A coalition of diverse religious groups has come together to support the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, including African American Ministers in Action, the Anti-Defamation League, The Episcopal Church, Hindu American Foundation, and Muslims for Progressive Values. In their letter to senators, they describe how protecting LGBT people from discrimination is crucial to their faith:

Many of our sacred texts speak to the importance and sacred nature of work – an opportunity to be co-creators with God – and demand in the strongest possible terms the protection of all workers as a matter of justice. Our faith leaders and congregations grapple with the difficulties of lost jobs every day, particularly in these difficult economic times. It is indefensible that, while sharing every American’s concerns about the health of our economy, LGBT workers must also fear job security because of prejudice.

At the same time, as religious denominations and faith groups, we deeply value our guarantee to the freedoms of faith and conscience under the First Amendment. ENDA broadly exempts from its scope any religious organization, thereby ensuring that religious institutions will not be compelled to violate the religious precepts on which they are founded, whether or not we may agree with those precepts. In so doing, ENDA respects the protections for religious institutions afforded by the First Amendment and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 while ensuring that lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people are protected from baseless discrimination in the workplace.

At Tuesday’s Senate hearing, Craig Parshall of the National Religious Broadcasters Association testified that ENDA’s religious exemptions do not go far enough, though they already protect religious organizations and religious-run schools. He argued that any business owner should be free to discriminate based on their religious beliefs, an exemption so broad that ENDA would be practically unenforceable. These groups demonstrate that there are significant religious arguments to be made in favor of LGBT equality and protection from discrimination.

Earlier this week, a diverse coalition of religious and education groups led by the American Jewish Committee and Religious Freedom Education Project released a set of what they called bullying “guidelines.” While little actual advice was given, the guidelines suggested that bullying has little to do with the “disagreements” that happen between students and that priority should be given to ensuring that students’ religious condemnations of gay students have a fair hearing.

In response, the Anti-Defamation League urged Education Secretary Arne Duncan to disregard the guidelines because they are “ill-conceived, unnecessary, deeply flawed, and counter-productive to confronting the growing and serious problem of bullying and cyberbullying”:

Directly contrary to the Department’s Dear Colleague letter, however, the Guidelines issued this week emphasize students’ First Amendment rights over the responsibility to create a safe learning environment for all students — especially vulnerable minority, disabled, and LGBT students.  While we agree that students’ free speech and religious expression rights are important, we strongly disagree with the Guidelines’ direct implication that such rights have been given short shrift in current federal and state law and policy and need greater protection.

The Guidelines issued this week have the word “Bullying” in their title, but break no new ground and offer no insights on preventing bullying.  Even worse, they are tone-deaf as to the actual dynamics of real-world bullying in our nation’s private and public schools.  Bullying situations very rarely erupt as conflicts over political or religious speech.  Instead, they much more often involve the intentional targeting of an individual with less physical or social standing for physical or verbal abuse.  Targeted students are in a very different power position than those doing the bullying.  The aggressor’s objective is not to convince his/her target of the rightness of a policy position – it is, rather, to cause physical or emotional harm.

The ADL’s rebuke is significant because of the variety of religious organizations that had signed onto the guidelines. What’s most important is not protecting religious speech, but making sure that all students have a safe and welcoming environment in which to learn.