Youth groups are valued institutions providing opportunities for American children to be exposed to other children and adult role models who have differing backgrounds and beliefs. As such, federal and state governments have encouraged the existence and expansion of youth groups through grants and tax privileges that have allowed these organizations to flourish with the taxpayersÔÇÖ support.

Unfortunately, some of these youth groups have discriminatory policies that prohibit certain children or adults from participating in or leading youth group activities because of their sexual orientation, gender identity, or religious views. The Boy Scouts of America in particular, prohibit participation by children or adults, who are nonreligious. Previously, the organization also banned LGBT children from participating in the Boy Scouts, but this policy was changed following public upheaval and threats from several state legislatures to end the tax-exempt status enjoyed by the organization. The California State Senate has already passed such a bill,84 and similar bills may be introduced and passed in other states.

Under certain criteria, and despite state anti-discrimination laws, a private organization has a right to exclude a person from membership through their First Amendment right to freedom of association.85 However, private organizations that receive public funds or enjoy a special tax status should not be able to uniformly ban the membership of certain sexual or religious minorities.

Taxpayers should not be forced to support private organizations that explicitly discriminate because of their religious views, gender identity, or sexual orientation. Congress and state legislatures should create laws that exclude these discriminatory private groups from receiving government grants and from enjoying beneficial tax statuses. Private organizations wishing to enforce certain requirements on their membership can continue to do so without government interference while ensuring that taxpayers are not supporting groups that are discriminatory.

POLICY RECOMMENDATION:┬áYouth groups receiving government grants and/or preferential tax status must be prepared to represent all citizens and not discriminate on the basis of participantsÔÇÖ religious affiliation or sexual orientation.

Our government has a long history of subsidizing the efforts of organizations providing social services. Historically the same laws and regulations applied to both secular and religious groups regarding how government funds were utilized and the hiring and firing practices for such programs. Unfortunately, changes in federal policy under President George W. Bush allowed federally funded organizations to discriminate on the basis of religion in their hiring practices. Title VII of the Civil Rights Acts makes it unlawful for an employer to refuse to hire or fire any individual because of such individualÔÇÖs religion. Yet we do not hold salaries paid from government coffers to the same standard.

Religious and secular organizations providing social services to needy Americans should not be relieved of the same non-discrimination policies required of every other federal contractor. Religious organizations have a right to promote their beliefs, and to ask their followers to live lives based on these beliefs. However, when religious organizations request money from the federal or state governments to provide publically accessible social services, they must agree to abide by certain regulations prohibiting discrimination against the very taxpayers who fund such activities. They are not required to apply for or accept these funds if they believe their religious rights will be compromised.

These principles extend to employment protections for LGBT Americans. In 29 states it is currently legal for an employee to be fired solely for their sexual orientation. Every single one of the 21 states with laws protecting employees contains an exemption for religiously affiliated nonprofits. Houses of worship are protected by the Constitution and do not require a legislative carve out, while hospitals and schools should be held to the same equality standards as other employers. No other class of citizens protected by anti-discrimination legislation is subject to such an exemption. Discrimination in hiring and firing on the basis of gender identity or sexual orientation is wrong no matter the motivation and laws that put in place exemptions set a dangerous precedent that suggest religion is a valid justification for discrimination.

POLICY RECOMMENDATION: Non-discriminatory hiring practices should be required of any federal or state contractor accepting government funds and laws protecting employees from discrimination should not contain any religious exemptions.

The distinction between civil and religious marriage contracts solve many of the problems raised by opponents of same-sex marriage concerned for their religious freedom rights. To receive federal and state benefits assigned to married couples, a civil marriage must be obtained. It is a contract entered into by two parties which is legally recognized by the government. The government employees who issue and certify these licenses are representatives of the state and must comply with all public laws, including anti-discrimination laws.

Marriage also carries religious significance for many Americans, and they enter into a religious marriage as well, regulated and officiated by their own faith leaders and not legally recognizable by the government. The requirements to obtain a religious marriage are set by each religious community.

The distinction between civil and religious marriage resolves the debate on same-sex marriage because the government cannot endorse a particular religious belief, such as marriage should be between a man and a woman; and the government cannot force a house of worship to grant or perform a religious marriage, as a violation of their Free Exercise rights.

POLICY RECOMMENDATION: Same-sex couples are entitled to the same rights to civil marriage as opposite sex couples. Laws prohibiting this are religiously motivated discrimination which is improper and should be overturned.