In reading the briefs on the Trinity Lutheran Church case, I see a lot of reference to churches being denied "equal protection" when state laws specifically prohibit them from participating in otherwise neutral state aid programs that are available to other civic institutions. Yet churches often vigorously argue that they are exempt from "equal protection" when it comes to access to their facilities.
But in turn, let's say that Trinity wins the case - does that mean that churches that receive the funding could be subject to discrimination claims brought by citizens who are prohibited from accessing the infrastructure, or are discriminated against while on the infrastructure, because the church teaches against their protected class (i.e. religion, gender, sexual orientation, etc.)? I'm thinking that churches that argue for equal protection when it comes to compelling state funding of their institutions, and claim that they should be on an equal footing when it comes to similar secular civic organizations, should recognize that civic organizations are also held to a higher standard when it comes to discrimination claims. Churches that receive funding and simultaneously seek to reserve the right to discriminate should expect that they will be held to the same non-discrimination standards as other civic organizations as a condition of receiving such funding and that they will need to take "equal protection" into account when it comes to people and other organizations which seek to access and use churches' state-funded infrastructure. Put simply, could Trinity Lutheran Church be a Trojan Horse? I would be interested in your thoughts. Michael Peabody, Esq. ReligiousLiberty.TV _______________________________________________ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
