ACLU appeals faith-based firing case

The American Civil Liberties Union has appealed part of the U.S. District Court ruling in the case of Alicia Pedreira, a lesbian counselor who was fired by the Kentucky Baptist Homes for Children.

The case touches on a number of questions, including the constitutional issue of the separation of church and state. Because the Baptist Homes receive most of their funding from the state of Kentucky, the ACLU argued that the Homes should not be allowed to impose religious conditions on their employees or add religious components to their publicly funded programs.

The question is particularly timely in view of the Bush administration's push for faith-based social services, a proposal that has passed the House of Representatives but has not been scheduled for a Senate vote.

In his July decision, Judge Charles Simpson III ruled that the Homes fired Pedreira based on her behavior rather than her religion. Since sexual orientation is not protected under federal or state laws protecting individuals against workplace discrimination, Simpson dismissed Pedreira's employment claims, but left intact the issue of whether -- or to what extent -- a quasi-religious institution can mix faith with activities paid for by tax dollars.

According to Eric Ferraro, Public Education Director for the ACLU's Lesbian and Gay Rights Project, the ACLU was pleased that Simpson kept the First Amendment issue alive, and the lawyers will not appeal the dismissal of Pedreira's employment discrimination claims.

However, before trial begins on the constitutional issue, the ACLU would like the question to be broadened. If doubt exists about the use of public funds for religious purposes, doubt should also exist about the use of employment policies to further religious goals.

The Baptist Homes' labor costs are mostly paid by Kentucky taxpayers along with the rest of their expenses. Firing Pedreira based on Christian values, the ACLU argues, is not just discrimination: It's a manipulation of public funds for religious purposes, and thus a violation of the separation of church and state.

"We have a lot of options here," said Ferraro. "But we decided that rather than take the general church funding issue to trial and then turn around and try to appeal the question of employment funding, we'd say let's wait and let's pull out this employment question and take that up on appeal."

With the federal faith-based initiative pending in the Senate and in the public mind, Ferraro said it was important that a federal court review this fundamental conflict between faith-based organizations, public money and employment policies. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit will set a schedule for the case shortly.