August 9, 2001 | Read Time: 2 minutes
In a case watched closely by supporters and critics of President Bush’s effort to help religious groups, a federal judge has ruled that a state-supported Baptist foster home in Kentucky did not illegally discriminate when it fired a gay counselor.
U.S. District Court Judge Charles R. Simpson III said the Kentucky Baptist Homes for Children, in Louisville, did not violate civil-rights laws when it fired Alicia Pedreira in 1998. In a lawsuit filed on her behalf by the American Civil Liberties Union, Ms. Pedreira claimed she was dismissed because she is a lesbian.
Judge Simpson said that the Baptist organization did not discriminate against Ms. Pedreira on the basis of religion, even though the group believes that homosexuality is wrong.
But he did not rule on a second claim made by the A.C.L.U.: that Baptist Homes violated the religious-establishment clause of the Constitution by using government money to impose its religious beliefs on others.
The A.C.L.U. argued that Baptist Homes is a “pervasively sectarian” organization that should not receive state funds.
Congressional Democrats have argued that the Bush plan, which would make it easier for faith-based groups to get government funds to provide social services, would lead to the imposition of religious beliefs on people who receive those services.
The A.C.L.U. will decide in the next few weeks whether to appeal Judge Simpson’s decision on the discrimination issue or pursue its second claim about the imposition of religious beliefs in violation of the Constitution, said Ken Choe, staff counsel for the advocacy group’s Lesbian and Gay Rights Project, in New York.
In his ruling, Judge Simpson said Baptist Homes could dismiss Ms. Pedreira based on its “behavioral code” for employees that stems from Baptist beliefs. At no time were the religious freedoms of Ms. Pedreira violated by the code, he wrote.
Mr. Choe disagreed with the judge’s distinction between religious beliefs and a conduct code based on religious beliefs. “We feel it’s a distinction without a difference,” he said.
