Discrimination ok, if based on religion? what else then?

Although I know this is a UK issue, didn't we have a similar kind of case awhile back? Boy Scouts of America vs. Dade? IIRC, the Supreme Court ruled:

quote:

---

Applying New Jersey’s public accommodations law to require the Boy Scouts to admit Dale violates the Boy Scouts’ First Amendment right of expressive association. Government actions that unconstitutionally burden that right may take many forms, one of which is intrusion into a group’s internal affairs by forcing it to accept a member it does not desire.

---

Here's the ruling: BSA vs Dade.I'm pretty sure I disagree with the ruling, but wouldn't the RCC be able to restrict access to services on more-or-less the same grounds? They don't receive state funding, it's a "private" organization (sort of, anyway), etc. I'm not a lawyer, obviously, so I probably don't "get" all the legalities involved. It might be different with service providers, but even restaurants reserve the right to refuse service (although they can't get away with discrimination). Anybody have any idea on this?

Kind of answers my question. Obviously, if the RCC in the UK is receiving public funding, then they bloody well have to follow government rules. Let's not even get in to the propriety of a flipping church receiving state funds...

That makes sense. It's kind of moot, anyway, since the agencies apparently receive public funds.

I'm not so sure about the smoking comment (there IS an actual public health risk, etc - although I'm a smoker... ). However, I am 100% in agreement with the part of your post I quoted above.

In fact, as I understand it, they wouldn't be able to discriminate for any reason as long as they receive public funds. However, private organizations not receiving tax monies are pretty much free to do as they please. Note well that private entities deemed to provide public services (as you mentioned, I think) also fall under the anti-discrimination laws (restaurants, hotels, transportation services, etc). Again, however, the RCC would seem to have a loophole here - if they are offering private adoption services to church members only - then they can do pretty much whatever they want. They only ran afoul of the law if they supposedly provide services to the general public. This also goes along with your "self-propagation" comment. Or at least, that's how I understand the situation. I have been known to be wrong, on occasion , especially where legal issues are concerned.