An Iowa journalist is suing his employer
for discrimination after being fired over anti-gay remarks on
his personal blog. Robert Dale Eschliman was editor-in-chief of the
Newton Daily News, which fired him following a post
alleging the Bible compelled him to fight against “the LGBTQXYZ
crowd and the Gaystapo” because they were God’s enemies.
A conservative Christian group called the Liberty Institute
(ugh)—formerly the Free Market Foundation (ugh)—helped
Eschliman file his suit. “There is no question that I was fired
for holding and talking about my sincerely held
religious beliefs on my personal blog during my off-duty time
from the comfort of my own home,” wrote Eschliman in his lawsuit.
“I would like to have obtained a religious accommodation for
my sincerely held religious belief to share my Biblical view
with the few family members and friends who read my
blog.”
While cloaked in the cause of religious liberty, Eschliman’s
lawsuit makes a mockery of the concept. First, because there is no
government actor here. Rather we have a private company deciding
that the way Eschliman practiced his religion interfered with his
ability to properly do the job they hired him for.
The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) does prevent
employers from rejecting, punishing, or firing individuals soley
based on their religious beliefs or affiliation. But it is not
meant to serve as a shield that allows any religious person to
avoid any aspect of a job that they oppose.
In this case, maintaining a neutral public attitude toward
hot-button issues was central to Eschliman’s job. No one was
punishing him for privately holding or espousing anti-homosexual
beliefs. But Eschliman—the lead editor of a traditional,
non-ideological newspaper—wants to be able to air these beliefs
publicly with total impunity. That’s not asking for a reasonable
accommodation, its asking for special treatment, at the expense of
the company’s good.
If Eschliman’s words were truly directed to only “a few family
members and friends,” he could have made the blog private, or sent
a group email. Instead, he chose to publish these thoughts openly
and freely online. Here’s a snippet:
[Jesus] said there would be deceivers. He said those deceivers
would cause Christians who remain true to His teachings to become
reviled. He said false prophets would follow to deceive even more,
and that lawlessness will abound.If you ask me, it sounds like the Gaystapo is well on its way.
We must fight back against the enemy.
Are those firing words? Reasonable people might disagree.
Ultimately, all that matters is what Eschliman’s employer thought.
It’s certainly not uncommon to expect journalists, especially
news editors, to show some restraint in expressing
personal opinions publicly. For example, here’s what The Associated
Press advises its employees:
Anyone who works for the AP must be mindful that opinions they
express may damage the AP’s reputation as an unbiased source of
news. They must refrain from declaring their views on contentious
public issues in any public forum, whether in Web logs, chat rooms,
letters to the editor, petitions, bumper stickers or lapel buttons,
and must not take part in demonstrations in support of causes or
movements.”
As the Newton Daily News’ editor-in-chief, asking
Eschliman to keep personal political and moral beliefs out of
public view is a sensible stricture of the job. What’s unreasonable
is expecting employers to accommodate any conduct described as a
“sincerely held religious belief,” even if that conduct is
antithetical to the employer’s aims. Here’s what the EEOC says
about the limits of religious accommodations by employers (emphasis
mine):
The law requires an employer or other covered
entity to reasonably accommodate an employee’s religious
beliefs or practices, unless doing so would cause more than
a minimal burden on the operations of the employer’s
business.
An individual’s “right” to practice their religion however they
want while simultaneously holding any job they want does not trump
an employer’s prerogative to run their business as they see fit or
necessary.
Yet asserting otherwise seems to be popular this week. In
another current case, a
Florida nurse who opposes contraception and refuses to
prescribe it is suing after being told she doesn’t meet the
requirements for a job that involves a good deal of counseling
about and prescribing contraception. Here is an applicant stating
up front that she refuses to do a core part of the job in question
and then suing for discrimination when told she’s not qualified for
said job. It’s mind-boggling. These are fights for “religious
liberty” in the same way compelling homophobic photographers to
work gay weddings or Christian conservative companies to offer
birth control are wins for equality.
from Hit & Run http://ift.tt/1pfvw9v
via IFTTT