Maybe it was intended, maybe not. Whichever it is, the bill to reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act that has now been adopted by both the House and the Senate (S. 47) contains an unnecessary and mistaken restriction on grantees that will make it less likely that faith-based organizations will partner with government to aid women who suffer violence and abuse.

VAWA reauthorization has been a long slog. Thanks to disputes over extending its protection to LGBT victims and over provisions to protect Native American women on reservations, the reauthorization effort in 2012 stalled. This time a bill including these protections won a handy Senate majority and yesterday, after a House bill without the identical protections was defeated, that Senate bill also won a House majority. Next stop: the President’s signing pen.

Lost in the big fight over extending the scope of VAWA’s protection, both in 2012 and 2013, was serious congressional attention to how the reauthorization bill’s nondiscrimination language will constrict participation by faith-based organizations. The language in the bill now heading for the law books states: “No person in the United States shall, on the basis of actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, sex, gender identity. . . , sexual orientation, or disability, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity funded in whole or in part” by VAWA funding.

The language certainly intends to ensure that no one who should receive VAWA services will be turned away because of unjust discrimination–for example, because the service organization is biased against some nationality or refuses to assist sexual minorities. But it is very broad language. In fact, it is broad nondiscrimination language just like the language in the Head Start program and the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program–and that broad language has been interpreted not only to protect beneficiaries against discrimination but also to ban employment discrimination by the private organizations that get the federal funds. (For details on this problem, see the Bush administration’s excellent booklet, Protecting the Civil Rights and Religious Liberty of Faith-Based Organizations: Why Religious Hiring Rights Must be Preserved.)

And a ban on employment discrimination as a condition of accepting the funds means: no religious hiring by a faith-based organization that accepts CDBG, Head Start, or, soon, VAWA funds–even though, under civil rights law, it is perfectly legal for a faith-based organization to consider religion when hiring and firing (after all, religion is a defining characteristic of the organization and its way of operating and serving!).

Did proponents of expanded LGBT protections in VAWA intend at the same time to minimize the religious freedom of faith-based organizations that might want to serve in this program? An equally important question: Why did none of the champions of faith-based service in the House or the Senate get this overly broad nondiscrimination language removed from the bill?