Federal Judge Says Religion Gives You A Right To Discriminate

[Deborah]

Federal Judge Says Religion Gives You A Right To Discriminate

By Ian Millhiser

https://thinkprogress.org/federal-judge-says-religion-gives-you-a-right-to-discriminate-876705018d77#.jrqp0sg8d

On Thursday, Judge Sean F. Cox, a George W. Bush appointee, declared that transgender people are the new scapegoats. He did so in a 56-page legal opinion that sits as much on the knife-edge of America's culture wars as it does at a crossroads between two very different futures for American law.  . . .

R.G. & G.R. Harris should have been a very easy case. The case involves a funeral home owner who fired one of his funeral directors, Amiee Australia Stephens, after Stephens came out as trans and announced her intention to begin living as a woman.
---------------------------------------
This is a very insightful article.  It also directly contradicts the notion that we do not need the protection of the law.

This is not a problem new to the modern age.  Christians as early as the second century were getting into trouble for refusing to sell things to people that allegedly violated their "deeply held religious beliefs" .  In that case a woman refused to sell meat she suspected might be used in a pagan sacrifice.  She was prosecuted and lost.

The question is, where does the privilege of a religious person's conscience end when dealing in the public marketplace in a secular country.  And the USA is and has always been a secular country.  Contrary to the claims of the religious right, the USA was not founded as a Christian nation.  The phrase "under God" was not even a part of the pledge of allegiance until the 1950s.  It was instead founded as a place where people of any belief or non-belief could co-exist peacefully.  This is easily proven by simply reading the Constitution and is supported by innumerable words of the founders.  Certain forces have been seeking to undermine this founding principle since the time Thomas Jefferson was President.  These forces continue today.

It is somewhat ironic that the very ones that claim to love the constitution the most are the ones working the hardest to destroy it.

[Lady Sarah]

This is where freedom of speech, and freedom of religion meet in a vary ugly way, and such attempts to strip us of our right to exist. I am sure they will claim the freedom of speech, and then deny us ours when we say anything to them or about them.

[BeverlyAnn]

In another case, although it doesn't involve religion, the Seventh Circuit court ruled a woman, as a lesbian, had no protection under Title VII and could legally be discriminated against for her sexual orientation.  There's going to be a lot of this hitting the Supreme Court. 

[Amy1988]

So for the sake of legal arguments what exactly would make a person transgender if that person never affirmed they were transgender to an employer?  For instance, if an employee just started dressing as the opposite sex but never admitted they were transgender.  Would simply presenting as the opposite sex make them transgender for the sake of legal arguments or is it required that said employee affirm that they are transgender for the sake of legal arguments.  I ask this because I have essentially erased my former male identity by legally changing my name on every document that identifies me from birth certificate all the down to high school diploma and the only way anyone from this point forward would ever know I am transgender is if I'm stupid enough to open my big mouth.  My current employer knows of course because I told them but it is a very progressive Swedish owned company.  However, would any future employers whom I would not disclose being transgender be able to make a legal argument for firing me based on an assumption that I'm transgender or would I have to affirm being transgender before such a legal argument be made successfully?

[Deborah]

However, would any future employers whom I would not disclose being transgender be able to make a legal argument for firing me based on an assumption that I'm transgender or would I have to affirm being transgender before such a legal argument be made successfully?

If you presented and dressed as a female then according to the court your employer could fire you if they had a religious objection.

[Ella_bella]

Sounds like we need laws to protect us from laws.

[Amy1988]

If you presented and dressed as a female then according to the court your employer could fire you if they had a religious objection.

But I wear jeans and shirts.  They are female but not obviously so.  I've seen men wear pink shirts.  Are they dressing as female because pink is a female color?  You can see the slippery slope here.  Not all transgender MTF wear dresses and heals where it would be obvious.  My hair is long but so is that of several of my male cis gender male coworkers.  Could it be argued that they are transgender? 

[Deborah]

I agree it's a slippery slope.  The precedent being set is that anything you do contrary to what an employer claims is a "deeply held religious belief" is grounds for termination.

[Michelle_P]

I agree it's a slippery slope.  The precedent being set is that anything you do contrary to what an employer claims is a "deeply held religious belief" is grounds for termination.

So, if any of my employees behave in a manner displeasing to Lord Cthulu, I may terminate them?  Cthulu and the Old Ones will be most pleased with this sacrifice!


Translation: I do not think the judge has fully thought through the implications of such a religious exemption.  There are many religions...

[Deborah]

There are many religions...

True.  But in the USA only one gets protected.

[KathyLauren]

Sounds like we need laws to protect us from laws.

Supposedly, that's what the constitution is for.

[RobynD]

These laws will be tested and go down to defeat. It is only a matter of time. Until then, like all civil rights advances, it is messy and sometimes painful process for society to go through.

Conservatism itself is in decline. The wedge issues of abortion and marriage equality were made into wedge issues, largely because the conservative movement could not point to other successes (economy as an example) as a reason to be part of the conservative movement.

It is clear that the societies support of equal rights is now stronger than ever. On a local basis, they are trying to fight it and look for sub-groups to beat up on. Guess whose turn it is?

The more they hit us the more they will alienate themselves on this issue and in general. We get stronger. There is a little Gandhi in all of that. 

[DawnOday]

Federal Judge Says Religion Gives You A Right To Discriminate

By Ian Millhiser

https://thinkprogress.org/federal-judge-says-religion-gives-you-a-right-to-discriminate-876705018d77#.jrqp0sg8d

On Thursday, Judge Sean F. Cox, a George W. Bush appointee, declared that transgender people are the new scapegoats. He did so in a 56-page legal opinion that sits as much on the knife-edge of America's culture wars as it does at a crossroads between two very different futures for American law.  . . .

R.G. & G.R. Harris should have been a very easy case. The case involves a funeral home owner who fired one of his funeral directors, Amiee Australia Stephens, after Stephens came out as trans and announced her intention to begin living as a woman.
---------------------------------------
This is a very insightful article.  It also directly contradicts the notion that we do not need the protection of the law.

This is not a problem new to the modern age.  Christians as early as the second century were getting into trouble for refusing to sell things to people that allegedly violated their "deeply held religious beliefs" .  In that case a woman refused to sell meat she suspected might be used in a pagan sacrifice.  She was prosecuted and lost.

The question is, where does the privilege of a religious person's conscience end when dealing in the public marketplace in a secular country.  And the USA is and has always been a secular country.  Contrary to the claims of the religious right, the USA was not founded as a Christian nation.  The phrase "under God" was not even a part of the pledge of allegiance until the 1950s.  It was instead founded as a place where people of any belief or non-belief could co-exist peacefully.  This is easily proven by simply reading the Constitution and is supported by innumerable words of the founders.  Certain forces have been seeking to undermine this founding principle since the time Thomas Jefferson was President.  These forces continue today.

It is somewhat ironic that the very ones that claim to love the constitution the most are the ones working the hardest to destroy it.

If it does not come from the Federalist Papers that Hamilton wrote, Cons do not believe in the Constitution. They think the state has the right to overrule Federal Law. These are the same treasonous Confederate states we settled this question 153 years ago. Six hundred thousand lost their lives in the process. Let's cut our losses and let Texas return to Mexico.

[RobynD]

If it does not come from the Federalist Papers that Hamilton wrote, Cons do not believe in the Constitution. They think the state has the right to overrule Federal Law. These are the same treasonous Confederate states we settled this question 153 years ago. Six hundred thousand lost their lives in the process. Let's cut our losses and let Texas return to Mexico.

Yeah the states rights thing has always been code for "allow us to run our own lives and discriminate against who we choose". When the wider moral standard and consensus is applied federally, they feel powerless to do that.

The US took Took a huge chunk of the US from Mexico in a totally made up and unjust war. This is but one example of our injustice to others. The whole manifest destiny thing. I'm surprised more people don't talk about that one, but i suppose it pales in comparison to slavery and the Civil War etc.

In the case of Texas, they had already gained independence from Mexico on their own and we simply annexed them because the leaders of Texas wanted that. You could argue that without US support Texas may have never achieved independence in the first place.

I think that as local power and conservative power wanes, you will see more and more desperate measures to maintain the power structure. The rights of transgender folks are just a game piece in all of that.

One thing we can do in these states is be more active and more visible. We are pretty likable people overall and when the general population sees us, the manufactured fear tends to have less of an effect.