Earlier quoted context omitted.
It seems wrong that faith-funded organizations are allowed to discriminate based on religious belief. This also seems like a different scenario than, say, paying for birth control.
> It seems wrong that faith-funded organizations are allowed to discriminate based on religious belief. Not that I think it's morally acceptable for faith-funded charities to turn away some people based on their lack of faith, but: a) Individuals acting on their own founded and run the organization. It would be a violation of several important rights (theirs) for a government to regulate how they choose to run their…
No, it wouldn't, especially if they want the tax subsidy of being a 501(c)3 charity; they aren't merely tax exempt, but donations to them are tax deductible. That's an outright public subsidy: the government literally is paying people (and paying rich people more) for every dollar they donate.
Government subsidies come with government restrictions.
You can have a lot more freedom if you choose not to drain the public treasury, and even more freedom if you also don't choose the liability shield associated with the corporate form (which also comes with favorable tax treatment, in some regards.) And even more if all the work is done by partners in the effort committed to the cause for its own sake, and not as wage labor.
But, yeah, volunteering for optional, preferential government status and engaging in the employment market subjects you to government rules associated with those things