Free Exercise to Discriminate?
If this NY Times article is accurate, U.S. religious institutions routinely discriminate against their employees based on age, health status and gender. Under the “ministerial exceptionâ€, courts generally dismiss discrimination claims against religious institutions, and so behavior and employment practices that are illegal in the public and private sectors go unpunished.
Many Mormons believe that the unique freedoms guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution laid the groundwork for the restoration of the Church in New York state. These unique freedoms that allow us to freely practice our religion should not, however, grant us a free license to unfairly discriminate in our business practices.
ECS, Thanks for highlighting this article. I saw it in the Times–but it was long and I didn’t have the time to read it at the moment (It also appears to be a four part article). I’ll make certain to go back and take the time. Of course, those same unique freedoms guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution and State Constitutions were also denied the early Saints. But, your point is well taken!
Comment by Guy Murray — October 9, 2006 @ 10:17 am
There are some jobs that if you are not in good health you just shouldn’t be doing. I have no problems with the courts dismissing discrimination claims. I am sure that the churches had good reason to let these people go. Now if their reasons were unfounded that might be a different story…..
Comment by Jared — October 9, 2006 @ 11:52 am
I’ve also noticed that in decisions about dating and marriage, many people routinely discriminate based on age, gender, and even such superficial traits such as physical appearance. Our unique freedoms of association should not grant us free licence to unfairly discriminate in our personal practices. I think we really need a lot more government regulation in this area, as well.
Comment by ed johnson — October 9, 2006 @ 12:54 pm
Both the NY Times and the Boston Globe have run articles in the past few days about the special exemptions granted to religious organizations that enable churches and similar faith-based institutions to evade financial disclosure and other regulations imposed upon secular organizations. The timing of these articles is a bit suspicious given the midterm elections are just around the corner.
ed johnson – There is a huge difference between regulating our private social associations and regulating the workplace. You are absolutely free to refrain from developing personal relationships with, say, black men, women or Hindus. Suit yourself. But you absolutely have no right as an employer in this country not to hire someone solely because of her race or gender or religious affiliation. As Guy said in his comment, it’s interesting to see how the tables have turned. The oppressed become the oppressors.
Comment by ECS — October 9, 2006 @ 2:45 pm
It’d be really dicey for a judge to say, you cannot discriminate based on age, etc. because that’s a protected class, but still allow discrimination based on sex, religious belief, and so on. Judges probably think they can’t split hairs so fine without opening the floodgates.
Also, the brief mention of sexual orientation is troubling. If your church doctrine says you can’t be gay, why should the courts force you to allow ministers that proclaim themselves gay to remain employed? The same goes for the unwed mothers and adulterers. If your church opposes these, why should they be forced to keep representatives that run afoul here?
Comment by alea — October 9, 2006 @ 4:14 pm
If memory serves, the recent legal basis for this right to discriminate stems from a case in the mid 1980s in which a custodian was fired from the Deseret Gym for ecclesiastical reasons. He sued and the Church took it to the Supreme Court. Many other churched filed amicus briefs. The Church won.
Comment by a random John — October 9, 2006 @ 4:32 pm
But you absolutely have no right as an employer in this country not to hire someone solely because of her race or gender or religious affiliation.
I thought the point of your post was that religious organizations do have that right, but you believe that right should be taken away.
Comment by ed johnson — October 9, 2006 @ 4:39 pm
arJ, you’re thinking of Corporation of the Presiding Bishop v. Amos, 483 US 327 (1987). It held that the section of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that exempted religious organizations from its religious non-discrimination in employment requirements was constitutional and did apply to the Deseret Gymnasium, an LDS-owned facility.
Comment by Dave — October 10, 2006 @ 8:57 pm
Some commentary here:
excerpts:
and so on. Read the whole thing. It puts the NYT article in a whole new light.
Comment by Ivan Wolfe — October 10, 2006 @ 9:08 pm
I’m sympathetic to the allegations of media bias by the National Review (ha!), but this one seems particularly specious:
These religious exemptions _are_ a “special break”! What does calling them a “special break” add to their argument? And what other “expressive organizations” are as even close to as powerful as religious organizations in the U.S?
Comment by ECS — October 10, 2006 @ 9:44 pm
ECS -
by asking that, you apaprently show some wilful ignorance. Environmental groups (Sierra Club, Greenpeace), Civil Rights groups(NAACP, ACLU), Abortion Rights Groups (NOW, Planned Parenthood) etc, all have amazing power in the USA. I like this quote from the article:
Is it a “special break†to make sure that Campus Crusade for Christ enjoys the same meaningful right to free association as the Sierra Club?
There are plenty of secular groups that benefit from this right of free association that exempts them from many government regulations – and many of them are much more powerful than any given religous organizations.
So, why is it that religious groups should be specially targeted for ridicule?
Comment by Ivan Wolfe — October 10, 2006 @ 11:46 pm
Sure, Ivan. The Sierra Club, et. al. do “have amazing power in the U.S.A.” I’m still not persuaded by this statement, however, that these secular special interest groups wield as much power as the interests of U.S. churches.
In any event, I’m not understanding your point about the Campus Crusade and the Sierra Club. Last time I checked, the Sierra Club is required to comply with many laws and regulations for which religious organizations are exempt – not vice versa. Also, no one on this thread has said anything that would even come close to ridiculing religious organizations.
Comment by ECS — October 11, 2006 @ 1:05 am
ECS -
you seem to be treating all religous organizations in the USA as one amorphous entity, while treating secular (mostly left wing) groups as individual entities.
of course the Sierra Club doesn’t have as much power as the entire religous movement. But it has more power than say, Campus Crusade for Christ, just like the NAACP has more power than Focus on the Family.
As for regualtions – yes, there are regulations the Sierra Club must follow some religous groups don’t have to. However, it works both ways (there are regualtions from which the Sierra Club is exempt that religous groups must follow). What is really at stake is the groups rights to free association, which you seem to think is just fine for secular groups, but not for religous groups.
Comment by Ivan Wolfe — October 10, 2006 @ 3:04 pm
A somewhat related news article out of Nauvoo:
Fired Nauvoo worker files lawsuit
Comment by Justin Butterfield — October 11, 2006 @ 8:12 am
M* syndrome hits -
comments are slightly out of order. before posting this, #8 was meant to be follow ECS’s #13….
Comment by Ivan Wolfe — October 11, 2006 @ 10:40 am
Let’s say that the courts rule that the church is being discriminatory. Then what? In theory our direction is from God. Very few other churches, from what I understand, make the claim to callings based upon revelation. How can the opposition prove that every calling subsequent to the ruling is based on discrimination by church leadership and not in direct response to divine revelation. Technically the defendant would have to be God.. or perhaps the Holy Ghost.
Or would the court require bishops and other leaders to ignore our “God” and place women in priesthood callings?
Comment by Ryan — October 11, 2006 @ 5:50 pm
Ryan, I can’t tell if you’re serious or not with this comment, but “the Holy Ghost told me to do it” is not a valid legal defense to a crime. The last question you ask is more interesting, and therein lies the conundrum. The courts need to find a way to allow religious organizations to follow their spiritual conscience to engage in otherwise illegal discriminatory behavior in church administration, while still upholding the civil rights laws. Maintaining this balance can be difficult. Does the Deseret Gym employee need a temple recommend to keep his job? Apparently, yes.
Comment by ECS — October 11, 2006 @ 8:05 pm
Violation of the civil rights law is not typically a crime. (A violation of law, yes, but not of a criminal code; the civil rights act is not a criminal statute).
Comment by Al — October 12, 2006 @ 5:21 pm
Right, but as I’m sure you’re aware, one’s religious affiliation and practices have been used to defend against prosecution under criminal statutes as well. See Smith.
Comment by ECS — October 12, 2006 @ 5:29 pm
Amen, let’s put an end to discrimination of any sort!
Comment by Lani — November 5, 2006 @ 3:15 pm