Various Direct Links

06 October 2011

Pattern: Discrimination Upside Down

I've always assumed that when someone said that they were being discriminated against because of their religion it was because they were being denied access or products because of their faith.  In fact, that is close to what the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) says.  This is far more broad than the First Amendment of the United States Constitution, which only applies to government (federal, state, and local).

When it comes to the private sector, the EEOC has specific wording about discrimination in the workplace:

The law forbids discrimination when it comes to any aspect of employment, including hiring, firing, pay, job assignments, promotions, layoff, training, fringe benefits, and any other term or condition of employment.

Recently, I am noticing more and more cases of people saying that they are victims of religious discrimination because of what they are required to do as part of their jobs.  Here are a couple of examples:

A pharmacist in Idaho refuses to fill prescriptions that are against her faith.

A town clerk in New York refuses to sign wedding licenses that are against her faith.

A graduate student in Michigan refuses to counsel as part of a course as it is against her faith.

My view on this is fairly simple, if one cannot do a job without the duties of that job violating one's beliefs then one needs to find a different type of employment.  In none of these cases are the "victims" being asked to worship or participate in a different religion from their own.  None of these "victims" are being denied access or services, they are the ones who are denying access or services to others.  The discriminator as the one being discriminated against is upside down.

10 October 2011, FollowUp 1 

11 October 2011, FollowUp 2

16 November 2011, FollowUp 3

No comments:

Post a Comment

No longer open for freely commenting.