The previous edition of the eNews for Faith-Based Organizations carried an article on a likely Employment Nondiscrimination (ENDA) Executive Order. The article inadvertently included misleading language about the religious protections that have been offered in recent congressional ENDA bills. Those bills have included language that exempts from the proposed new job-discrimination prohibitions any organization that is eligible for the Title VII religious organization exemption.

The article said that language provides a “strong” exemption–then said the language is “good” but also “insufficient.” The article then discussed how the language ought to be improved. Altogether a thoroughly confusing analysis, for which the editor apologizes.

Of course, the corrective language is being proposed by IRFA because the existing language is neither strong nor good (except by comparison with the two previous religious exemptions proposed in 2007 by ENDA proponents). Without the corrective language, the purported religious exemption will be hollow, too weak to provide actual protection for religious organizations that have a sexual conduct standard for employment.

Even with the corrective language, there is ample reason for worry. Courts have ruled inconsistently on which organizations are eligible for the Title VII religious exemption: How “religious” must an organization be? Does the exemption cover only nonprofit organizations?

All of this is to say: employment non-discrimination rules must include language that meaningfully protects the religious hiring freedoms of faith-based organizations–and that requires language better than what has so far been offered by ENDA proponents. The corrective language detailed in the previous issue’s story goes far to make the religious protection adequate. Without such corrective language, the current ENDA religious exemption is not acceptable.

[Thanks to Abba Cohen, Agudath Israel, for his comments.]