Religion in the Workplace

[paedraggaidin.livejournal.com]

Saw this story this morning, and it got me thinking.

Macy's employee fired after violating company's LGBT policy

The gist of it is, a Texas Macy's employee refused to allow a male-to-female transgendered customer to use a women's dressing room. When confronted by her manager, who noted that it was Macy's store policy to allow transgendered customers access to an appropriate dressing room, the employee said she would not comply with the policy, and was duly fired. She is now suing Macy's, claiming that the company's policy violates her First Amendment right to free exercise of religion because "her religious beliefs prevent her from recognizing transgender people."

Freedom of religion, as many of y'all know by now, is very important to me. I personally would rate it as the most important of the rights enumerated in the First Amendment. But, like every other civil liberty, it is not absolute. Just as the freedom of speech does not protect the citizen who employs perjury or libel, the freedom of religion does not protect the citizen whose religion practices human sacrifice or child sexual abuse.

This is where I have a problem with religious groups such as the Roman Catholic Church (my own denomination), the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, most Southern Baptist congregations, and others that speciously claim that enactment of "gay rights" (e.g. the right to civil marriage, anti-discrimination laws, etc.) infringes on their ability to freely practice their faith. These churches typically try to inflame their followers with fear tactics, claiming that if DOMA is repealed and gay marriage "forced upon the states" (i.e. made, as they should be, subject to the Full Faith and Credit clause of the U.S. Constitution with regards to gay marriage as with any other public acts, records, and judicial proceedings) the churches themselves will be forced to perform gay marriages. They claim that anti-discrimination laws will force them to hire and retain gay employees. They claim that anti-bullying laws that do not contain a "religious belief" exemption will muzzle students' religious expression in schools.

All of these claims are patently false. With regards to being forced to perform gay marriages, neither DOMA nor state marriage laws (whether permitting or forbidding gay marriage) require churches to do anything. Even were gay marriage to be legalized nationwide, no church would be forced to perform it. Gay marriage laws are, purely and simply, concerned with civil marriage.

With regards to employment, it's a bit more contentious. Generally, the federal courts have held that religious organizations are exempt from anti-discrimination laws when hiring or firing staff who perform religious functions (priests, ministers, teachers, youth leaders, etc.), but there is a case pending before the U.S. Supreme Court now (Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School v. EEOC) involving just this issue, so we'll see. I personally think it is reasonable to allow churches some level of exemption from anti-discrimination laws; for example the Catholic, Orthodox, and many Protestant churches do not ordain women, and they should never be forced to do so by federal or state law (which would be a violation of the Free Exercise Clause at any rate). I think SCOTUS is likely to uphold the general exemption.

With regards to bullying, anti-bullying laws don't silence religious speech, they attempt to silence harassment, which is different. It's one thing to go up to a classmate and say "I believe that the Bible teaches that homosexuality is wrong, and here's why" and quite another to say "God hates [expletive deleted]! You're going to burn in hell for your abominable sins!" Gay-bashing religious organizations in several states would like to amend their state's anti-bullying laws to allow state-sanctioned harassment of GLBT students. (See, e.g., proposed changes to Tennessee's anti-bullying law).

In short, these organizations, and their individual followers, are claiming that their rights are being violated, whilst simultaneously advocating for the suppression of the civil rights of people they do not like. It's the same in this case of the Macy's employee. It's all fine and good that your religion teaches medieval nonsense certain things about transgendered people; if you want to believe such hateful and ignorant drivel, that's up to you. My religion teaches that little bone fragments of questionable origin are "holy relics" possessing what amount to magical healing powers, which will benefit you if you kiss the relic, so I am certainly not judging. You're entitled to your beliefs, period.

But, your right to practice that belief stops when, in the public square and as an employee of a secular company, you try to force someone to stop going about their lawful business. I am not aware of any federal or Texas state law that prohibits MTF transgendered shoppers from using whatever dressing room they deem appropriate, and as a Macy's employee, the lady in question was willingly subject to her company's policies and procedures, openly violated them, openly refused to comply with them in the future, and therefore was properly fired by a company well within its rights to do so.

The lady obviously dislikes and does not want to have to deal with transgendered people, citing her religious beliefs. This, I think, underlies quite a lot of religious anti-gay rhetoric seen these days. "My faith teaches that gays are evil abominations before the Lord and I shouldn't have to see gay couples walk around holding hands in the mall! It offends me! Can't you, like, ban it or something!? Can't you kick them out of here? I might have to *gulp* serve them. THAT'S AGAINST MY RELIGION!"

Yeah, well, I'm sorry to say, but this is 21st Century America, a very diverse place, and over the course of your life you're likely to run into and be forced to interact with lots of people you find disgusting. Crying "religious freedom!" in an attempt to sweep these undesirables away from your pure and holy presence makes a mockery of the very civil liberties you are trying to invoke. I personally loathe the fundamentalist fanatics who stand around the Wichita bus station handing out pamphlets about how Catholics and Jews are hell-bound blasphemers, but I'll defend to the death their right to peddle hateful nonsense. It's the public square, it's supposed to be full of people and ideas we disagree with.

Seriously, get over yourself. If you want a quiet, peaceful life among straights who share your horror of GLBT people, a place where you'll never have to interact with those filthy degenerates ever again, go to North Korea.

Comments

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

I agree with this post.

[ninaf.livejournal.com]

The comments on the post you linked are sad.

[paedraggaidin.livejournal.com]

Yes, they are...I meant to note those in the OP but forgot.

[joshthevegan.livejournal.com]

Seriously. Between all the bigotry, willful ignorance, and "OH, US POOR PERSECUTED XIANS. IT'S IMPOSSIBLE TO IMPOSE MY RELIGION ON OTHER PEOPLE ANYMORE AND THAT IS JUST AWFUL," over there, I have a headache.

[a-new-machine.livejournal.com]

She's suing a private company for violating her First Amendment rights?

Uh... good luck with that, lady.

[dreadfulpenny81.livejournal.com]

Seriously, get over yourself. If you want a quiet, peaceful life among straights who share your horror of GLBT people, a place where you'll never have to interact with those filthy degenerates ever again, go to North Korea. -- Or Palestine. Or any number of the Middle Eastern countries.

I doubt her case is going to go far, but you know the uber-conservative Christians will try to call for a boycott of Macy's.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

Ironically Iran is a great place to be transgendered, which is kind of bizarre but is the truth. Also, there's no Palestine, there's Israel's occupied territories.

[soliloquy76.livejournal.com]

Essentially, "your rights end where mine begin." Or, the original quote from Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes: "The right to swing my fist ends where the other man's nose begins." People don't seem to understand the scope of their rights, which is sad.

[paedraggaidin.livejournal.com]

No, they don't, and they have a tendency to descend into the logical fallacy that "your rights end where mine begin" = "omg you're trampling my rights because I can't trample yours!"

Of course, they don't see these civil rights as being civil rights, but as special privileges handed out to undeserving minorities who want state recognition of their sinful lifestyles. So, at least they're consistent. :/

[msretro.livejournal.com]

You put this so much more succinctly than I did!

[fizzyland.livejournal.com]

Nicely said.

[omnot.livejournal.com]

Interesting to note the comments which indicate a complete lack of understanding of sexual interest as opposed to body sex. Why would anyone who is paranoid about being perved on or sexually assaulted prefer to share their change room with female bodied people who are sexually interested in women than male bodied people who are not? (Forgive my sweeping assumptions, I know that not all male to female transgender people are only sexually attracted to men).

Also, the idea of sending trans women into the mens change rooms/toilets? That is just inviting violence.

And the creepers who pose the idea that as men, they can wear a dress to a shopping centre and "pick someone to follow into the change rooms" to rape them? The change rooms is a secure and supervised area. The people who enter get seen on the way in. The people who enter get seen on the way out. There is an attendant at the counter listening for shenanigans of any kind. Not exactly a prime spot to choose for carrying out a sexual assault.

[gunslnger.livejournal.com]

The change rooms is a secure and supervised area.

Wow, what ritzy stores are you shopping in?

[msretro.livejournal.com]

I agree with this. Also, in this case, acting out her religious freedoms would have meant discriminating against someone else.

Religious practices like daily prayer or plain dress do not infringe on anyone else's rights. Religious practices like refusing to fill a birth control prescription or letting someone use a dressing room do infringe on others.

As the saying goes, your right to swing your fist ends at the tip of my nose.

[dierdrae.livejournal.com]

I'm very proud of Macy's for having that policy, which I was unaware of, and of that manager for actually enforcing it.

[paedraggaidin.livejournal.com]

Me too, and doubly so in the South.

[tniassaint.livejournal.com]

"Seriously, get over yourself. If you want a quiet, peaceful life among straights who share your horror of GLBT people, a place where you'll never have to interact with those filthy degenerates ever again, go to North Korea. "

Agreed...

Kudos.

[gunslnger.livejournal.com]

right to free exercise of religion because "her religious beliefs prevent her from recognizing transgender people."

I don't know of any religion that has this belief, so she's obviously using the wrong defense.

She should just say that she refuses to encourage other people's delusions about their body.

Any connection to gay rights made in the OP is specious.

[oslo.livejournal.com]

She should just say that she refuses to encourage other people's delusions about their body.

Well, then she has no case.

Any connection to gay rights made in the OP is specious.

Why? If the Macy's employee were to win on her claim, wouldn't that open the door to similar kinds of claims relating to lesbians and gays?

[paedraggaidin.livejournal.com]

Well when I say "gay rights" I mean "GLBT rights," as gays, lesbians, bisexuals, and transgendereds suffer the same sort of discrimination and prejudice for very closely related r reasons. If transgendered isn't considered closely enough related to homosexual issues. then at any rate it is with gender issues (which I view as being equivalent ).

[gunslnger.livejournal.com]

Even were gay marriage to be legalized nationwide, no church would be forced to perform it. Gay marriage laws are, purely and simply, concerned with civil marriage.

This is naive. As long as pastors and priests are legally empowered to perform state marriages, then as soon as they refuse to marry a gay couple, they will get sued. The only way to prevent this is to explicitly separate religious marriage and state unions.

[oslo.livejournal.com]

This is naive. As long as pastors and priests are legally empowered to perform state marriages, then as soon as they refuse to marry a gay couple, they will get sued.

Yes, we definitely need to worry about this possibility, because I know all kinds of same-sex couples that can't wait to try to have a minister ideologically opposed to their relationship officiate at their wedding.

[oslo.livejournal.com]

Generally, the federal courts have held that religious organizations are exempt from anti-discrimination laws when hiring or firing staff who perform religious functions (priests, ministers, teachers, youth leaders, etc.), but there is a case pending before the U.S. Supreme Court now (Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School v. EEOC) involving just this issue, so we'll see. I personally think it is reasonable to allow churches some level of exemption from anti-discrimination laws; for example the Catholic, Orthodox, and many Protestant churches do not ordain women, and they should never be forced to do so by federal or state law (which would be a violation of the Free Exercise Clause at any rate). I think SCOTUS is likely to uphold the general exemption.

I don't know how reasonable this is - just because these religious sects have a long history of discrimination on the basis of gender doesn't mean that it is "reasonable" for us to endorse the practice. In any event, how familiar are you with Hosanna-Tabor's facts? This is a case involving a teacher whose primary educational functions involved matters other than religious instruction who claims to have been discriminated against on the basis of having a disability. Should the Supreme Court uphold the school's employment decision?

Having become somewhat familiar with some of the modern developments of Free Exercise and Establishment Clause jurisprudence, I am increasingly skeptical of assertions like the ones you have made. Sure, maybe we shouldn't require the Catholic Church to ordain women. But evidently the Catholic Church (and other religious sects) think that they should be exempt from all sorts of laws that are inconvenient for employers, property owners, and service providers, like laws that prohibit them from firing people with disabilities, tearing down historical landmarks, or providing competent medical care to those who need it. It's not enough to assure the Church that it won't have to officiate gay marriages; it won't be satisfied unless it's fully exempt from having to acknowledge in any fashion the same-sex partner of its least religiously-involved employee, like an intake receptionist in a hospital's emergency room or a graduate teaching assistant at a Catholic university. And on and on.

To the extent we incorporate these kinds of exceptions into our laws, and to the extent the courts read exceptions into statutes in order to make them comply with the Free Exercise Clause, the exceptions should be narrow and properly tailored to their purpose, which is to permit people to practice their religion, not to invite them to invent conscientious objections that just-so-happen to serve their financial or bigoted preferences.

[eracerhead.livejournal.com]

My religion refuses to recognize the existence of black people. Therefore you cannot force me to serve them.

[eracerhead.livejournal.com]

She made the unqualified determination that this person was male based only upon her perception. This is not an effective way to determine the gender of an individual or even if that person even has an unambiguous gender (not everybody does). Thus Macy's policy is the only reasonable one given that culturally we still hold on to the notion that there are times where we must separate people socially by gender.

For the record, there is no way to unambiguously determine the gender of an individual in 100% of the cases, not even using DNA. There is always a degree of subjectivity involved.