Washington Post Omits Critical Facts in Article About Religion and Gay Anti-Discrimination Laws

The Washington Post has an article that discusses how "faith groups" are losing discrimination legal challenges when they discriminate based on sexual orientation. The article title is a bit misleading, because most of the article deals with organizations offering services to the general public. Religious groups engaging in the exercise of their religious beliefs are exempt from such laws.

I'm very concerned, and disappointed, that the Post left out really important facts from some of these situations. Here are a few examples

A Christian student group was not recognized at a University of California law school because it denies membership to anyone practicing sex outside of traditional marriage.

We blogged about this here. First, this is a public law school. Both the state of California and the law school have laws and policies that prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation. Second, "outside of traditional marriage," is a euphemism for individuals who engage in “unrepentant homosexual conduct” (read the blog for supporting information). The Christian Legal Society barred anyone from becoming a member based on conduct arising from their attractions to people of the same sex, otherwise known as sexual orientation. As a sanctioned student organization, they would receive free services from the public law school (so from the state of California) -- that means that the citizens of California are supporting an organization that discriminates in a way that violates California law. Nothing stops this group of students from meeting and conducting activities without tax payers subsidies.

The Post again omitted critical details when it stated:

the Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association, which lost a property tax exemption after it declined to allow its beachside pavilion to be used for a same-sex union ceremony.

The Post neglected to mention that the space in question is a public area for which the organization got a special tax exemption on the condition it was open to all members of the public. This is completely unrelated to their tax status as a religious organization. The article also failed to mention that the organization allowed other activities and weddings, regardless of whether they were religious or secular and regardless of the religion of the organizers to use the space. See the New York Times article here.

This is poor reporting from a venerable news paper.