Can One's Religious Beliefs Excuse Them From Their Job?

Photo Credit: King County, WA

What is going on in Kentucky concerning county clerk Kim Davis issuing marriage licenses is an important matter. It is likely, though, that few of us (including me) have a deep understanding of how the law works in these types of cases.

I would suspect that many of us have strong biases in this particular situation and are likely primarily focused on "our side" winning and not necessarily attuned to what the law requires.

A country that values religious freedom as well as the civil rights of all its citizens ensures that cases like this bring with it many questions. This is not a simple matter.

I found this article from Eugene Volokh in The Washington Post to be helpful for me in grasping some of the legal issues related to this case. Things are not "cut and dry" here but Volokh's insights helped me in gaining a greater sense of the issues at play.

Here's a highlight:

"Under Title VII of the federal Civil Rights Act, both public and private employers have a duty to exempt religious employees from generally applicable work rules, so long as this won’t create an “undue hardship,” meaning more than a modest cost, on the employer. If the employees can be accommodated in a way that would let the job still get done without much burden on the employer, coworkers, and customers — for instance by switching the employee’s assignments with another employee or by otherwise slightly changing the job duties — then the employer must accommodate them. (The Muslim flight attendant I mentioned above, for instance, claims that she has always been able to work out arrangements under which the other flight attendant serves the alcohol instead of her.) 

Thus, for instance, in all the cases I mentioned in the numbered list above, the religious objectors got an accommodation, whether in court or as a result of the employer’s settling a lawsuit brought by the EEOC. Likewise, the EEOC is currently litigating a case in which it claims that a trucking company must accommodate a Muslim employee’s religious objections to transporting alcohol, and the court has indeed concluded that the employer had a duty to accommodate such objections. But if the accommodation would have been quite difficult or expensive (beyond the inevitable cost that always come when rearranging tasks), then the employer wouldn’t have had to provide it. 

Now I’m not saying this to praise the law, or to claim that it’s demanded by vital principles of religious principles. One can certainly argue against this approach, especially as applied to private employers, but also as applied to the government. 

The government is barred by the Free Exercise Clause from discriminating based on religion, but the government has no constitutional duty to give religious objectors special exemptions from generally applicable rules. Maybe it (and private employers) shouldn’t have such a statutory duty, either. But my point so far has been simply to describe the American legal rule as it actually is, and as it has been for over 40 years (since the religious accommodation provisions were enacted in the 1972 amendments to Title VII)."

(HT: @spulliam for the article link)

California Couple Fined For Home Bible Study Group

Photo Credit: jamelah

From Christianity Today:

"Chuck and Stephanie Fromm, who have been hosting Bible studies and other gatherings in their home since 1994, were cited for violating a municipal code which requires a conditional use permit (CUP) for religious, fraternal, or nonprofit organizations that meet in residential areas. The Fromms were fined twice for a total of $300. When they appealed to the city, they were informed that the violations would be upheld and that any future meetings without a CUP would face a fine of $500 each.

The code in question prohibits such groups of three or more people meeting without a CUP, said Chuck Fromm, who is the former president of Maranatha! Music and co-founder and editor of Worship Leader magazine.

"The law says any nonprofit or fraternal organization," he said. "If I'm having five guys over to watch Sunday football every week, that's a regular meeting of three or more people that would require a [CUP]. Now, have they cited anybody for that? No, they're citing a religious meeting."

The Pacific Justice Institute (PJI), who is now representing the Fromms, plans to fight to have the city apologize to the Fromms and refund their money, PJI president Brad Dacus said. The organization also hopes to have the policy revised.

"No family in America should ever have to worry about a local government fining them simply for meeting with their friends and family in their own home to read the Bible or pray together," Dacus said. "The city is demanding that this family has to pay money to the city in order not even to have a Bible study, but in order just to seek permission from the city to be able to have a Bible study. That is totalitarian, it is a clear breach of fundamental civil liberties, and we at [PJI] intend to halt it in its tracks."

To read the complete CT article please click here.

Billy Graham Association Being Sued Over Racial Discrimination

There is some turmoil within the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association (BGEA) as the organization is battling a lawsuit filed by a former employee in which the BGEA is being accused of racial discrimination. The woman, an African American, says that she was fired after complaining that the BGEA was not doing enough in its efforts to reach out to predominately black churches.

If these accusations are true, I would certainly be surprised by it. Even though Rev. Graham no longer leads the day-to-day operations of the BGEA, his influence would certainly still be felt today by the current leadership. Although we can look back on his ministry and point to times when he could have done more when it came to matters of race relations, Dr. Graham played a prophetic role among white Christians when many other Christian leaders failed to address or contributed to the problem of race in America.

For example, he integrated his crusades in the South, before Brown v. Board of Education or the Montgomery Bus Boycott took place. In the face of great opposition from others, he welcomed Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. to his crusade platform. He even traveled to South Africa when that country was in the throes of apartheid and preached to integrated audiences.

The lawsuit that Graham's ministry is now facing may simply be a case of a disgruntled former employee who is playing the race card. Or it may be something deeper. I don't know. But I do think that history shows that the BGEA has made efforts to reach across racial and denominational lines so that the gospel of Christ could go forth. But like many other predominately white Christian organizations, there are inherent challenges faced when seeking to include those of other ethnicities.

Although the intentions may be good and the heart is in the right place, ministries seeking to transcend the racial divide encounter all sorts of difficulties when seeking to do so. It may not be that Billy Graham's ministry doesn't want to include black churches, they may just not know how.