Some “Not So” Politically-Correct Rantings
Work Place Religious vs. Secular Issues
(I posted an old essay on the separation of church and state below… for the history buffs who read my blogs)
Because of the perceived “separation of church and state” issues, many employers are caught in the act of misapplying restrictions and they end up in court. Let me be up-front and say I am an “Original Intent” guy who can show that the first four drafts of the First Amendment shows that separation of church and state was not in the idea of said Amendment. Not to mention that person who wrote the First Amendment went right to his state (after it had been ratified) and wrote a state constitution that demanded you had to profess Christ to be in state government. Obviously the author of the supposed “separation” clause had something in mind that differs with how people apply it today.
That history has little bearing though on the cases I will mention herein. One issue that came up at work (and if anyone mentions where I work in your comments section, I will erase your comment) is of an employee saying “God Bless You” as a form of saying goodbye, wishing well on a person. This has already been tried and tested in our courts:
…A veterans' cemetery employee who was fired for giving religious blessings at funerals and saying "God bless you" to visitors has been re-hired with apologies.
Patrick Cubbage, 54, a retired police officer and a
With the backing of the Rutherford Institute, a conservative legal organization based in
"He's got ... constitutional protection of free speech because he was speaking in a government forum, so he's got a cushion," Rissler [of the Rutherford Institute] told The Philadelphia Inquirer for Friday's editions.
If, however, the proselytizing activity is less pronounced or widespread, the employer may be forced to accept it as a reasonable accommodation to religious belief. In Banks v. Service America Corp., 952 F. Supp. 703 (D. Kan. 1996), the court upheld the right of two employees who continually greeted customers with phrases such as "Praise the Lord" and "God bless you." The employer, which ran the cafeteria in a factory, preferred "Hello. What can I get for you today?" as the standard greeting. Even though around 25 complaints were received [in a three-month period], the court determined that it would not unduly burden the employer to let the employees use the religious greetings, basically because there was no showing that the customer dissatisfaction would significantly affect the employer's profitability.
Unfortunately, many today do not know how to apply religious issues in the workplace. Even during my orientation at work I could tell some issues brought up were issues that had contradictory applications, and could muddle any business in either lawsuits or misapplied codes that while trying to protect one person would inevitably discriminate against another.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
UPDATE: Let me be clear about this. If someone were written up multiple times and finally fired for poor customer service (saying "God Bless You" but not having that as the basis for the write up, but that being the basis for the customer complaint), the actual customer complaints could be asked for in the court case. If the customer complaints show that the poor customer service was for saying "God Bless You," the company involved could be sued for both monetary loss and the job returned.
I do not personally say this myself, so I am not worried about myself. How would this apply to me though... Hmmm. Well, banter between co-workers ranges from home life, to what someone did last week to, well, even people discussing their sex-life. When I find a like minded person that I am working with we may wish to discuss religious or political issues in friendly conversation. This may be overheard by customers or other co-workers who may feel offended. This type of speech is protected by California State law as well as Federal law.
I am in seminary and am getting a degree in theology with an emphasis on apologetics. Apologetics is simply the defense of an issue (for example: The Apology ["Defense"] of Socrates), in my case -- the Christian worldview as a cohesive and logically presupposed belief system... over-and-above other worldviews (say, pantheism or atheism). I will talk about this subject, not only because it encompasses my life as a profession but also as a hobby. It is similar to people talking about sports, or family trips. Some people talk sports, I talk about religio-political issues with like minded folks. (Like minded folks is the key.) This type of discussion is protected under the law and no company manual can keep employees from light discussion on these topics, as long as it isn't threatening or argumentative in demeanor.
- For instance, lets say there are three people working side-by-side. Two are Christians. One Christian says to the other, "you know, they just found another edict by Pontius Pilate that shows he had contact with Jesus, this makes two now."
- The other Christian responds: "really, what does this mean?"
- First Christian: "Well, it is another piece in the historical puzzle that builds towards the New Testament being a historically reliable document, proving Christ's resurrection as found in those documents."
The non-believer, whether Buddhist or Atheist (whatever) very well could be offended by that simple conversation, and they are more than free to say so, and the two Christians could politely stop the conversation. But it would be analogous to someone asking two members to not talk about the Super-Bowl, if they are polite they may stop the discussion but could also continue on. If one person gets upset about two co-workers talking about the Super-Bowl, that is more a commentary on said person and not the topic. In fact, being an adult means you should be able to engage at any level of conversation, or to not be offended by other peoples level of engagement. Now, let's take the above mock conversation further (all while continuing to chop lettuce and fill containers of course!):
- The Agnostic joins the conversation: "I just read The Da Vinci Code, and I think Jesus wasn't considered 'God' until the Council of Constantinople."
- First Christian: "Oh yes, Dan Brown. Interestingly enough there is ossuary finds that date to within just a few years of Christ's death that are the first believers, and they already equate Jesus with YHWH from the Old Testament. So within five-years of Jesus death there were people worshiping him as God. There are illusions to Matthew and Luke dated to 49 A.D. as well as a portion of Matthew that can be dated to 55 A.D., as are Paul's writings, and those early manuscripts say the same thing the Bible says today, and remember, Jesus called himself God in these Gospel books - in contradistinction to Mohammad, Zoroaster, Buddha, Joseph Smith, and others... who never called themselves God."
WOW! Heavy conversation? What if a customer overheard this conversation? What if they were offended. Again, it would be analogous to the customer being offended by overhearing someone saying the Bears are a superior team in stats than the Saints. The above conversation is protected by state and federal law. The conversation was between co-workers. I have people I know that stop in and shop where I work from my Church. The conversation may be about what the pastor mentioned last Sunday, just like when acquaintances of other employees may discuss the last night out at the bar, briefly.
It is all protected under the law.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
The next “hot-button” issue that will start – and has started – in
Some articles on AB 196, AB 606, and SB 1437. (PDF Document on AB 196 from the
These above bills are going so far as to take “prom queen” and “prom king,” as well as “Mom” and “Dad” out of school textbooks. That’s how crazy this is getting!
This issue will pit religious values and mores against secular in the workplace more than any other. Any company involved should be aware that while protecting one “class” of people they may very well be infringing on another “class” of people.
…The Assembly approved the bill in April by a vote of 41 to 34, the minimum needed to pass. The state Senate, led by Democrats, followed suit earlier this month with a vote of 23 to 11.
The new law, which provides an exemption for religious groups, makes
Homosexual-rights advocates hail the law as a victory that's been a long time in coming.
"It's a very big issue for the LGBT [lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender] community in
The measure, titled AB 196, was one of a package proposed this year by the five-member Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Caucus. Earlier this year, the state Assembly passed a bill that would award virtually all the rights of marriage to homosexual "domestic partners." The Senate is expected to take it up next month.
"Having a law that specifically states who's protected makes it clear to employers that the majority of people in California want transgender people to be able to work in a nondiscriminatory environment," said Chris Daley, co-director of the Transgender Law Center in San Francisco.
Free Republic – Critics Slam Bill
…A special session of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals is being held today at the Stanford University Law School where lawyers are arguing whether the words "natural family, marriage and family values" constitute "hate speech" that could intimidate city of Oakland workers.
The words were used by two city employees who wanted to launch a group of people who shared their interests and posted a notice on a city bulletin board after a series of notices from homosexual activists were delivered to them via the city's e-mail system, bulletin boards and memo distribution system.
But Robert Bobb, then city manager, and Joyce Hicks, then deputy director of the Community and Economic Development Agency, ordered their notice removed, because it contained "statements of a homophobic nature" and promoted "sexual-orientation-based harassment."
The women, Regina Rederford and Robin Christy, also were threatened with firing from their city jobs because of their posting, according to their lawsuit against the city, which alleges
Attorneys Scott Lively and Richard D. Ackerman are arguing on behalf of the women in the First Amendment case that Christians have equal rights at work to use neutral language to talk about same-sex marriage and other issues.
The
The bill, approved 22-15, would prevent textbooks, teaching materials, instruction and "school-sponsored activities" from reflecting adversely on anyone based on sexual orientation or actual or perceived gender.
Another opponent, Karen England of the Capitol Resource Institute, says the legislation "seeks to indoctrinate innocent children caught in the tug-of-war between traditional families and the outrageous homosexual agenda."
"The state Senate is so far out of touch with
Sponsored by Democratic Sen. Sheila Kuehl -- a lesbian actress best known for playing Zelda in "The Many Loves of Dobie Gillis" in the 1960s -- the legislation would add "gender" (actual or perceived) and "sexual orientation" to the law that prohibits California public schools from having textbooks, teaching materials, instruction or "school-sponsored activities" that reflect adversely upon people based on characteristics like race, creed and handicap.
"We've been working since 1995 to try to improve the climate in schools for gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender kids, as well as those kids who are just thought to be gay, because there is an enormous amount of harassment and discrimination at stake," Kuehl explained. "Teaching materials mostly contain negative or adverse views of us, and that's when they mention us at all."
…A traditional-values organization in
If the bill, SB 1437, were to become law, warns the Capitol Resource Institute, "it could potentially require gender-neutral bathrooms in our schools and all references to 'husband' and 'wife' or 'mom and dad' removed from school textbooks as the norm."
States Capitol Resource Institute on its website: "The reason this is such an outrageous bill is because it is the most extreme effort thus far to transform our public schools into institutions that disregard all notions of the traditional family unit. SB 1437 seeks to eliminate all 'stereotypes' of the traditional family so that young children are brainwashed into believing that families with moms and dads are irrelevant.
"The social experiment pro-homosexual activists have envisioned for our young children is mind-boggling!"
The organization notes the bill also applies to school activities, which include cheerleading, sports and events like the prom.
"Under SB 1437, school districts would likely be prohibited from having a 'prom king and queen' because that would show bias based on gender and sexual orientation," said CRI. The measure also could affect issues like gender-specific sports teams.
Earlier this week, about 500 homosexual students gathered at the State Capitol in
According to the Sacramento Bee, demonstrators voiced support for Kuehl's bill and AB 606, authored by Democrat Assemblyman Lloyd Levine, which addresses harassment and discrimination in schools.
"I refuse to settle for anything less than respect and equality in education," 16-year-old Garrett Rubin stated at the event. "I shouldn't have to be working so hard to get an education like everybody else."
The Bee reported participants also spoke out against AB 2311, authored by GOP Assemblyman Dennis Mountjoy, a bill that would prohibit the "promotion of homosexuality in public education."
The young protesters chanted: "Hey hey, ho ho, homophobia's got to go."
Traditional values group Campaign for Children and Families decried AB 606, which has passed the Assembly and likely will be approved in the state Senate.
"AB 606 would give inappropriate, draconian power to the California State Superintendent of Public Instruction to unilaterally withhold state funds from
