illuminating science

I was reading about the Salvation Army today, and was quite shocked to discover that, in the US at least, religious organisations are exempt from many of the civil rights laws if such laws would violate the “creed” of the religion. In particular, whether religious groups must obey laws preventing discrimination against homosexuals or requiring paying of benefits to same sex partners. This is from an old New York Times article, but still relevant:

There is no federal law barring discrimination against gays and lesbians, and there are provisions in federal law that exempt religious groups from civil rights requirements that violate their creeds. But 12 states and more than 100 cities and counties have laws to protect gays. At issue is whether religious groups administering social programs with public money in those places should be — or are — bound by those laws.

Furthermore, as a religious group, despite being a billion-dollar multinational organisation, the Salvation Army is exempt from various reporting requirements that apply to all other charities.

I’m just sayin’, a rational person looking at these sort of arrangements would really start to question the special status given to religion and religious groups in today’s society. Not that I’m saying there should be religious groups (well, not in this post) but they should have to live by the same laws as everyone else. Surely that’s reasonable?

In other news, Heinz pulled an ad today which showed two men kissing, because:

…viewers complained to the Advertising Standards Authority that it was “offensive” and “inappropriate to see two men kissing”.

Other complaints include that the ad was “unsuitable to be seen by children” and that it raised the difficult problem of parents having to discuss the issue of same-sex relationships with younger viewers.

Gah.