Can private clubs and religious organizations legally discriminate? (2024 Laws)

That depends. When dealing with private individuals, the Federal civil rights statutes only reach as far as public accommodations. Thus, while it is unlawful to discriminate on the basis of race or national origin in hotels, restaurants, theaters, public transportation and public parks, the Federal civil rights laws do not make it unlawful for bona fide private clubs and religious organizations to discriminate on whatever basis they choose.

Many states have enacted laws that go well beyond the protections afforded by the Federal laws, both in terms of their scope of prohibited conduct and their application to what might be regarded by some as private clubs or organizations. For example, in March 1998, a divided New Jersey Appeals Court decided that New Jersey’s Civil Rights Law prohibited the Boy Scouts from discriminating against a scoutmaster because of gender preferences, while in a similar case across the country, the California Supreme Court held that California Civil Rights Law did not prohibit the Boy Scouts from denying membership to persons who are gay or do not believe in God.

Case Studies: Legal Discrimination in Private Clubs and Religious Organizations

Case Study 1: Boy Scouts Membership Policy

In a highly debated case, the Boy Scouts of America faced legal challenges regarding their membership policy. In New Jersey, the state’s Civil Rights Law prohibited the Boy Scouts from discriminating against a scoutmaster based on gender preferences.

However, in California, the Supreme Court ruled that the California Civil Rights Law did not prohibit the Boy Scouts from denying membership to individuals who are gay or do not believe in God. These cases highlight the variations in state laws and their impact on the discriminatory practices of private organizations like the Boy Scouts.

Case Study 2: Local Civil Rights Laws

Certain cities, such as Chicago, New York, and San Francisco, have enacted local Civil Rights Laws that expand upon the protections provided by federal laws. For instance, New York City considers private clubs that generate specific income levels from business as places of public accommodation, subjecting them to the city’s Civil Rights Laws.

Similarly, San Francisco mandates that employers doing business with the city must offer health insurance coverage to non-marital “partners.” These case studies illustrate how local laws can influence the permissible discriminatory practices of private clubs and organizations within their jurisdictions.

Case Study 3: Federal vs. State Protections

The discrepancy between federal and state laws regarding discrimination in private clubs and religious organizations can create legal complexities.

While federal civil rights statutes do not restrict private clubs and religious organizations from discriminatory practices based on race or national origin, many states have enacted laws that provide broader protections against discrimination.

The case law surrounding these conflicts varies across different jurisdictions, as seen in the contrasting rulings involving private clubs’ membership policies. This case study highlights the ongoing legal debates surrounding the extent of permissible discrimination in private organizations.

Some cities, including Chicago, New York and San Francisco, also have local Civil Rights Laws that are far broader than the Federal law. For example, New York City defines private clubs that derive certain levels of income from business as places of public accommodation for purposes of its Civil Rights Laws. San Francisco requires employers who do business with the city to offer their employees health insurance for non-marital “partners”.