Colorado leaders join religious hiring rights debate

A proposed bill in Colorado to prevent faith-based organizations that receive government money from basing hiring decisions on applicants’ beliefs has died after religious leaders threatened to stop delivering government-funded human services.

The bill created such a stir in Colorado that House Majority Leader Alice Madden, who introduced the bill in January, decided in early February to table the measure for the current session that ends this spring. Instead, Colorado Gov. Bob Ritter plans to summon both supporters and opponents of the bill to a summer meeting to find common language.

“Hopefully, a bill can be forged for 2009 that protects employees from discrimination based on religion without harming social services programs provided by religious organizations that utilize taxpayer's dollars,” Madden said in a statement last week.

The bill would have changed a law the Colorado legislature passed last year to prevent discrimination in hiring based on sexual orientation or religion. The law exempted religious and nonprofit organizations, and the now-defunct bill sought to eliminate the exemption. Under current law, religious organizations are allowed to employ staff based on their religious beliefs or affiliations.

Whether a consensus between supporters and opponents of the bill can be found for legislation in 2009 remains uncertain.

“We welcome the (summer) meeting,” said Joyce Rubin, senior associate director of the Anti-Defamation League's Mountain States Region office, a Denver-based advocacy group that supported the bill. “I think there’s room for us to come together in good faith and satisfy all sides. Our intention is to have fairness in employment and we never intended to affect the provision of social services. We never intended to take away the religious identity of any group.”

Brad Meuli, president and chief executive of the Denver Rescue Mission, agreed there was opportunity for compromise even though the language in the bill would need a major overhaul.

“We are all working together on a 10-year plan to end homelessness, and there’s room for everyone at the table,” he said. “The way it’s written now, it would be pretty difficult for us. What we don’t do, the government will have to pick up.”

He said the Mission, which receives about 5 percent of its operation funding from government sources, requires all its 155 employees to sign a declaration of Christian faith. Its slogan is "changing lives in the name of Christ."

But Jim Pfaff, CEO of Colorado Family Institute, a conservative Christian advocacy group that opposed the bill, was more strident in his assessment of what religious organizations should be required to do when receiving government money.

“I don’t think there is compromise language,” he said. “Religious groups have said, ‘We’ll just not offer government services.’ Historically, government encouraged such groups because they were successful precisely because of their religious beliefs."

The Colorado controversy over religious hiring rights is similar to a debate at the national level in the U.S. Congress. The landmark 1996 welfare reform act exempted religious groups from non-discrimination hiring provisions and Congress has subsequently passed other bills with exemptions in individual federal programs. Attempts to extend the exemptions to more programs have created controversy in Congress and failed in recent years.

Supporters of the exemptions say religious organizations should not be bound by non-discrimination hiring laws because the 1964 Civil Rights Act exempts them. Opponents say religious organizations can employ whomever they want with private money, but should not discriminate with government money.

Currently, a battle has been renewed in Congress over whether faith-based providers of substance abuse and mental health services should be allowed to prefer those of their own faith in employment. With the act authorizing the federal Substance Abuse and Mental Health Administration up for renewal, lawmakers and coalitions representing religious organizations have lined up on either side of the debate.

The debate over religious hiring rights also had a brief forum last month in the California legislature, where a bill was introduced to counter a law enacted last year mandating that all groups receiving government aid, including religious organizations, must abide by the state’s non-discrimination policies.

The bill prompted a hearty debate in a California Assembly committee before being defeated by a committee vote. It was supported by Pacific Justice Institute, a legal defense organization that advocates for freedom of religious expression, as well as representatives of religious colleges and the Boy Scouts of America. Opponents included the American Civil Liberties Union, Americans United for Separation of Church and State, Equality California and the NAACP.

In Colorado, the mere introduction of legislation requiring religious organizations to forfeit the right to hire people of their own faith stirred an immediate and vocal public opposition.

The Archbishop of Denver, Charles J. Chaput, published a column on Jan. 23 in the Denver Catholic Register calling the legislation a “bad bill” that prevented Catholic Charities of Denver -- the largest provider of charitable and social services in the Denver area, receiving one-third of its budget from government sources-- from preserving its religious identity.

"Catholic Charities has no interest at all in generic do-goodism; on the contrary, it’s an arm of Catholic social ministry. When it can no longer have the freedom it needs to be 'Catholic,' it will end its services. This is not idle talk. I am very serious,” Chaput wrote.

“Catholic organizations like Catholic Charities are glad to partner with the government and eager to work cooperatively with anyone of good will,” Chaput continued. “But not at the cost of their religious identity. Government certainly has the right and the power to develop its own delivery system for human services. But if groups like Catholic Charities carry part of society’s weight, then it’s only reasonable and just that they be allowed to be truly 'Catholic' – or they cannot serve.”

The archbishop’s column called on the Anti-Defamation League to “disassociate itself from this ill-conceived piece of legislation.”

Bruce DeBoskey, the regional director of the Anti-Defamation League, responded in a letter to the editor of the Denver Catholic Register, denying the "implied criticism that ADL supports this bill because of some anti-Catholic or anti-religious bigotry."

DeBoskey said the bill "prevents religious bigotry in government-funded programs. If you take government money, you're acting as an agent of government and shouldn't be allowed to discriminate."

DeBoskey’s letter prompted Christopher Rose, the CEO of Catholic Charities of Denver, in his first month on the job, to counter with another letter to the editor claiming his organization “would seriously look at ending our partnerships with all governments" if the bill were passed.

Catholic Charities was joined by nine other faith-based organizations to oppose the bill.

Katie Reinisch, a spokeswoman for Madden, said the House leader did not intend for the bill to curtail the work of faith-based organizations. Nor did she expect the bill to face such opposition, Reinisch said.

“I think Madden was a bit shocked by the reaction from faith-based organizations,” said Meuli of the Denver Rescue Mission. “When we showed her the ramifications, she had second thoughts.” invalid.

— Anne Farris, Roundtable Washington correspondent