Faith groups oppose crackdown on religion-based hiring

It would threaten traditional social missions, they say

By Jean Torkelson, Rocky Mountain News (Contact)

Published January 31, 2008 at 12:30 a.m.
Updated January 31, 2008 at 11:07 a.m.

Text size

Photo by Linda McConnell / Special to the Rocky

Christopher Rose, CEO of Catholic Charities of Denver, speaks Wednesday at a rally with members of other faith-based groups at the state Capitol to oppose a bill that they say would restrict some of their hiring practices.

More Colorado Government

Comments

January 31, 2008

6:43 a.m.

Suggest removal

glowrock writes:

How about if religious-based organizations want government money, they simply abide by government rules and laws? Really simply, if I do say so myself!
January 31, 2008

7:37 a.m.

Suggest removal

Mtnsjohn writes:

Religious organizations simply do a better and more efficient job of providing certain services. The Denver Rescue Mission does not ask the religion of those in line for a meal, it exists to serve Christ by serving others.

I would much rather have such organizations receive my tax money to provide these programs than to pretend that government can do it better.

I suppose some politicians gain some kind of sense of righteousness from trying to impose secular "standards" on those trying to live up to what they sincerely believe to be a higher one.

Tolerance sounds like the grand virtue but we lower our own values when we fail to acknowledge the need to maintain standards. Should we require a daycare center to hire a convicted pedophile who has served his time?

...and if this law passes, should the synogogue receiving government funds for a senior lunch program have to accept an application for Rabbi from a Muslim or evangelical Christian?
January 31, 2008

7:48 a.m.

Suggest removal

Spencer writes:

Take away their public funds. I don't want my taxes being sent to these organizations if they are going to discrimate when hiring.
January 31, 2008

8:12 a.m.

Suggest removal

jbowen43 writes:

Charitable organizations should depend on charity not tax dollars for their funding.
January 31, 2008

8:24 a.m.

Suggest removal

thebruisedreed writes:

I don't think it's that big a deal. We never should have taken money with strings attached in the first place.

Government money doesn't pay all the expenses. Many volunteers and the financial gifts of our group members are usually the base of our endeavors.

We don't discriminate against those we serve. Let us make that perfectly clear. Government funds allow us to expand the number of children of the working poor we can accept in our daycare centers or buy more food for our volunteers to deliver to the elderly or those with AIDS or other illnesses that leave them housebound.

If we are forced to hire someone whose personal beliefs would undermine our purpose, which is based in our faith, that would in the end hurt those we are trying to serve.

Our faith is an integral part of who we are. We don't do these things to prove we're cooler than you. We do them because we have a higher power that we believe wants these things accomplished.

My question is, will the non-faith-based people fill the void? Are you ready to do the work that we do? Are the anti-religious PAC groups going to stand up and fill the holes they have created?

Here is the opportunity for the non-religious to demonstrate their commitment to the "least of these." If their involvement will allow us to serve others still in need, then I'm all for it!

Let's do it.
January 31, 2008

8:38 a.m.

Suggest removal

Spencer writes:

Mr Bruisedreed, why is it necessary for you to discriminate when hiring? Why do you need someone to "affirm that they are Christian" before they can put food on a plate? Do you believe only Christians can do that kind of work? How would a non-Christian undermine your purpose? Maybe you should be more accepting of all people. I don't expect the Focus on the Family folks to set aside their bias (afterall their goal seems to be to identify who we should discriminate against)but really surprised by these other groups. I thought they were more tolerant.
January 31, 2008

9:03 a.m.

Suggest removal

psu96 writes:

your reply Mr Bruisedreed?
January 31, 2008

9:49 a.m.

Suggest removal

Darwin writes:

All charities should close their doors. We know that the government can better provide food, clothing, and sleeping facilities for those in need than can charitable organizations. One just has to look at Social Security, Medicare, etc. to see that fact. One should also not be required to affirm their allegiance to the U.S. in order to work for the government and some companies, whether it is in sensitive areas or not.
January 31, 2008

10:06 a.m.

Suggest removal

jamesdenver writes:

Glow is right. No organization that accepts government money should have any right to discriminate based on beliefs and lifestyle. Period.

You can't have it both ways. If you want to pick and choose the types of people in your camp than privatize yourself and set up camp above Colorado Springs.

james http://www.futuregringo.com
January 31, 2008

10:19 a.m.

Suggest removal

Ted_in_Vegas writes:

Spencer, it is a right of association - also a 1st Amendment Right, as defined by the Supreme Court of the US - that is under assault by HB 1080.

If I am operating a Christian organization to promote Christian beliefs, than I have a responsibility to ensure that everyone who works in the organization also has the same goal - to promote belief in Jesus Christ as God. If government steps in and says I can't do that, then the purpose of the organization has been destroyed by tyranny of the state and the organization no longer has reason to exist. The purpose of the Rescue Mission (my dad used to sit on the Board of Directors), for example, is not to feed the needy, but to promote life-transforming faith in Christ; the food is merely a means to an end.

That said, any not-for-profit organization that took government money that didn't think that strings would be attached to that money is foolish. The whole purpose of any government giving money away is so that it can garner power to itself; that's what is so destructive about welfare - whether individually or to organizations - it's just a way of the government duping people into giving up their sovereignty and power to the growing tyranny of the state.
January 31, 2008

10:33 a.m.

Suggest removal

Spencer writes:

Ted how would you feel about a Satanist organization receiving taxes that you paid?
January 31, 2008

11:01 a.m.

Suggest removal

Mtnsjohn writes:

Spencer.....if the satanists were performing a charitable service to others and were demonstrating that they were meeting a need, using volunteers and their resources to more efficiently deliver these services to others than the "we are here to help you" GOVERNMENT, then they can have at it.

Has anyone a sense of history looking at the old Soviet Union? While they have moved back to acknowledging the beneficial role of religion to their society, we have those wishing to remove it from ours.
January 31, 2008

11:13 a.m.

Suggest removal

me2 writes:

A friend of mine was working for a thrift store but she had put off signing their employment statement which had her state that she was a Christian, attended church somewhere is the city every week, did not smoke or drink, and was not engaged in an alternative lifestyle. She also read off of it where store employees were prohibited from discussing politics, religion or any subject deemed controversial.

We got a copy of the signing statement for all our friends to read, boy was that a hoot.
January 31, 2008

11:27 a.m.

Suggest removal

Marshdale writes:

When will the puritanical bastards get it? The state is not denying the organizations the money. Why do I have to proffess to be a Christian if I simply want to help people who come to a faith based organization for help. Does it really matter what I am, if I am helping someone to get a leg up? I really doubt that person gives a crap what I am. They are just happy that someone give a damn. Quite frankly I don't think Jesus would care either. Infact he would probably bless me, even though I am not a Christian. Bottom line is some do gooders don't want other do gooders to help, because benign as some faith based organizations portray themselves, they are covertly prostilatizing the helpless. Faith based Org's, GET OVER YOURSELVES ALLREADY!!!!
January 31, 2008

11:27 a.m.

Suggest removal

Mtnsjohn writes:

Me2 - you didn't state what organization the thrift store is associated with. No one is required to work or shop there, are they?
January 31, 2008

11:42 a.m.

Suggest removal

Mtnsjohn writes:

The whole point of being "faith-based" is that people of like faith are motivated because of their common faith to serve their God through service to others. There is no test for being able to receive these services.

I suppose to be forced by government to hire persons not of this common faith, would soon change the make-up of the organization from being faith-based to secular....and then why don't we just have government do it.
January 31, 2008

11:46 a.m.

Suggest removal

revorants writes:

Friends,
The faith-based groups do not want to abide by state law. The state law they would like to not have to abide with, is the state employment discrimination in hiring law. They do not want to be held to the sexual orientation and religion provisions. So, the faith-based goups do not want to abide by the state law which disallows discrimination against religion in hiring. Why would a faith-based group have a different set of laws than the rest of us citizens? Why would a religious orginization not want to abide by what they preach?

Rev O
Denver, Colorado
303-282-5689
www.revorants.blogspot.com
January 31, 2008

12:05 p.m.

Suggest removal

Oh_Wise_One writes:

I find the 'tolerant' left are the most intolerant. They just don't see it, that they just want to be difficult.
Go ahead and ruin the charitable work of some religious groups and bask in the glory of your accomplishment. Now, go out and do it yourself.
January 31, 2008

12:09 p.m.

Suggest removal

Shaupeen writes:

Ha! Enjoy that other edge of the sword. Better yet, let's just call religions what they are--big business--and stop with the whole tax-free deal. Then they could openly discriminate in the name of their god. Because Jesus hated the gays, and he never would have walked among them. Oh, wait, yes, he would have. I got him mixed up with his closed-minded, hate-filled followers. Sorry.
January 31, 2008

1:17 p.m.

Suggest removal

windbourne writes:

"render onto ceaser, that which is his." And yet, the religious ppl of today would rather control the state as well as the ppl. Sad that so many churches do not pay attention to the bible.
January 31, 2008

1:32 p.m.

Suggest removal

kevinjjones writes:

The organizations are following present state and federal law right now, which wisely exempts them from anti-discrimination law. The proposed change to the law would burden those organizations that maintain a religious identity, while privileging those that take a religiously indifferent approach. Right now the law is neutral between both indifferentist and creedal organizations, which is how it should be.

These organizations were acting as good corporate citizens when they decided to cooperate with government to do the most good. They don't even proselytize. Why rock a good boat for the sake of self-righteous egalitarianism?
January 31, 2008

3:02 p.m.

Suggest removal

Ted_in_Vegas writes:

revorants: Umm, we preach separation (doctrine whereby a Christian only allows him/herself close association with other like-minded Christians while remaning friendly to all others) so I guess we are practicing what we preach.

Shaupeen: Not all churches are "rich" like the Catholics and Mormons. Most christian churches have between 85-120 members and barely pay their pastor enough to be over the poverty line - usually around $2000-2500/month. That's big business?

hakj: The main reason why governments don't tax religious institutions are two-fold: 1) Most don't have any money anyway (see above) and 2) the overall benefit (more law-abiding citizens) outweigh the minimal lost revenues.
January 31, 2008

4:38 p.m.

Suggest removal

horse90 writes:

Churches obeying state and federal laws like everyone else . That's an outrage. Churches are above the law and everybody knows it. Who would Jesus hire?
January 31, 2008

5:34 p.m.

Suggest removal

Logan5 writes:

I think the comments by some here that so-called faith-based groups should just get over it and either admit anyone to their groups, even if they would be hostile to their mission, or refuse government funds, are indicative of the morally and historically confused state of today’s citizenry. I have a question for the leftists/”progressives”/atheists on here: What would you say if the federal government began appropriating public funds to print Bibles? What if the government paid for missionaries to evangelize non-Christians? How about if the President, with the approval of the House and Senate, arranged for the U.S. Capitol building to be used as a Christian church?

Well guess what, all of those things and more ACTUALLY HAPPENED! And they happened during the earliest years of the Republic, immediately after ratification of the Constitution, and they happened with the full knowledge and consent of the very people who would have best known what the intent of the “establishment clause” was, as some of them were its authors! And here’s another shocker for you; that President who arranged for the church services in the Capitol was none other than Thomas Jefferson, who penned the vastly misunderstood letter which contained the phrase, “separation of church and state.” In fact, Jefferson attended church services at the Capitol throughout his presidency, and those services continued to be held up through the Civil War and the Reconstruction.

And these examples are just the tip of the iceberg. Those of you on the left have absolutely no understanding of the true founding principles of this country. While the U.S. has always welcomed those of any faith, its institutions have nonetheless been built upon Christian principles. Welcoming those who may come from a different culture or background is a whole different thing from allowing foreign cultural norms to displace our traditions and principles. I think those on the left just want to ignore the true history of the U.S. so that they can remake the country in their preferred image. The irony, though, is that the only reason they have the freedom to attempt this is because the U.S. is founded on Christian principles, especially the uniquely Christian and European idea that individual rights are inalienable, and are God-given, rather than granted according to the whims of the government.
January 31, 2008

7:45 p.m.

Suggest removal

thebruisedreed writes:

To Spencer: Anyone can put food on a plate, that is true. But should I be forced to hire a Muslim that can't touch pork and then be forced to make allowances when he can't do the job on religious grounds?

Faith-based drug programs have the highest success rate - so should we undermine what works because we are forced to hire someone that is anti-religion?

I am still waiting for any of the non-faith folks to speak up here and say that they will pick up the slack. Will driving us away produce better services to those in need?

Who will serve the poor if we can't afford to? Please answer that question - or are you evading it by attacking my faith?
January 31, 2008

7:48 p.m.

Suggest removal

thebruisedreed writes:

and PS:

I agree that it is the price we pay for accepting the money with strings attached. Everyone seems to have missed that in my comment. But it has been allowed and we used the money to broaden our ability to serve.

Who is going to be hurt the most by the loss?
January 31, 2008

8:02 p.m.

Suggest removal

thebruisedreed writes:

CharlesB: You misunderstood what hakj was saying in all his excessive verbiage - has asked if "man without religion would actually step up to the plate."

Hakj is correct in his answer "History has not."

Charity has been rooted in the Judeo-Christian tradition. How many charity hospitals have been operated by atheistic groups? Please, enlighten me? How many homeless have been housed, prisoners visited, meals served, children cared for, medical services provided?

People of faith will continue to serve the poor but just with less resources. And because of limited resources we may have to consolidate or end even close some services.

And you will have won and the poor will have paid for your principles. Unless of course you choose to step up...
January 31, 2008

10:01 p.m.

Suggest removal

Shaupeen writes:

I'll have what Logan5 is having, because that has got to be some heavy sh*t.
January 31, 2008

11:14 p.m.

Suggest removal

kemguru writes:

hakj,

Russia is not even close to an adequate example.

Religion aside, all other things are equal between Russia and the US in your eyes. I wish I could sleep as sound as you.

Maybe they were poor, in great part, due to lack of opportunity (no hope in a future, as you stated) and an abundance of corruption. Maybe they had higher rates of addiction to drugs and alcohol because of socialism and, again, a lack of opportunity. With a free ride (socialism) to nowhere (lack of opportunity), they had nothing better to do.

Maybe I’m wrong, hakj. Maybe I do sleep as sound as you. I don’t know, but I don’t buy everything you say religion is selling. In fact, I think the current popular brand of religion in America is depressing and divisive.
February 1, 2008

9:36 a.m.

Suggest removal

rg writes:

http://planetatheism.com/?s=Linda+All... demonstrates that government and snake oil should not sleep in the same bed. Bush and five Catholic Supremes in an act of terrorism have blown away half of the Wall that separates Church and State. Richard Grimes, Deicide: http://www.geocities.com/r22037/think...

Deicide Corner: "Listen, Christ, You did alright in your day, I reckon-- But that day's gone now. They ghosted you up a swell story, too, Called it Bible-- But it's dead now. The popes and the preachers've Made too much money from it. They've sold you to too many. . . . Goodbye, Christ Jesus Lord God Jehovah, Beat it on away from here now. Make way for a new guy with no religion at all-- A real guy named ME." Langston Hughes
February 1, 2008

10:03 a.m.

Suggest removal

jvb writes:

"Christian principles" Christian principles mandate a dictator in the form of a jewish bearded monster in the sky; the U.S. mandates a dictator in the form of "We The People." Religious folks can have their Allah, their Jehovah, their Jesus, their Satan, their god from Kolob, just keep him out of "We The People" and don't compel my dictator to support your dictator. Your dictator can't even exist; he is too damn cruel with his holy genocide on Second Coming, Holy Wars, Jihads, pogroms, Holy Crusades, Inquisitions, Torture, Stoning, Severing Heads first mentioned by Jesus in sell your clothes and buy a sword and kill (Luke 19:27), Hangings enough to fill ten volumes.
February 1, 2008

11:24 a.m.

Suggest removal

thebruisedreed writes:

CharlesB:
I'm still waiting for examples of charity work by other than the Judeo-Christian based groups. Can you show me anything that can compare to the Salvation Army, Catholic Charities, Adventist Hospitals? I believe it to be a fair assumption since I have seen no examples.

I'm sure there has to be a day care center or something out there but everyone seems to be more concerned with attacking the belief in God than in serving the poor.

As I said, shame on us for taking money with strings. It said in the article that gov't funds was 1/3 of Catholic Charities budget. Where do you think the other 2/3 came from?

Here, take back "your" money - along with all the folks we were serving with it.

What are you going to do with them?
February 1, 2008

12:35 p.m.

Suggest removal

Logan5 writes:

I have yet to see even the slightest attempt at a response to my citation of the clearly pro-Christian actions of the nation’s founders. What I have witnessed by the critics here is silly, emotional, incoherent ramblings that are completely unresponsive to the points that I and others have made. This is not a surprise, as incoherence and silliness are nearly universal traits of liberal arguments, but I still hoped for better.

Those who have posted these rants have not exhibited even the most basic ability to construct a rational thought. As an example, “rg” sputters on that “Bush and five Catholic Supremes in an act of terrorism have blown away half of the Wall that separates Church and State.” Fine rg, then if you believe that there is a “Wall” (which is a gross misinterpretation of Thomas Jefferson’s letter to the Danbury Baptists), please explain why there was no controversy in the years immediately following the ratification of the Constitution regarding the U.S. Capitol being used for weekly church services (held in the House chambers), or similarly regarding the Supreme Court chambers being used for church services (that one ought to test the limits of your liberal indoctrination)? Similarly, if you want to stand by your assertion you must explain why none of the Founders, who wrote the First Amendment, nor any of their contemporaries had a problem with Congress appropriating money to print Bibles and to evangelize the Indian tribes. You must also explain why George Washington proclaimed a national day of thanksgiving (to God), exactly one day after the Constitution was ratified. You must explain why Thomas Jefferson, whose quote you mistakenly attempt to use to defend your argument, attended church services in the Capitol building throughout his presidency and in fact had a seat that was reserved for him.
February 1, 2008

12:36 p.m.

Suggest removal

Logan5 writes:

To continue the above, you must also explain the following quotes (which are FAR from an exhaustive list):

“It is religion and morality alone which can establish the principles upon which freedom can securely stand. The only foundation of a free constitution is pure virtue.”

- John Adams (June 21, 1776)

“I have lived, Sir, a long time, and the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth, that God governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without his aid? We have been assured, Sir, in the Sacred Writings, that "except the Lord build the House, they labor in vain that build it." I firmly believe this; and I also believe that without His concurring aid we shall succeed in this political building no better, than the Builders of Babel…”

- Benjamin Franklin (June 28, 1787)

“No free government now exists in the world, unless where Christianity is acknowledged, and is the religion of the country.”

- Pennsylvania Supreme Court, Updegraph v. Commonwealth (1824)

“Why is it that, next to the birthday of the Savior of the world, your most joyous and most venerated festival returns on this day [the Fourth of July]?" “Is it not that, in the chain of human events, the birthday of the nation is indissolubly linked with the birthday of the Savior? That it forms a leading event in the progress of the Gospel dispensation? Is it not that the Declaration of Independence first organized the social compact on the foundation of the Redeemer's mission upon earth? That it laid the cornerstone of human government upon the first precepts of Christianity?”

- John Quincy Adams (1837)

“God who gave us life gave us liberty. And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are a gift from God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath?...”

- Thomas Jefferson (1781) – also inscribed on the walls of the Jefferson Memorial

And I could go on, and on, and on… I eagerly await your response, although I suspect I will either get none, or will receive another rambling incoherent diatribe as your previous argument is now nothing but a smoking hole.
February 1, 2008

1:03 p.m.

Suggest removal

Logan5 writes:

Excellent post, Dan2. However, be prepared to be bombarded with responses whose "arguments", if you can dignify them as such, are filled with self-indulgent, non-responsive, emotional, incoherent nonsense. Arguing with liberals is like arguing with children, and not the brightest children, mind you.
February 1, 2008

1:16 p.m.

Suggest removal

Logan5 writes:

Good point, Dan2. Your second post also makes an excellent point, which is that ultimately this will be determined by application of current law and legal precedent. Nothing more, nothing less.

The reason I felt I had to take such a lengthy excursion in my earlier posts is that many of the posts here displayed an incredible, but common, ignorance of the origins of the "Wall" statement, and by extension of the history and intent of the role of religion (specifically Christianity) in government. It is important to remind people what the true intent of the Founders was, even though the specifics of the constitutionality of this legislation are much narrower and more contemporary.
February 1, 2008

2:08 p.m.

Suggest removal

Logan5 writes:

Dan2 -

Bravo! I am impressed with your knowledge and your clear thinking. I don't mind debating liberals or others who disagree, so long as they actually respond on-point to my arguments (and vice-versa, of course). I actually enjoy it very much, as I think true debate helps us all arrive at better answers to public policy issues. What I despise, though, are responses that are emotionally-based and not well thought out. If someone can rebut my argument with a well-reasoned counter-argument, I am always willing to consider their point, and may be persuaded to change my position.

Regarding the Federalist Papers, I think their study should be mandatory for all high-school students (I know, dream on). As you imply, the current understanding of the Constitution is in some areas a very recent and very radical departure from the historical understanding. Courts began in the 20th century to invent new interpretations out of thin air. Roe vs. Wade is a classic example (not to start a whole new topic). Regardless of whether you think abortion should be legal, it is clear that this decision was bad law.
February 1, 2008

3:38 p.m.

Suggest removal

rg writes:

“As for those who protest that I am robbing people of the great comfort and consolation they gain from Christianity, I can only say that Christianity includes hell, eternal torture for the vast majority of humanity, for most of your relatives and friends. Christianity includes a devil who is really more powerful than God, and who keeps gathering into his furnaces most of the creatures whom God turns out and for whom he sent his son to the cross in vain. If I could feel that I had robbed anybody of his faith in hell, I should not be ashamed or regretful.” -- Rupert Hughes

“Whenever we read the obscene stories, the voluptuous debaucheries, the cruel and tortuous executions, the unrelenting vindictiveness, with which more than half the Bible is filled it would be more consistent that we call it the word of a demon than the word of God. It is a history of wickedness that has served to corrupt and brutalize.” -- Thomas Paine

“ The sooner you get rid of all this Christian humbug the better. The whole traditional concept of life is false. Throw those great Christian blinkers away, and look around you and stand on your own feet . . . Don't believe all the tommyrot priests tell you; learn and prove everything by your own experience . . . One thing is certain -- that English music will never be any good till they get rid of Jesus. Humanity is incredible. It will believe anything, anything to escape reality.” -- Eric Fenby
February 1, 2008

3:46 p.m.

Suggest removal

Logan5 writes:

Charles_B:

If by "my pet issue" you mean the immutable principles which not only gave birth to this nation, but which are essential prerequisites for the freedoms we continue to enjoy, then guilty as charged. What I think you missed in my argument (and I may not have expressed it clearly) is that the Christian principles upon which the nation was founded are not mere historical curiosities. They are essential ingredients of our form of government, whether we are talking about 1789 or 2008.

Contrary to the corrupted version of history that is taught in today's schools, the Founders were brilliant men who studied all previous forms of government and decided upon a constitutional republic, with democratic institutions, as the best form for the United States. This new government would be unprecedented in the level of self-determination and freedom it would provide its citizens.

However, they also realized that providing unprecedented freedom to the people would only work if the people themselves were restrained by a sense of morality that came from beyond themselves. As John Adams said immediately following ratification of the Constitution, "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." What the Founders realized was that the record of human history showed that when men themselves became the sole arbiters of morality, rather than God, chaos eventually ensued as everyone followed their own idea of right and wrong.

Therefore, the Christian ideals underpinning the foundation of the United States are not some outdated anachronism, but are rather the essential ingredient that makes the life we enjoy as Americans possible. If we continue to choose to cast these values aside in order to give license to any behavior imaginable (and let's be honest, that's really what the left is trying to do), we will inevitably lose the privileges we enjoy as Americans.
February 1, 2008

3:49 p.m.

Suggest removal

Logan5 writes:

rg:

Um, what exactly is the relevance of the quotes you posted?
February 2, 2008

9:48 a.m.

Suggest removal

rg writes:

Relevance translates into beheading this jewish baby transmogrified (morphed) into an anti-Semitic Christian god and toss him into the grave of mythology where all gods go eventually without exception thanks to the deicide, the sword of time.

"Listen, Christ, You did alright in your day, I reckon-- But that day's gone now. They ghosted you up a swell story, too, Called it Bible-- But it's dead now. The popes and the preachers've Made too much money from it. They've sold you to too many. . . . Goodbye, Christ Jesus Lord God Jehovah, Beat it on away from here now. Make way for a new guy with no religion at all-- A real guy named ME." Langston Hughes

Home › Politics › Colorado Government

Faith groups oppose crackdown on religion-based hiring

It would threaten traditional social missions, they say

By Jean Torkelson, Rocky Mountain News (Contact)

Published January 31, 2008 at 12:30 a.m.Updated January 31, 2008 at 11:07 a.m.

More Colorado Government

Share

Comments

Featured

Columns & Blogs

Published January 31, 2008 at 12:30 a.m.
Updated January 31, 2008 at 11:07 a.m.