I don't really have a problem with a religion only hiring one of their believers to do work related to their religious organization or practices, but I don't see why someone hired to carry out a public work sponsored by federal funds needs to share their religious beliefs.
I wonder if they are going to require that those reciever the government funded services must agree with their religion too, such as the stripper who's child was kicked out of a church-run daycare because stripping was against their faith.(In that case, the daycare was not sponsored by government funds, though).
Yeah, that's what I find objectionable. Public money in essence funding discriminatory hiring practices is at least implicitly forbidden by the Constitution, the way I read it.
I have absolutely zero problem with religious organizations or institutions hiring only those that practice their faith. And I don't know that accepting public funding is implicitly or explicitly 'forbidden' by the consititution -- someone with an actual background in constitutional law would have to explain that to me.
BUT: from a strictly religious POV, I find the acceptance of public funds, especially if it could potentially compromise religious protocols, questionable indeed.
I should have said implicitly forbidden by statute based on subsequent interpretation of the establishment clause, e.g. whatever law created the EEOC.
And I do think that religious organizations taking public money may find themselves subject to all manner of laws they'd rather not have to conform to.