Intense opposition from the Church and other religious institutions in the state of California has caused a state lawmaker to amend a bill that would have allowed LGBTQ students to sue private universities for discrimination if they are disciplined for violating church teachings.

The Los Angeles Times is reporting on the development which occurred when California state Senator Ricardo Lara, the author of the controversial SB1146, decided to remove a provision in the bill that would have stripped away an exemption for religious schools from anti-discrimination laws.

Lara says he will press forward with the amended bill that will simply require schools to disclose if they have an exemption and report to the state when students are expelled for violating morality codes.

“The goal for me has always been to shed the light on the appalling and unacceptable discrimination against LGBT students at these private religious institutions throughout California,” Lara told the Times.

“I don’t want to just rush a bill that’s going to have unintended consequences so I want to take a break to really study this issue further,” the senator said.

Lara believes that the new reporting requirement will allow him to see just how prevalent this kind of “discrimination” is in schools.

The bill was vehemently opposed by church leaders as well as administrators of faith-based institutions of learning.

“As it is written today, SB 1146 would violate the religious freedom of faith-based colleges,” wrote Archbishop Jose Gomez of the diocese of Los Angeles and Bishop Charles E. Blake of the Church of God in Christ just last week.

“Current California law exempts religious schools from nondiscrimination laws in cases where applying these laws ‘would not be consistent with the religious tenets of that organization’.”

However, SB 1146 drastically narrowed that exemption so that it would only protect seminaries or other schools that train clergy and ministers.

“Any other faith-based school that receives state monies or enrolls students who depend on the Cal Grants financial aid program would be forced to change their policies to accommodate practices that in some cases would be contrary to their beliefs and teachings.”

These practices included rules for bathroom use and sleeping arrangements in dormitories. It even allowed the government to set guidelines for what religious practices and rules for moral conduct would be acceptable on their campuses.

“If passed as written today, this bill would force faith-based institutions to choose between compromising their deeply held beliefs or risking an endless wave of costly litigation to defend themselves," the bishops wrote.

Fortunately, Lara decided to drop the verbiage from the bill, but has promised to pursue other legislation next year which could resurrect the provision.

For this reason, legal experts are advising the public to remain vigilant.

The following quote may be attributed to Alliance Defending Freedom Senior Counsel Gregory S. Baylor regarding California State Sen. Ricardo Lara’s reported decision to amend the wording of the bill he is sponsoring, SB 1146, so that students attending private colleges and universities with profession-of-faith requirements and religious codes of conduct won’t automatically lose the ability to qualify for state scholarships; instead, the revised bill requires the schools to disclose their policies and report any expulsions under them to the government. Lara says he will continue examining the issue and may bring back the terms of the original bill next year:

“Students shouldn’t have to forfeit critical financial aid programs in order to attend the religious college of their choice,” said Alliance Defending Freedom Senior Counsel Gregory S. Baylor.

“And the government shouldn’t punish faith-based institutions of higher education for forming religious communities around shared religious beliefs. The modifications to SB 1146 eliminate its most damaging parts, but those may well return in the next legislative session. Supporters of religious liberty, educational opportunity, and freedom of choice must remain vigilant and oppose any legislation that undermines these indispensable freedoms.”

© All Rights Reserved, Living His Life Abundantly®/Women of Grace®  http://www.womenofgrace.com