6Th Circuit: Diversity Trumps Religious Freedom

[RobertAC]

DavidB is correct. Public employees have limited speach rights, as do some professionals who are licensed by the state (e.g. attorney solicitation regulated or barred).

An interesting issue arrises not just with homosexuality, but also with gender and race -- to what extent should a person's religious beliefs be respected in the workplace, in providing housing accomodations to people, services to the public, and in hiring and firing of personnel? Conceivably, someone could believe that an interoffice relationship between two people of different races violates religious doctrine. To what extent should that person be allowed to apply that doctrine in deciding whether to discipline the offending couple?

[thesometimesaint]

DavidB is correct. Public employees have limited speach rights, as do some professionals who are licensed by the state (e.g. attorney solicitation regulated or barred).

An interesting issue arrises not just with homosexuality, but also with gender and race -- to what extent should a person's religious beliefs be respected in the workplace, in providing housing accomodations to people, services to the public, and in hiring and firing of personnel? Conceivably, someone could believe that an interoffice relationship between two people of different races violates religious doctrine. To what extent should that person be allowed to apply that doctrine in deciding whether to discipline the offending couple?

From my perspective it is not about race in those circumstances, but one of rape. To use force or implied force to engage in sex because of ones hierarchical. position.

[RobertAC]

From my perspective it is not about race in those circumstances, but one of rape. To use force or implied force to engage in sex because of ones hierarchical. position.

My analogy may have been a poor one. The question -- as it so often is -- is where do we draw the line? Most of us know at least some people who have deeply held religious beliefs concerning the intermixing of the races. If such people are in a position to make decisions about housing, employment, and access to education, for example, should their deeply held religious beliefs overturn laws supporting equal access for all people? Should a landlord be able to deny housing based upon religious beliefs? Should an employer take his religious beliefs into account when hiring and firing employees?

Most of us -- all of us -- would be unconfortable about religious beliefs being the basis for denying housing, education, or employment to someone.

[Daniel2]

A recent ruling by a European court on four similar cases is being reported on gay news site as follows:

European Court Rules Religious Beliefs Don’t Justify LGBT Discrimination

A pair of ... Brits just got some bad news from the European Court of Human Rights, which ruled their Christian beliefs don’t entitled them to discriminate against LGBT people.

Therapist Gary McFarlane refused to counsel same-sex couples, claiming it was against his religion. City registrar Lilian Ladele made the same excuse when she declined to officiate a civil partnership between gay couples as part of her official duties.

Both McFarlane and Ladele were fired for refusing to do their jobs and brought complaints to the high court, which essentially told them they didn’t have a legal leg to stand on:

The Court considered that the most important factor to be taken into account was that the policies of the applicants’ employers – to promote equal opportunities and to require employees to act in a way which did not discriminate against others – had the legitimate aim of securing the rights of others, such as same-sex couples, which were also protected under the [European Convention on Human Rights].

In particular, in previous cases the Court had held that differences in treatment based on sexual orientation required particularly serious justification and that same-sex couples were in a relevantly similar situation to different-sex couples as regards their need for legal recognition and protection of their relationship.

The authorities therefore had wide discretion when it came to striking a balance between the employer’s right to secure the rights of others and the applicants’ right to manifest their religion. The Court decided that the right balance had been struck.

[DavidB]

Daniel, did you also see the article about the British Airways employee who was fired for wearing a religious emblem the same Court in the article you posted stated the employee is entitled to wear the religious emblem. Just thought I would put that out there, not for your sake, but for others.

Surely one who believes in government would want the the government to not be prejudice via the personal discriminatory beliefs of the government employee.

[Daniel2]

Daniel, did you also see the article about the British Airways employee who was fired for wearing a religious emblem the same Court in the article you posted stated the employee is entitled to wear the religious emblem. Just thought I would put that out there, not for your sake, but for others.

Surely one who believes in government would want the the government to not be prejudice via the personal discriminatory beliefs of the government employee.

Thanks, David--that aspect is definitely also worth mentioning. I think that indicates the European court actually was attempting to balance and preserve the rights of not only gays and lesbians, but Christians, as well. Just as Christians cannot discriminate against gays and lesbians by refusing to perform necessary job functions, so, too, companies can't discriminate against religious folk for wearing symbols of their religious devotion that don't interfere with their ability to perform their jobs.

Again--a delicate balancing act going on. In the European article, it seems like they got all the rulings right, to me. That is, if you're going to be an officiator of civil partnerships or designated by your employer to provide couples' therapy, you can't refuse to perform key aspects of those jobs on religious grounds--but neither can a company stifle religious expression that doesn't interfere with job performance. Seems like an attempt to promote as near a "win/win" as one could hope for.

Daniel

[thesometimesaint]

Daniel2:

Agreed.

[DavidB]

A delicate balance indeed.

Persons seeking Government services should not have to worry about the personal prejudices of the Government employee in charge of those services. However, for the marriage counselor in Britain I tend to agree with him that he would not be able to help a same-sex couple as his training was more than likely solely geared toward opposite-sex couples; I am not expert, but I imagine that the dynamics of a same-sex couple are different than that of a opposite-sex, though in the end Government services are a open to all.

Bcspace, will you honor the CFR in post #24?

Using the term "Christian" is not the legal standard for claiming violation of the First Amendment Establishment of Religion Clause or Free Exercise of Religion Clause.

[thesometimesaint]

Unless the SS couple themselves present it as a concern of theirs it is against stated rules those in the helping professions have sworn to uphold.

http://www.socialworkers.org/pubs/code/code.asp

4.02 Discrimination

Social workers should not practice, condone, facilitate, or collaborate with any form of discrimination on the basis of race, ethnicity, national

origin, color, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, age, marital status, political belief, religion, immigration status, or mental or physical disability.

[DavidB]

Unless the SS couple themselves present it as a concern of theirs it is against stated rules those in the helping professions have sworn to uphold.

http://www.socialwor...s/code/code.asp

4.02 Discrimination

Social workers should not practice, condone, facilitate, or collaborate with any form of discrimination on the basis of race, ethnicity, national

origin, color, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, age, marital status, political belief, religion, immigration status, or mental or physical disability.

Do social workers also have "do no harm" type clause?

If a person is not trained in a particular area, wouldn't it likely be harmful to present oneself as a expert in that area?

I see a difference between invidious discrimination and "As a social worker I can not help, because I have neither the training or tools to help, here is list of person who are better suited." Now, it wouldn't take long for certain people to shun training in certain area just to avoid those they want to discriminate against, so it is not a fix.

[thesometimesaint]

Do social workers also have "do no harm" type clause?

If a person is not trained in a particular area, wouldn't it likely be harmful to present oneself as a expert in that area?

I see a difference between invidious discrimination and "As a social worker I can not help, because I have neither the training or tools to help, here is list of person who are better suited." Now, it wouldn't take long for certain people to shun training in certain area just to avoid those they want to discriminate against, so it is not a fix.

Such would also be a violation of our code of ethics.

http://www.socialwor...s/code/code.asp

1.05 Cultural and Social Diversity.

Social workers should obtain education about and seek to understand the nature of social diversity and oppression with respect to race, ethnicity, national origin, color, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, age, marital status, political belief, religion, immigration status, and mental or physical disability.