The Biden administration has proposed sweeping changes to federal grant rules that could give LGBT organizations an advantage over religious groups when awarding funds.
Stanly Carlson-Theis is the founder and senior director of the Institutional Religious Freedom Alliance, a division of the Center for Public Justice.
He is sounding the alarm on proposed Uniform Guidance changes for grants from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). Wording changes would enhance LGBT anti-discrimination protections while downplaying those same protections for religious freedom, he told The Epoch Times.
Mr. Carlson-Theis wrote an article alerting the public to the change. (The deadline to comment on Federal Register changes at regulations.gov is Dec. 4, using OMB-2023-0017-0001 in the search bar.)
“These proposed changes are not authorized by statute nor by court decisions and may complicate access to federal funds by faith-based organizations,” Mr. Carlson-Theis wrote.
The result could be a chilling effect on religious organizations applying for grants.
“I think that the way this is written, you’re embracing this other way of thinking about things, or else you’re probably not the kind of group we want to work with,” he said.
A small section in the middle of the 111-page document was proposed for changes.
Mr. Carlson-Theis said that one section deletes language “protecting free speech, religious liberty, public welfare, the environment, and prohibiting discrimination,” which pertains to constitutional protection and laws.
That appears to deemphasize religious liberty when administering federal grants and cooperative agreements.
Another amended section prohibiting sex discrimination in government grants now adds the terms sexual orientation and gender identity as part of the protected class.
A new section suggests bureaucrats administering federal grants and agreements should prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity in every program.
The U.S. Supreme Court’s Bostock decision in 2020 is cited as justification for the changes, Mr. Carlson-Theis said.
The high court’s ruling protecting sexual orientation specifically applied to aspects of employment discrimination under Title VII, based on secular employers.
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 initially protected workers and job applicants from discrimination in the workplace based on race, color, religion, sex, and national origin.
However, the landmark case was narrow in scope, with Justice Neil Gorsuch, who wrote for the majority opinion, declining to expand the protection to all conduct of LGBT individuals.
Justice Gorsuch wrote that Title VII did not purport to address bathrooms, locker rooms, or anything else of the kind.
But that hasn’t stopped the Biden administration from using the ruling across agencies to solidify the idea of transgender and gay rights.
While Title VII also has protections for religious organization policies and practices that secular organizations do not, it’s unclear how the Bostock decision affects that protection.
Together, those proposed changes to grant rules are troubling, Mr. Carlson-Theis said.
Jonathan Hullihan is an attorney for Citizens Defending Freedom in Texas. Courtesy of Jonathan Hullihan
“If the civil rights laws are going to change, Congress ought to change them,” he said.
While discrimination is wrong, so is violating freedom of religion, he said.
Homosexuality conflicts with very firmly held and historic teachings of many religious organizations, so it should be up to Congress to find a balance when considering the rights of religious schools and workplaces and LGBT individuals, he said.
Mr. Carlson-Theis said it appears the federal government is putting its thumb on the scale in favor of sexual orientation rights over religious freedom rights.
Say two nonprofits were vying for funding to shelter runaways, with one being a religious-based group and the other an LGBT group. In that case, those awarding the funds may deem it safer to grant money to the LGBT group based on the assumption it would respect sexual orientation and gender, he explained.
“So that’s why I thought it was really important for religious organizations that are concerned about having a fair place at the table to speak up,” he said.
Citizens Defending Freedom (CDF), a conservative watchdog group, has decided to issue a call to action on the OMB changes, just like it did with proposed changes to Title IX rules conflating gender and sexual orientation with biological sex.
Title IX is a federal civil rights law enacted as part of the Education Amendments of 1972. It bans sex-based discrimination in schools or education programs that receive federal funds.
“This is where the fight is. This is the deep state,” CDF Texas attorney Jonathan Hullihan told The Epoch Times.
Mr. Hullihan said the goal is for CDF members nationwide to comment on the rule and slow down the process.
The group put out a similar call to action on athletic eligibility for transgender students who participate in school sports under Title IX.
Transgender swimmer Lia Thomas (2nd L) of Penn University and transgender swimmer Iszac Henig (L) of Yale pose with their medals after placing first and second in the 100-yard freestyle swimming race at the 2022 Ivy League Women's Swimming & Diving Championships at Harvard University in Cambridge, Mass., on Feb. 19, 2022. Joseph Prezioso/Getty Images
CDF contends that recognizing “gender identity” and sexuality under the federal law “has no legal basis.”
Mr. Hullihan contends the administrative state is trying to supplant the Constitution and its guaranteed freedom of religion.
“I mean, across the whole of government, they’re trying to change language. And really redefine biological sex,” he said.
Eventually, Mr. Hullihan believes the issue will make its way to the Supreme Court after federal rulemaking is over and lawsuits challenging the use of the Bostock decision outside of the employment realm.
Once the rule is published and the Department of Justice tries to litigate perceived civil rights violations based on rules that didn’t come from the Supreme Court or Congress, then states will likely line up to sue, he said.
“It really strikes at the heart of our constitutional republic. It really destroys the whole idea of federalism,” he said.
