of the bill makes it look like its actual goal is to create a private lawsuit factory against religious schools.

There is no substantive pressing need for this law, and one doesn't have to support religious-based discrimination against gay or transgender people to realize this is legislation based on trying to punish those with divergent opinions. Those who practice these religions should be the ones pushing for their church leaders to evolve into a more mature understanding of sexual drives and gender expression. It should not be a matter for the state or the courts.

NEXT: NY Daily News Admits "We Were Wrong" About Stop and Frisk

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. I really had no idea anything like this could happen.

    1. Foreseeable consequences are not unintended.

      The people asking for gay marriage recognition as a Constitutional right were warned that going that route laid the foundation for crap like this. I hope a lesson has been learned.

      I do note less enthusiasm for using the other bathroom as a Constitutional right, so maybe.

      1. I doubt it. I havent seen any on here say “Sorry, I was wrong.”

      2. Fuck the hell off, RC.

        Yeah, socons have screechily warned about lots of shit that hasn’t come to pass. Gonna take responsibility for all of that?

        You also see lots of marriage equality proponents like me who want nothing to do with these payback campaigns against religious colleges. Duly noted that you almost, kinda, sorta admit that with your bathroom comment, but petulance also noted.

        1. I’m not talking about what socons may have warned about. I’m talking about what I and a few others predicted, which is in fact coming to pass, Tonio.

          Whether you support it or not is irrelevant. And, actually, kind of the point of the distinction between “foreseeable” and “intended”. Yeah, you didn’t want the positive rights bullshit, but guess what? Its cooked into equal protection these days. You play the equal protection card, you are laying the foundation for positive rights.

          That was my point back in the day. And I think its holding up pretty well. The purblind refusal of the advocates to either say “Gay marriage is important enough that I don’t care if it leads to the establishment of a new protected/privileged class” or “Gay marriage is important, but should be done legislatively to avoid that” is what grinds my gears. I just want people to own all of the foreseeable outcomes of their positions. And this is one of them.

      3. Foreseeable consequences are not unintended.

        So this seems to pop up a lot, and I’m just curious how often people who say it have complained about the precautionary principle in GMO or climate change threads.

        Not saying R C has done so, but every time I see it, I wonder.

        1. Actually, those go together.

          Opposition to the precautionary principle is saying outright that there are consequences that are acceptable.

          But the iron law only applies to the foreseeable ones.

          The people who violate the iron law deny the consequences that opponents have pointed out.

          While those of us who oppose the precautionary principle acknowledge the consequences, but dont give a damn.

          1. That’s delightful. So it’s not just argument by trite slogan, but argument by NAMED trite slogan?

            1. Both are named!

        2. There are different versions of the precautionary principle: I default to the one in wiki, because why not.

          if an action or policy has a suspected risk of causing harm to the public, or to the environment, in the absence of scientific consensus (that the action or policy is not harmful), the burden of proof that it is not harmful falls on those taking an action that may or may not be a risk.

          For starters, there’s a distinction that may not be important between “predicted” and “suspected risk”.

          But, the precautionary principle isn’t about accepting risk. Its a rule against accepting any risk at all. The Iron Law is about being honest that there are risks, and owning them.

      4. For the last fucking time, two things which happen in proximity to one another does not establish a causal link. There is an argument to be made about “not giving an inch” but that is a tactic not a theorem.

        These activists feel empowered and the courts and legislatures are largely giving them what they want. Why don’t we ask about why that is, instead?

        1. If someone predicts it in advance as a consequence and then it happens, that doesnt technically establish a causal link, but it is pretty strong evidence.

          1. You say Y will lead to X, I say X is going to happen anyway regardless of Y. Both X and Y happen; who is right?

            1. In that case, who knows?

              But that doesnt apply here does it?

              1. Let’s suppose Obergefell never happened and the last ruling in CA was to uphold their own gay marriage ban amendment and no further amendments had been made.

                Do you really think the CA legislature wouldn’t be writing this exact same bill, except with “domestic partners” instead?

                1. Why do you think private religious corporations are demanding government subsidies?

                  It’s because their ideas don’t sell in the free market of ideas anymore.

                  There aren’t enough students, staff, donors, etc. to keep the doors open to an institution that turns away gay people, black people, Mormons, Muslims, or any other identifiable group without endless state government welfare.

                  The opponents of this bill are basically arguing that state welfare to prop up failed ideas for which no free market exists is just and good.

                  There’s no difference between California subsidizing religious organizations that would close without state welfare payments, and California propping up a green business or train to nowhere that would close without state welfare payments.

                  There’s no market for either of them without public largesse.

                  1. There’s no market for either of them without public largesse.

                    How much of the budget of a religious college is actually paid by government subsidies? You’re just making shit up at this point.

                    I think NPR shouldn’t be funded by the government but that doesn’t mean I would support a law saying they have to air libertarian propaganda all the time.

                  2. Please, just fuck off.

        2. two things which happen in proximity to one another does not establish a causal link

          Indeed not. Which is why I was careful to lay out the mechanism: equal protection has become a vehicle for anti-discrimination by private parties which is in turn a means of creating protected classes with privileges against private parties. I’ve seen that path taken before, and I saw a risk of it being taken again.

          1. Your mechanism fits just as well with the explanation that both X and Y stem from a common foundation Z as it does with the explanation that X follows from Y.

            1. Its tough to argue a pure hypothetical (X would have happened anyway) to refute a non-hypothetical (if Y happens, it will led to X, where Y and X both happen).

              Its not impossible, and there is some basis for it in this case (there was some movement at the state and local level to create a new privileged class, and there still hasn’t been much new success on that front post-Obergefell). I still think that, at a minimum, going the equal protection route accelerated significantly the move to create a new privileged class.

  2. They will not declare victory until 100% of Americans have had at least one homosexual experience. They’re already starting to argue that not wanting to have with a transsexual is transphobic.

    1. Basically the Team American cock-sucking scene in real life to prove you are a right-thinking person.

    2. **have sex with a transsexual**

    3. Yes. We’re getting ever closer to heterosexually being considered flatly to be hateful in and of itself. If you don’t hate gays, why won’t you suck a dick, you racist bastard?

      1. I think that might be a bit of an exaggeration. I know a bunch of people who are probably firmly on the side of these activists and have never heard anything remotely approaching a serious suggestion that being firmly not-gay is any kind of “problematic”.

        1. the point made earlier about transsexuals is actually happening. I think it was the Guardian that wrote a gauzy piece about the dating travails of a transsexual girl. They described a story of this person flirting with boys on the beach, and how hurt she was when they didn’t continue after finding out that she was trans – pre-op, no less, with the frank and beans still in place. The implication was clearly “What a bunch of horrible, hateful assholes those boys were!” simply because they aren’t sexually interested in a transsexual.

          So, yes, while I’m exaggerating, I can easily see a point in the near-future where that becomes the new prog mindset.

  3. LOL, really? The left isn’t about tolerance or acceptance, it’s about forcing your views on others. They won’t rest until all the wrong-thinkers have been purged.

    They have no concept of leaving others alone or live and let live. It’s not enough that gay marriage is legal now — you have to persecute people who don’t support it.

    1. Because as long as there is someone, somewhere in the world who doesn’t like you, you are not being allowed to live, and therefore you have no obligation to let live.

    2. It should not be a matter for the state or the courts.

      When the state is your hammer, every wrongthinker looks like a nail.

    3. Actually, in this case, enormous and wealthy religious corporations are stealing money from taxpayers and then insisting on a “right” to discriminate against the very same taxpayers.

      You want the public money, you play by the rules that the bureaucrats create. It’s simple and not that unreasonable.

      I hope every private organization that gets public largesse gets sued and mandated into a corner. That will end their addiction to money stolen from my paycheck.

      1. “Actually”

        Anyone who ever started a sentence with “Actually” is an asshole. NO exceptions.

        “insisting on a “right” to discriminate”

        You are a Constitutionally ignorant asshole. So, asshole x2.

        1. Anyone who ever started a sentence with “Actually” is an asshole. NO exceptions.

          While not denying that the commenter you’re responding to is an asshole, I was wondering your opinion on commenters who use sock puppet handles to get shirty with other commenters so their primary handle doesn’t look like a cunt?

          1. “I was wondering your opinion on commenters who use sock puppet handles to get shirty with other commenters so their primary handle doesn’t look like a cunt?”

            It’s preferable to openly announcing yourself as a cunt, like you have.

            1. It’s preferable to openly announcing yourself as a cunt, like you have.

              The best you could come up with was “I know you are, but what am I?”

              Fuck you, Fuck you.

              1. “Fuck you, Fuck you”

                Wait, you come at me with “that’s the best you got” but THAT is the best you got?

                AHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

                God damn you’re a failure.

                1. It took you almost an hour to think of that?

                  I understand it took you a while to calm down after jesse exposed your moral cowardice, but I’m surprised it took you this long to just lash out in indignant fury to distract from the fact that jesse nailed you as the mendacious cunt that you are.

                  Your tears are so yummy.

                  1. “Your tears are so yummy”

                    Ten year old Cartman references are the best you have?

                    Jesus Christ? you failed even harder.

                  2. “It took you almost an hour to think of that?”

                    Wait, you assume I was thinking of that and not, you know, having a life away from this, site?

                    Judging by how frequently you post I can see why you’d think that, it must be unfathomable for you to imagine a life outside of here.

                    God damn now you’ve made me pity you.

                    1. Wait, you assume I was thinking of that and not, you know, having a life away from this, site?


                      Why the fuck you lying?

                      It’s hilarious that you think you can just scream back the criticism directed at you.

                      And I know you’ll respond.

                      You can’t help yourself, cunt.

                      You bitter, angry loser.

                      Now, go and prove me correct by responding with a petulant whine.

                    2. “Why the fuck you lying?”

                      “Project more.

                      And I know you’ll respond.

                      You can’t help yourself, cunt.

                      You bitter, angry loser.

                      Now, go and prove me correct by responding with a petulant whine.”

                      So, THAT IS the best you have?

                      I ask because you and your cint friend responded to me. Over and over. Because you couldn’t help yourself.

                      And I’m laughing at you for being so stupid, you’d admit it like that.

                      Get more angry and shrill while you think a out how you responded to me and are therefore everything you listed.

                      Including my bitch.

                    3. Hey hey hey, which is older and more tired, the stupid Cartman line, the “dance puppet” from a puppet?

                      Come at me with whippersnapper next, Grandpa.

                    4. I thought you had a fetish for puppets, no?

                      There is no “Round 2”, by the way.

                      You were intellectually checkmated.

                      I won.

                      Take care!

                    5. This is the funniest shit, I’ve read in quite a while. As I noted 3 hours ago, all you do is “I am rubber and you are glue…

                      And you couldn’t help yourself, could you? I called the tune down to the fucking note and you danced like a puppet.

                      Intellectual checkmate.

                      I win.

                    6. Fuck that corpse hypocritical mulatto

                    7. “As I noted 3 hours ago”

                      When you responded to me.

                      Cuz, you’re my bitch and can’t help yourself.

                      FUCK THAT CORPSE BITCH!

            2. It’s preferable to openly announcing yourself as a cunt, like you have.

              I see, mushbrained and cowardly. I can see why you don’t like reputation economies very much.

              1. I like the good old days when changing handles took 2 seconds.

              2. “I see, mushbrained and cowardly.”

                No one cares about your sex life.

                1. Nevermind, I can see why you wouldn’t want to shame your primary handle this way. Carry on.

                  1. You know, jesse, I prefer the bitter, angry man-children who are at least open about their bitter, angry man-childness. This shit with “Fuck you” is just pathetic, really. Yet, it is also mildly amusing at the same time. Kind of like this essay, which, while cringeworthy, makes you feel good when you realize just how many orders of magnitude your existence is justified over his.

                    1. So, is THAT THE best you have?

                  2. I see no shame in making fun of you for bitching about me taking potshots at people.

                    Nothing you’ve said or done raises the level of your discourse above petty whining, which you engaged in for no other reason than to signal.

                    You’re a joke and I’m treating you like it.

                    1. You’re a joke and I’m treating you like it.

                      Yep. That’s why you’re corpse-fucking a thread almost 3 hours after getting kicked in the nuts.

                      It’s hilarious that you imagine yourself some how yanking my chain when it’s clear that jesse and myself have been playing you like a harp from hell.

                      Now, if you’re the master of your own destiny, prove it by not responding to this post.

                      Actually, don’t reply to anything in this thread further. Jesse and I will continue to post about how much of a cunt you are. And if you’re the one in control, you won’t respond.

                      I bet you you can’t. Your bruised little ego couldn’t bear it.

                    2. Nothing you’ve said or done raises the level of your discourse above petty whining, which you engaged in for no other reason than to signal.

                      Really, mendacious cunt? Since you have this telepathic link to my mind, tell the board what my favorite color is.

                      And I know you’ll respond. You’re too much of whiny pussy to exercise self-control when you feel your fragile sense of self is threatened.

                      Do it.

                    3. God damn you MUST BE pissed you’re still at it, whining your head off like a fucking bitch.

                      My bitch.

                    4. “Yep. That’s why you’re corpse-fucking a thread ”

                      Hypocrisy thy name is you.

                    5. “Really, mendacious cunt? Since you have this telepathic link to my mind, tell the board what my favorite color is.”

                      HOLY SHIT! You’re so fucking stupid you thought that was at you!

                      Ahahahahahaahahahahhah you threw that tantrum because you can’t fucking READ!

                      AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHHAH

                      YOU CANT FUCKING READ! BUT HELL, “INTELLECTUAL CHECKMATE” AND ALL THAT, THE DUMB MOTHERFUCKER CANT FUCKING READ

                      AHAHAJAJJAHAJAJAAHAHAHA

          2. As they say in today’s vernacular, “rekt“.

            1. But enough about your anus.

        2. Hey, I’m looking for the part of the constitution that entitles religious organizations to unrestricted government subsidies, stolen from the paychecks of nonbelievers, without strings attached. Could you point it out to me?

          1. The one about theft?
            Hm.

        3. Actually, no.

      2. I hope every private organization that gets public largesse gets sued and mandated into a corner. That will end their addiction to money stolen from my paycheck.

        One could hope.

        But the reality is that this is the end game for the state to bring the rest of civic society under its control.

        There won’t be good seminaries that don’t take state money rising out of this mess. There will be seminaries that produce priests and they will teach state approved variants of christianity. The guys who refuse the state’s coin will largely price themselves out of the market and be shut down.

        1. “this is the end game for the state to bring the rest of civic society under its control”

          LOL!

          Religious corporations and the state are closely associated. The entire bevy of subsidies for religious organizations was designed to depress the free market in education and civic organizations through market distortion.

          The moment these organizations accepted government cash, they agreed to government control. It’s not hard to get rid of government control — just stop accepting the money stolen from other people’s pockets.

          1. Religious corporations and the state are closely associated.

            What “religious corporations” are you referring to?

            1. You haven’t heard of the Hobby Lobby?

              1. I asked which this specific person was referring to. they say below, and they don’t mention Hobby Lobby – they seem to be talking about things like the “Catholic Church”, Mormons, Baptists, etc.

                and re: Hobby Lobby – its not a “religious corporation” so much as a corporation which happens to be run by religious people. which QueerLib doesn’t seem to be focused on at all here in (whatever) point they’re trying to make.

                1. Read it again….I don’t want to give up the joke so easily.

                2. I listed the organizations below. They’re all corporate entities under US law… willingly so.

                  Hobby Lobby is a private business. Different can of worms, different issue. If Hobby Lobby insisted on stealing money from my paycheck to subsidize its operations, we’d have a problem… but they don’t. That’s the domain of these religious schools, not HL.

                1. Applause to HM and Hobby Lobby

      3. That would be great. But it needs to apply to all of the institutions enforcing left-wing (or other) political views as well as the religious ones.

        1. If left-wing schools are refusing to admit students or hire staff based on race, sexual orientation, political beliefs, etc. and accepting public funds, I’ve got no problem having their funding pulled too.

          1. Pretty sure they’re doing all of those things.

      4. just fuck off already

      5. The state gives money to a student who chooses to use it at an accredited educational institution, but one that also has certain policies (that you don’t like.) There are plenty of other places to for all those who don’t like those policies to attend instead – but you want to demand that everyone do it your way.

        As long as the kids have real classes to attend, why should you or I care about their housing or bathroom or sex on bathroom policies? You go to the place you like, I’ll go to the one I like.

        1. *sex on campus

    4. “you have to persecute people who don’t support it.”

      So not receiving government subsidies is tantamount to persecution now?

      Senator Sanders, is that you?

      1. nope not bernie, but you should fuck off, now.

  4. “…maybe just accept that you’ve won this war and stand down.”

    BWAAAA – HAAAA – HAAA – HA!!!!

    1. As long as the KKK has free rein to march through Mizzou, Social Justice will have important work to do.

  5. It’s just about power.

    Why try to accomplish something useful when you can obtain power by being a whiny little bitch?

    1. If the institutions in question have any merit or utility, they can exist without stealing money from taxpayers.

      If they need taxpayer subsidies to exist, they should go out of business.

      Simple. Libertarian.

      1. If you’re willing to apply that to all of them, then I’m ok with that.

        1. Sure. I’m a libertarian — I don’t support public subsidies for ANY of this shit.

          I’ve also had my fill of people who bitch about free association rights for wedding cakes, yet who insist that I should be totes okay with ginormous religious corporations extracting money from my pocket for their scouting organizations, their schools, etc. Hells to the no.

          1. ginormous religious corporations

            Who exactly are you referring to?

            1. The Catholic Church ($1 trillion)
              Southern Baptist Convention (over $100 billion)
              LDS Church (over $50 billion)
              Boy Scouts of America (tens of millions, according to their last report)

              That’s plenty of capital that they can use to compete in the marketplace.

              1. Having assets doesn’t make a religion a corporation

                And what subsidies are you talking about? any monies that catholic schools receive, they get because they’re “schools” which are regulated/subsidized by the state same as any other school.

                What about the 1st amedment protections are falling short for you, exactly? Because the govt can’t restrict religions under it, and it can’t privilege any single religion under it. How do you think the 1st is supposed to be changed to work “better”?

                1. “Having assets doesn’t make a religion a corporation”

                  Having a charter and status as a corporate entity does. All the organizations I listed certainly fill both criteria.

                  “what subsidies are you talking about? any monies that catholic schools receive, they get because they’re “schools” which are regulated/subsidized by the state”

                  I don’t believe that government compels anyone to accept (let alone lobby for) taxpayer cash. Happy to be proven wrong on this point, but I doubt the issue here is “California forces us to accept enormous payments that we just don’t want.”

                  1. I doubt the issue here is “California forces us to accept enormous payments that we just don’t want.”

                    Then i don’t see what your point is about religious corporations getting subsidies if your only example is schools.

                    If you object to schools (of any type) getting funded by the govt (as i do as well) then they’re all the same. Take govt out of schooling, full-stop.

                    Pretending that catholic-schools are some special case is mendacious; simply “being a school” results in mandated collusion.

                    and for the record, many schools which want to run themselves far closer to their own religious origins DO eschew public funding.

                    Most public-funded catholic schools aren’t any more Catholic than Georgetown U, Villanova U, Notre Dame, etc. are today. Meaning, you can go to said school and be a transgendered-Muslim and never hear so much as anyone saying a Hail Mary unless it happens to be in the context of a football game.

                    IOW, your complaint seems a bit contrived.

                  2. I’m not positive but I believe that Catholic schools take in a lot of kids from the family of non believers as well as believers.

                    Probably even quite a few from families of non taxpayers.

                    And that same government is taking money from the pockets of believers and spending it on shit the believers don’t like as well.

                    Goose and gander and all that.

                    1. “I believe that Catholic schools take in a lot of kids from the family of non believers as well as believers”

                      Awesome! That clearly means they’re entitled to steal money from our paychecks then.

                  3. also –

                    you seemed to skip past the actual question here =

                    What about the 1st amedment protections are falling short for you, exactly? Because the govt can’t restrict religions under it, and it can’t privilege any single religion under it. How do you think the 1st is supposed to be changed to work “better”?

                    ?

                    1. “What about the 1st amedment protections are falling short for you, exactly? Because the govt can’t restrict religions under it, and it can’t privilege any single religion under it. ”

                      Not a very compelling argument. If you accept the socialist premise of a “right to public funding,” the government funds Catholic and Baptist universities, but not Satanist or Wiccan ones. Thus, it’s already restricting religion under the socialist definition you’re advancing.

                      If you’re a libertarian, you celebrate the effort as yet another win for taxpayers, who no longer have to provide money at gunpoint to institutions owned and administered by enormously wealthy organizations.

                    2. You don’t actually understand what i was asking about the 1st amendment?

                      Unless you have a proposal to change it, none of your babbling about socialism is relevant.

                2. Aren’t those religious organizations corporations, though? I’m pretty sure all of those churches and offices and other property they have aren’t owned by individuals.

          2. Cut all state subsidies to all colleges, and we can talk.

            Cutting state subsidies only to religious schools sure smells like discrimination to me. Not, in other words, libertarian.

            1. Any non-religious school that bans gay people or black people because of “deeply held beliefs” can’t get stolen money liberated from private citizens either. There’s no discrimination whatsoever.

              1. Any non-religious school that bans gay people or black people because of “deeply held beliefs” can’t get stolen money liberated from private citizens either.

                Wrong. From the bill:

                Notwithstanding any other law, a postsecondary educational institution that is controlled by a religious organization and that receives financial assistance from the state or enrolls students who receive state financial assistance is subject to Section 11135,

                1. “Wrong.”

                  Not wrong at all. The bill you’re citing simply revokes exemptions that religious organizations had to laws that already banned discrimination based on a host of factors for organizations that receive taxpayer lucre.

                  Basically, you’re arguing that religious organizations have a special right to billions of dollars in taxpayer cash, without any of the strings that any non-religious organization has for the same cash, just because. Pretty socialist.

                  1. The bill you’re citing simply revokes exemptions that religious organizations had

                    Yes. It targets religious institutions, like I said.

            2. You were supposed to yell about this way back in the first paragraph. Damn libertarians never follow directions.

      2. Simple. Fuck. Off.

  6. Awww, poor socialist religious organizations… demanding money stolen from my paycheck and bank account at gunpoint to subsidize your crazy shit and then complaining when there are strings attached.

    Religious organizations that want to enjoy private free association rights can stop accepting money from the state and operate privately. As for those who insist on subsisting on “public” money stolen from taxpayers, enjoy your lawsuits and your gay married transgender professors.

      1. Tony has been slacking lately. We’ve got a replacement.

        1. Tony’s a socialist like you. I’m a libertarian who is opposed to the theft of taxpayer resources diverted to private religious organizations.

          1. Wait a second, this self righteous angle sounds familiar…

            You’re from r/libertarian, aren’t you?

            1. oh god no.

              BUILD A WALL! AND MAKE REDDIT PAY FOR IT!

              1. I don’t think Reason takes Dogecoin.

    1. enjoy fucking off to wherever you came from

  7. To be more specific: SB 1146 is looking to find ways to punish religious schools that are not on board with accepting sexually active gay students

    Seminaries least effected.

  8. I’ll believe these little cultural brownshirts when they start litigating against fringe religious orders. Let’s see them go sue a muslim educational institution because it won’t employ admittedly gay professors.

    But that won’t happen cause we know it’s “punching down” to insist on equal adherence to principles of equality.
    Everybody is cool with beating up on old/white/euro religions. Those guys don’t kill you when you mock their institutions.

    1. I hope those guys get sued too.

      It’s hilarious watching “libertarians” passionately argue for public subsidies to enormous private religious corporations, like the Catholic Church (which has over $1 trillion in global assets).

      I guess socialism is okay when it’s religious socialism?

      1. Judging by your many comments, I would surmise that socialism is only okay when it supports your viewpoint.

        1. You’d guess wrong. The position in favor of socialism is in the article here.

          “Guys, you mostly won. Can’t we just keep the socialism going in this one area? C’mon.”

          1. I believe the article acknowledges the superior libertarian position that all institutions be defunded. However, if government gave campaign funds (e.g.) to one political party, while denying them to a second political party, and was clear that the reason was that it liked the first party more, only a naive libertarian would defend that by saying “hey, why should that second party get my money?”. They shouldn’t, but restricting them without also restricting the first party is an infringement on liberty separate from (and more serious than) the question of taxes. Ditto with “equal state marriage” versus “no state marriage”, ditto with this.

            1. But they already give funds to one party (major religions) but not to a whole host of other parties (minor religions).

              In addition, government subsidy isn’t necessary to operate educational institutions, as numerous institutions already demonstrate — including religious ones.

              Marriage, in contrast, was a mandatory legal status that impacted all sorts of other situations, from taxes to immigrant visas to adoption. If “marriage” was just the government cutting someone a check, it would be a different ball of wax.

              1. While you’re probably right for the time being, it’s entirely within the power of (non-libertarian) government to make it impossible for an institution to operate without subsidy, and then dictate the terms under which they receive that subsidy. For example, they could implement “free college” by putting a price cap of zero on tuition, and then offering subsidies to balance the books for schools, not unlike what they did for health insurance.

                As in the case of gay marriage, the ideological libertarian answer is best: get government (city, state, federal, every organ of socially sanctioned violence) the fuck out of it, and then everyone is legally equal by default. Whatever shittiness remains is the result of equal but flawed people exercising freedom, not political violence.

      2. It’s hilarious watching “libertarians” passionately argue for public subsidies to enormous private religious corporations, like the Catholic Church (which has over $1 trillion in global assets).

        Which libertarians? Examples would be nice.

        1. *squints eyes*

          *looks at comment thread and article above it*

          *points at screen*

          1. So, no examples then? I see general agreement with your “take taxes, deal with regs” opinons.

            1. “I’ll believe these little cultural brownshirts when they start litigating against fringe religious orders”

              1. What is that supposed to prove?

                1. The same thing that your circular questions are supposed to prove. Right?

                  1. Ok I see how this is going.

      3. No, I’d totally cut funding to universities, as I think most readers on these boards would agree with as well. Furthermore, roll back tax exemptions for Scientology, overblown charities, you name it.

        But in relation to the article, it’s like how there’re more smug art pieces targeting Catholicism/Jesus than you can shake a stick at… But when you choose to have one that calls out the bullshit with Islam or the prophet, you get shouted out by SJWs and suddenly need armed guards.

        1. You seem to be under the illusion that I give a flying flip about SJWs, conservatives, Catholics, Muslims or any other socio-political virtue-signaling group. You’d be wrong.

          Stop stealing money from my paycheck. Failing that, enjoy your government bureaucracy and mandatory strings attached to that stolen money.

          1. The money is stolen from your paycheck because the government can steal money from your paycheck. You think if the government unilaterally cuts off every Christian from every red cent of government money, whether welfare, government jobs, etc., that Uncle Sam is going to cut you one bit of slack? You’re buying into the same bullshit thinking that leads tax cuts to be treated as an “expense”.

            If government ever decides to take 95% of what you make, I can guarantee you will dance to Uncle Sugar’s tune to get your money back, and everyone else in the country can tell you to stop stealing from their paychecks.

            1. “You think if the government unilaterally cuts off every Christian from every red cent of government money, whether welfare, government jobs, etc., that Uncle Sam is going to cut you one bit of slack?”

              Ahhhh… the fatalist argument — “let’s fight tooth and nail to preserve socialism for my friends, because it’s not like socialism will disappear.”

              1. It isn’t fatalism, it’s trying to look clearly at cause and effect. The amount the government takes from your paycheck is not related to the wants of religious universities, it is a function of the imbalance of power between government and you. Though I imagine that the impact on your wallet is not your primary concern here and more of a rhetorical flourish.

                At any rate, if you’re getting a lot of pushback, be aware that it’s due to the sense, probably accurate, that the fate of the religious right represents something of a “first they came for” canary in the libertarian coalmine. Which is to say, an orphan in a bird costume, because why pay petstores when orphanages are practically giving away orphans?

      4. which has over $1 trillion in global assets

        … most of which are very illiquid, and the church would be damned foolish to liquidate them.

        How much money the church has, or could have access to, has no bearing on whether the proposed law has any merit.

        1. “Oh the poor trillion-dollar church, it’s so illiquid! We should subsidize it heavily with money stolen from nonbelievers, with absolutely no strings attached!”

          1. Why don’t you respond to what I said?

            1. I did. Encapsulated your entire argument, in fact.

              1. … you “encapsulated” an argument, not my argument

                Or in technical terms, a strawman.

                1. Au contraire. They’ve got plenty of assets, certainly more than the assets of the people they’re stealing from to subsidize their operations. They have plenty of options.

                  1. All of which

                    … has no bearing on the whether the proposed law has any merit

                    English, motherfucker, do you speak it?

                  2. you also have the option to fuck off, which you should do.

          2. When you’re as adamant about letting all of us not have to fund all the other ostensibly secular nonprofit bullshit that propagates beliefs we disagree with (including most of social science/humanities university departments in this country) then you might just be bearable. Until then, stop complaining.

          3. Oh, and you keep saying “no strings attached.” The subsides are given toward achievement of specific goals. There most certainly are strings attached. In this case, it’s subsidies given to students to attend educational institutions. Stop making stuff up, you’re embarrassing yourself.

      5. fucking off is okay when you do it, so please, fuck off.

      6. “Arguing against all subsidies” = “Supporting socialism.” You’re progressivism really has rotted your brain hasn’t it.

    2. Everybody is cool with beating up on old/white/euro religions. Those guys don’t kill you when you mock their institutions.

      Anymore.

      1. Is the Spanish Inquisition particularly relevant to modern-day politics in Calif…. ok fine, good point.

        1. It was thinking more the Enlightenment. Which, sadly, is no longer relevant.

    3. How come picking on Catholics isn’t punching down too? There are lots of poor, brown skinned Catholics too.

  9. From the very beginning, this war has been about total victory over all “anti-gay” forces. The activists haven’t won until every knee bows, and every tongue confesses, that gay people are totally awesome and you must all refer to Stan as Loretta.

    There was some *pro forma* effort, in the early years of the crusade, to hide this agenda, but it was only pro forma, and really it’s been obvious from the beginning to anybody with at least two functioning neurons.

    It’s hard to sympathize with the poor Girondins and Mensheviks who are discovering that they themselves are on the revolutionaries’ target list. Because they’ve been warned repeatedly.

    1. So in other words, it’s totally okay for taxpayers to be compelled to subsidize private activities, so long as they’re the RIGHT private activities?

      1. So you’re saying that gay-friendly churches like the Episcopalians and Presbyterians (PCUSA) should refuse any govt subsidies?

        Like I don’t know the answer.

        1. Yes, I am. No religious group (or any private group) should receive subsidies. Full stop.

          So pathetic to watch “libertarians” go hard-core-left-wing and start claiming that loss of state-ladeled largesse is “oppression.”

          1. No religious group (or any private group) should receive subsidies.

            Assuming you have even an ounce of good faith, this basically means that the state should just take over every institution which is pretty much the textbook definition of socialism.

            1. What? You’re going completely off the rails here. How is calling for an end to public subsidies tantamount to calling for a state takeover? They can solicit donations like everybody else.

              1. You’re going completely off the rails here.

                Yeah, not gonna lie, that made a lot more sense in my head. Hopefully, this makes more sense:

                What is the distinction between “public” and “private” that meaningfully justifies the former getting money from the state and the latter not?

            2. “Assuming you have even an ounce of good faith, this basically means that the state should just take over every institution”

              So an absence of government funding of privileged institutions equals a state takeover of privileged institutions?!?

              Bernie Sanders, is that you?!?

              1. You had 1 hour to see that I admitted it wasn’t a good argument. Try again.

          2. So, why do you support the existence of these subsidies at all? Why do secular universities get them?
            And why are you too dense to see that discrimination in favor of nonreligious universities is as clear a violation of freedom of religion as discrimination against them would be?

      2. QL, this is a targeted bill. Aimed at religious institutions. While we may all want all subsidies to be gone, its not a lay-down libertarian argument to cut subsidies as a matter of viewpoint discrimination.

        1. It’s only “targeted” in the sense that major religious corporations who receive subsidies are subject to the same strings attached to government money as everyone else.

          Removing a special privilege isn’t really targeting.

          1. They don’t enjoy a special privilege. You’re just making shit up. Subsidies are given to students to attend any university they want. This bill specifically seeks to disqualify universities with certain religious beliefs from receiving subsidies. That’s targeting. No different from if they passed a law saying every university must commit to divesting from Israel or must have a swim team or whatever the hell else to get funding.

      3. Actually, you seem to be the one saying that there are private activities that are OK for the government to subsidize and ones that are not.

      4. the right private activity that you can engage in is fucking off

  10. New troll handles. Cool.

    1. New troll handles. Cool.

      QueerLib’s been here before.

  11. First of all, ALL public property discriminates (except cash) because they are built and used for a purpose meaning they come with rules upholding that purpose.

    If discrimination is looked at as inherently equivalent to the violation of euqality before the law, then ALL public property should be abolished as inherently discriminatory.

    The other solution is to recognize that discrimination and non-equality before the law may in fact may be 2 separate ideas which frequently coincide.

    Under this view, the RULES for public property use would not inherently be considered as a violation of equality before the law even though discriminatory. And Traffic Laws should really become Traffic Rules.

    These rules violate equality before the law only when the purpose of the public property is questioned – like in black bathrooms versus white ones where race appears to have no inherent associations with bathroom usage.

    Transgender complaints would FAIL as these people are not prohibited from public restrooms – merely prohibited from using the one they want because of the general rule of bathroom by sex – certainly not an unreasonable concept/rule IMHO. Thus there would no NO violation of equality before the law even though there is discrimination.

    1. The problem is that the standard you’re ultimately alluding to is the “reasonableness” standard which is basically the standard of “whatever is in vogue at the time”.

      1. Except I am talking about the rules under which the public property was built. Any change might indeed involve discrimination charges that might amount to violation of equality before the law.

        ALL public property usage rules of course may be challenged. I am merely trying to provide a sane way to judge things without eliminating public property because it is inherently discriminatory

        1. There is no path to sanity when the system is subject to capture by the insane. Whatever the intentions of the people who built the public property decades or centuries ago, it is presently administered by a different group of people.

          1. As are all laws. If you want to make some greater argument against the coercive state, be my guest. I am trying to provide an answer which I think explains why many people oppose the concept of discrimination as currently pushed by organizations like the ACLU.

            Unfortunate;y too many libertarians view discrimination as inherently wrong when it is clearly a protected civil right under Freedom of Choice and Freedom of Association (for private entities who have no equality before the law obligations to uphold).

            1. Unfortunate;y too many libertarians view discrimination as inherently wrong when it is clearly a protected civil right

              Depends on the group of libertarians you’re talking to, I suppose. That certainly doesn’t seem like the common view in this comments section. Unless by “protected” you mean “categorically recognized and respected by the government”, in which case I would say not.

              What I am saying is that if you allow the government to own lots of property and get to set the rules on the use of that property then you are going to get (what you feel are) insane rules eventually unless you have some mechanism for keeping insane people out of government.

              1. All our civil rights are “supposed” to be protected.

                If you don’t believe in freedom of choice or of association fine. If you do, then discrimination is protected by those 2 rights. Freedom of racist/discriminatory CHoice and Freedom of racist/discriminatory Associations.

                And I usually talk about what I believe. I consider what others say, but it stops there.

                Own lots ? How much is that — 10 acres but not 9.99 acres ?

                1. Ok, I haven’t been very clear myself, but I’m not even sure what we’re arguing about any more.

              2. “if you allow the government to own lots of property and get to set the rules on the use of that property then you are going to get (what you feel are) insane rules eventually”

                Yep. Which is why it’s best not to have government involved at all.

                Unfortunately, a lot of religious organizations used their relationship with government to gain power for themselves when social conservatism was the dominant ideology. Now that the worm has turned, they’re suddenly discovering “free association” for the first time (in private business only for themselves, of course, with stringent government punishment of private businesses who discriminate on the basis of religion) while also contriving a “right to unlimited government subsidies with no strings attached.”

                1. right to unlimited government subsidies with no strings attached

                  You doth protest too much. The government subsidies are not unlimited and don’t have “no strings attached” (they’re generally given for a purpose). Why don’t you just stand on “they shouldn’t get subsidies” instead of parading around your culture-war bona fides?

                2. So you want collective revenge for past wrongs? Color me shocked. But an excellent illustration of why no one in their right mind who doesn’t belong to a given identity should support their identity political grievances, as not only is there no hope of reciprocity, just belonging to a perpetrator class means you’re already their enemy.

  12. Who said this?
    (someone here did, but i believe they may have been quoting someone and applying it to “progressive political tactics”)

    “It is not Victory they seek – But perpetual War”

    i think its extremely true about leftists –

    because so much of their ideology relies on just *being* ideology ….about the attraction of ‘ideas’ more than actual ‘practical reality’ and the actual-outcomes of the policies those ideas produce…. so that anytime they achieve some material victory in some area*, they immediately jump to some other un-explored place to apply the same ideas, because their only interest is in pretending there are more dragons to slay, somewhere.

    (like the ACA = which NO ONE is interested in now that its the law of the land; because the ‘results’ don’t matter – it was “winning” an ideological battle, not actually improving the status quo of the average person’s medical coverage)

  13. Okay, Eddie, you win.

    You arent the most annoying troll of the day.

    1. That means a lot to me…*sob*…

      1. QueerLib set the bar really, really low.

  14. …activism that can’t acknowledge that it has won the day and relax…

    .

    My what a benign description!!! — How about intolerant bigots who are willing to use the guns of the state to persecute those who disagree with them?

    It’s almost like “being left alone” and “privacy” were NEVER on the agenda after all?

    1. You mean like voting on whether someone can legally adopt, co-own property, register his relationship, sponsor a partner from abroad, serve in the military, or legally have sex with another consenting adult in his own home, right?

      1. Don’t worry, QL. Nobody’s voting on any of that any more. You guys won, remember? You can do all of that. But you’ve moved on, as predicted, from negative rights and equality before the law to positive rights, entitlements, and attacking your enemies using the machinery of the state.

        Much libertarian. So freedom.

        1. “Nobody’s voting on any of that any more.”

          They were, for quite a long time, and I didn’t see R C Dean now DWB complaining about it.

          Instead, what I see is a laughable insistence that religious corporations have a unique and proprietary right to unlimited government welfare with no strings attached… and that losing all that sweet welfare is a violation of rights on par with telling people how they should live their lives.

          Pretty ridiculous, but that’s what you guys are basically arguing.

          1. They were, for quite a long time, and I didn’t see R C Dean now DWB complaining about it.

            Look harder, then. Because I’ve always supported gay marriage, and preferred that it be done via legislation. I’ve always been opposed to banning gays from adopting, etc. Those are all things that the government did that discriminated against gays.

            Much of the rest of the list of horribles could be done via parallel construction – co-owning property, for example – you have always been able to do that regardless of whether you were married or not.

          2. You’re an idiot. No one is arguing they have a unique right; you’re the one arguing they have a unique obligation. Institutions can support a whole range of stupid, bigoted beliefs and still receive federal funding. But only *these* particular sets of beliefs render them ineligible for funding?

            You’re a hypocrite. There are two consistent positions: either anyone may as well be eligible for funding so far as they’re function is in accord with some specified value neutral goal, or no one should be eligible for funding.

            If a non-feminist can be made to support a feminist organization, a non-socialist be made to support socialist faculty members, a non-whatever can be made to support a whatever financial person/institution, then what the hell makes you so special that you shouldn’t have to support organizations that you disagree with? Own it, you’re not demanding equality, you’re demanding special treatment, as movements are inevitably wont to do once they’ve achieved equality.

      2. When I read in a local Texas paper that the people involved in the SCOTUS case overturning state anti-sodomy laws (needed to be done, but through the legislature) demanded to be arrested, I sensed the fix was in.

        Remember hearing “If you don’t want Gay “marriage” don’t get one?”

        Don’t hear that one much anymore, hey …

        Almost as rare as hearing: “It’s a free country.”

        1. The demand to be arrested was to establish standing under the Texas “anti-sodomy” law to sue in SCOTUS. Though I’m not surprised that you’re defending arbitrary state power.

          No reasonable person in this discussion saying that your group doesn’t have a right to turn away gay couples or trans people or black people or women or whatever group your superstitions say is evil and bad. We’re just pointing out that you don’t have a right to unlimited government welfare for your group to live on because nobody will voluntarily support it.

          1. Well, QL, there is a valid point in there somewhere, but its hard to make out through the tendentious writing.

            I did not know, for example, that any college, religious or not, got “unlimited” government “welfare”.

          2. So, universities employing feminist scholars who are openly anti-male should be defunded too?

            Explain to me, QueerLib, why we draw the line at religion? Why should universities that support things I oppose be entitled to my tax money in any case? Why should I have to contribute to the coffers of university departments that promote anti-male or anti-white sentiments? Why should a Jew have to support a university that employs faculty that’s anti-semitic or an Arab a university that employs anti-Arab faculty.

            Honestly, why is it that certain beliefs render one ineligible for funding but other beliefs that contradict those of the majority of the citizens somehow don’t? There’s no way around it. Sooner or later you have to accept that either you oppose forcing people to find the propagation or exercise of beliefs they disagree with, whatever they may be, whether they be ‘secular’ or ‘religious’, or, you’re just another flaming hypocrite.

  15. Give a pig a chair and they’ll want to get on the table.

    This is all I’m gonna say about this.

  16. The last thing I was thinking was, “you know, we could really use more trolls around here”, and yet…

  17. While receiving federal funds is a legitimate grip concerning these institutions there is also this.

    When a Christian is not aligned with gay worship it is ok to punish them because it is discrimination by the Christian.

    When a Muslim is not aligned with gays and if you try to punish them it is discrimination against the Muslim.

    Here is how Muslims make inroads into non Muslim societies. It’s almost like they have a road map they follow. I would disagree with the article only in that it seems like the US is a little higher on the scale than the article says. If the Fed Gov keeps importing them like Hillary has promised to to we will advance even further up the scale.

    https://goo.gl/iEeex3

    I am not a regular at that sight but followed a link one day and found this post interesting and informative.

    1. As the government provides more “free” this and “free” that, we will all be receiving federal funds if we aren’t already.

      The idea the state can now control your rights because of this is absurd in my opinion. Much less can the state threaten you with stopping those funds when what you do is not connected to the original promise the state made in providing those funds.

      1. “the state threaten you with stopping those funds when what you do is not connected to the original promise the state made”

        He with the gold makes the rules, though many of the organizations in question thought they were the masters back when they first signed up for the largesse.

        1. he who is an asshole should fuck off

    2. So “not receiving government freebies” is now “punishment?”

      1. Not receiving widely available government freebies because the government is engaged in viewpoint discrimination can plausibly be called punishment, yes.

        Imagine, if you will, that the government freebie in question is, say, Medicare. And the government says that its not going to make this freebie available to anyone who is a registered Democrat. Is that Democrat being punished, yes or no?

      2. I don’t know you, and I find your general argument persuasive.

        But you are a huge asshole. fuck off, please.

  18. Are the state grants going to the schools or the student? Because if it is the latter, that has unfortunate logical consequences for school choice at lower education levels.

  19. If we recategorize feminism as a religion does that mean we can defund every college with a women’s studies department?

    1. seminary…ovumary?

  20. No real opposition left but that’s when the fun begins.

    Nothing sweeter than trampling on an enemy who is helpless.

    Orwell knew the souls of SJWs.

  21. No, this is fine. Doesn’t make sense to be funding religious schools anyway.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.