Stanley Carlson-Thies

In a time of growing divergence between popular values and some of the practices many faith-based organizations regard as essential, FBOs are being widely advised to carefully examine their policies and practices and to ensure that these are clearly rooted in the religious commitments they profess. To claim religious freedom protections for their counter-cultural practices, the organizations need to show that the practices are compelled by the religious convictions. But there is more that FBOs can and should do.

Guidance offered by IRFA in collaboration with the Christian Legal Society has stressed that FBOs, in addition to adopting legal best practices, should take the initiative to help the public, lawmakers, and their donors better understand how their admired services are rooted in their religious commitments and are dependent on religious freedom. And the IRFA/CLS guidance proposes that FBOs should consider speaking up when lawmakers and regulators are formulating new policies: how can public policies adequately protect religious organizations if those organizations are silent?

“Protecting Your Right to Serve: How Religious Ministries Can Meet New Challenges without Changing Their Witness,” a November, 2015, report by Eric Kniffin (a lawyer with the Religious Institutions Group at Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP), adds a valuable discussion of additional strategic actions that FBOs should consider making. Some FBOs may be able, by changing non-essential practices or devising creative alternatives, to avoid some legal obstacles. FBOs may be able to avoid other controversies by applying their moral standards consistently and ensuring excellence in how they treat their employees and those they serve. They can help themselves and other FBOs by participating in organizations with oversight, such as professional associations and accrediting groups. And they should consider what lines they must not cross: when it is time to abandon a line of service or government funding or to challenge the law or regulation.

FBOs desire to serve—and to serve in a way that respects their religious convictions. Both of these—to serve, and to operate in a particular way—are religiously grounded commitments. Religious freedom protects both, but government laws and regulations can split them apart, forcing the FBO to decide whether to cease service in order not to violate an important conviction or to abandon the conviction in order to continue to serve. Such dilemmas require strategic decision-making and attention to principle, not allowing pragmatic considerations to dominate.