The lower court dismissed Pedreira’s discrimination claims finding that Pedreira didn’t suffer religious discrimination because Baptist Homes did not require her to believe that being a lesbian is sinful, but merely required that she observe its religious belief that being a lesbian is sinful.

Doesn’t requiring someone to observe to observe an organization’s religious belief that something is sinful effectively forcing its religious beliefs down an employee’s throat and thus….a form of religious discrimination if said employee disagrees???

If said religious organization wants to discriminate in such a manner, they should be prohibited from receiving any government funds period.  The US government should not undermine its integrity further by subsidizing religious discrimination/coercion with US taxpayer funds.

This isn’t directly related, but I have a friend who is bi-sexual and an athiest, and yet manages to teach at a Catholic school with no problems. He teaches math and literature, I think. The administration is aware that he is bi-sexual and an athiest, and their response? Do what you will on you own time. All we ask is that if a student comes to you with a question which is not related to your job and your answer may conflict with the teaching of the church, that you politely refuse to answer on the grounds that you don’t speak for the church, and immediately refer to the nearest nun or father.

They don’t even ask him to pay lip-service, as it requested by the Baptist home.

I oculd get behind publicly funded quasi-religious organizations, if they’re held to that kind of standard. But forcing anyone to deny their own beliefs when they’re off the clock is downright criminal. And indoctrinating anyone and giving no chance to get away from it is criminal too.

The lower court dismissed Pedreira’s discrimination claims finding that Pedreira didn’t suffer religious discrimination because Baptist Homes did not require her to believe that being a lesbian is sinful, but merely required that she observe its religious belief that being a lesbian is sinful.

That’s the most ridiculous piece of legal sophistry since William Rehnquist and his “bretheren” ruled that it’s not gender discrimination to refuse health benefits for pregnancy because, if men could get pregnant, they wouldn’t be covered either.

I oculd get behind publicly funded quasi-religious organizations, if they’re held to that kind of standard.

Well of course the problem is that, since said organizations are allowed to set their own policy on the matter (and of course to change said policy whenever it suits them), there’s no way to ensure that religious organizations don’t discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation without setting that standard up as official policy for any group that accepts federal funding.

Not to mention, of course, that there’s still a hoop that the Catholic school requires your friend to jump through. It’s not “we are accepting of your lifestyle, no questions asked,” it’s “well, it’s OK I guess as long as you remain closeted at work, and sorry but you simply can’t be trusted to give your students any advice that doesn’t have to do with your lesson plan”.  The ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ approach and the ‘we will fire you if someone hears a rumor that you once wore an Isle Of Lesbos t-shirt outside the office’ are both discrimination.

Can’t wait for the mandatory tithe.  You don’t have to believe in the tithe, after all, you just have to pay it.

True, I guess I hadn’t thought about that part. This was about 8 years ago that he told me this, and I haven’t really been in contact with him since then. It was in my pre-self-identified as feminist days that he told me this (although it was always subconsciously there). I was still thinking about the situation in my pre-enlightened days. I always got the impression from him whenever we talked about it that it was implied that he wouldn’t be fired for going against their rule, although there would probably be some disciplinary action. But as we probably all know, there is a HUGE difference between our impression and the reality.

I should try to get in touch with him and see how it worked out.

I propose the State Religion be the worship of Dagon, the Babylonian Fish God.

You’d think that Baptists , the ones who can read their own damn history, would be against any state intrusion, much less the funding that allows it.

Oh yes, oversight and the end of the free money.  Huzzah!

I always got the impression from him whenever we talked about it that it was implied that he wouldn’t be fired for going against their rule, although there would probably be some disciplinary action.

Your boss should not be able to   subject you to “disciplinary action” for being bisexual.  That’s practically a dictionary definition of ‘discrimination’.

You’d think that Baptists , the ones who can read their own damn history, would be against any state intrusion, much less the funding that allows it.

They used to be, back in the days that they were afraid schoolkids would be forced to say the Hail Mary in school because of all those damn immigrant Catholics.

Then they figured out how much money and power they could accumulate by pushing for a theocracy and, well, they’ve never looked back.

The lower court dismissed Pedreira’s discrimination claims finding that Pedreira didn’t suffer religious discrimination because Baptist Homes did not require her to believe that being a lesbian is sinful, but merely required that she observe its religious belief that being a lesbian is sinful.

See, this is why we need state and federal statutes barring discrimination in employment on the basis of sexual orientation.  The general rule is that your employer can fire you for any reason, or no reason at all.  The employer’s power can be constrained by contracts (like collective bargaining agreements), or by statute (like the civil rights statutes).  Because, however, only a few jurisdictions have statutes barring employment discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, an ordinary, nonreligious employer can fire someone for being a lesbian, if the employer wants.  It happens all the time.

Imagine you have a publicly-funded Atheist group home, whose management, for non-religious reasons, thinks gays and lesbians are icky.  If someone like that fired a lesbian worker, it wouldn’t make sense to call it religious discrimination, unless the worker was a member of some obscure sect that thought lesbianism was religously required.

In other words, the law prohibits discrimination against employees on the basis of the employees’ religion.  It doesn’t prohibit discrimination against employees on the basis of the employers’ religion.

Needless to say, this is another example of me (with my lawyer hat on) trying to explain what the law is—it does not reflect my views as to what the law ought to be.

Enactment of statutes prohibiting employment discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is, IMHO, a much more important issue for gays and lesbians than marriage, although it has received considerably less publicity.

“You’d think that Baptists , the ones who can read their own damn history, would be against any state intrusion, much less the funding that allows it.” . . . They used to be, back in the days that they were afraid schoolkids would be forced to say the Hail Mary in school because of all those damn immigrant Catholics.

No, the Baptists really did start out in this country as advocates of religious tolerance, and not just becasue of anti-Catholicism.  The first Baptist minister in this country was a guy named Roger Williams, who was exiled from Massachusetts by the Puritans for supporting religious tolerance, and who founded Rhode Island.  A proud history betrayed . . .

The question is, if this was not a religious organization, but just your basic nonprofit, and the situation was the same—that is, it was run by someone who hated gay people, and fired this woman in a clear act of discrimination—would she have any legal recourse?

My understanding is that the law presently says no.  In many states she would, but where she lives, the laws against discrimination don’t cover sexual orientation.  I’m pretty sure federal laws don’t either.

That means that religion is a red herring here.  The problem isn’t that religious groups are allowed to fire people for being gay, it’s that everyone is allowed to fire people for being gay—even if they take federal money.  That’s the injustice.

“Workers could be fired for dancing, eating meat, receiving blood transfusions, marrying someone of another faith and for serving in the military.”

I don’t want ANY of MY tax dollars going to support religious organizations - unless they set up a separate entity (like in the old days) that handles the social service provided by government funds.  Lots of religious groups in the past - Hadassah, Lutheran Charities, Catholic Charities had separate arms that had social service projects - no discrimination, no evangelizing.  It was when politicians wanted to appeal to the fundicrats that these new “faith-based” initiatives were started.

Separately - I would figure that more people might actually consider the theology of a religion if they are receiving social services in a non-judgemental manner.  As a non-believer, I could see being curious about the faith teachings of a religion IF they weren’t shoving their prejudices down my throat with that bowl of soup. 
My mother recalled receiving big food baskets and toys during the Depression, courtesy of the Salvation Army.  To this day, she sends the local chapter a $500 donation every year, purely out of a sense of gratitude for making a child’s holiday a treat during really bad times.  No Bibles in the gift baskets - either!

I don’t want ANY of MY tax dollars going to support religious organizations - unless they set up a separate entity (like in the old days) that handles the social service provided by government funds.  Lots of religious groups in the past - Hadassah, Lutheran Charities, Catholic Charities had separate arms that had social service projects - no discrimination, no evangelizing.  It was when politicians wanted to appeal to the fundicrats that these new “faith-based” initiatives were started.

To clarify—federal funding of faith-based nonprofits (the Salvation Army, Hadassah, etc) has been a feature of hte American social services since the Johnson administration.  What changed under GWB was that now said organizations are allowed to blur the lines a lot more between the religious wing and the service wing.  For instance there’s nothing terribly wrong with funding Hadassah—they’re not a proselytizing organization by any stretch of the imagination.  They’re not even officially affiliated with a particular congregation or synagogue—they’re just a Jewish women’s organization.  Obama’s new plan would scale back faith-based funding to a pre-Bush level, and reinstate the administrative oversight that makes sure Catholic Charities isn’t sending Bibles with the Christmas baskets.  It’s a continuation of Bush policy in name only , which is actually a stroke fo genius in my opinion.

Though I have to admit I think it would be best for everyone concerned if the US simply didn’t fund faith-based groups, period.

“It’s a continuation of Bush policy in name only , which is actually a stroke of genius in my opinion…Though I have to admit I think it would be best for everyone concerned if the US simply didn’t fund faith-based groups, period.”

One of the problems with the Bush policy was that the Office of Faith-based blah blah specifically reached out to religious orgs to encourage their participation in government funded social service programs.  In the “olden days” there was NO separate outreach, the religious orgs that had social service as part of their mission looked for programs in order to provide service. 
Bush’s (and Obama’s) faith-based initiatives are still driven by trying to appeal to the religious vote by giving them taxpayer money.

I do agree that the best option would be to stop sending our tax dollars to religious organizations anyway.  They already get tremendous tax preferences anyway.

In the “olden days” there was NO separate outreach, the religious orgs that had social service as part of their mission looked for programs in order to provide service.
Bush’s (and Obama’s) faith-based initiatives are still driven by trying to appeal to the religious vote by giving them taxpayer money.

Is this actually true of Obama’s plan, though?  Because if you’ll notice it’s called the Council for Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships.  Which at least implies that it’s not seeking out only religious groups.

“Baptist Homes did not require her to believe that being a lesbian is sinful, but merely required that she observe its religious belief that being a lesbian is sinful.”

How much do you have to do to “observe” her employer’s religious diktat?  Apparentrly it’s not enough to say, “I’m aware it’s against their religion”, which is how most people would define “observe”.  Does she have to avoid wearing her T-shirt to work?  Oops, she did that, too.  Does she have to not mention her girlfriend to her co-workers?  No evidence that she did that.  Just how much “observance” is required of her?

Interesting that rea identifies Roger Williams, founder of Rhode Island, as a Baptist.  The Quakers claim him, too, never heard of his having Baptist connections also.

Rea, one might make the case that the Home is religiously discriminating against Pedreira because her religion does not proscribe lesbianism.

Gotta love it.  “...finding that Pedreira didn’t suffer religious discrimination because Baptist Homes did not require her to believe that being a lesbian is sinful, but merely required that she observe its religious belief that being a lesbian is sinful.”

I find myself imagining a somewhat different scenario than played out, where her boss called her in:

“We’ve heard rumors that you are a lesbian.”
“Yup. Big ol’ dyke.”
“We require that our employees observe our religious beliefs.”
“Oh, I do. Completely.”
“But you say you are a lesbian.”
“Yup. Big sinner here. Being a lesbian is completely sinful.”
“So you are going to stop being a lesbian?”
“Oh, no. I plan to keep on with it. I’m a sinner. That’s me. Anyone asks, yup, big sin. My girlfriend will back me up on this. I can bring her to the next office party and she can tell you all how sinful we are - all the darn time, and more often on weekends. I have other references if you need them.”
“Oh, well, that’s okay, then. Back to work.”
“Gotcha.”

Interesting that rea identifies Roger Williams, founder of Rhode Island, as a Baptist.  The Quakers claim him, too, never heard of his having Baptist connections also.

Wandering around on the intertubes, it looks like Williams was an Anglican, a Puritan, an Anabaptist, a Baptist, and then a Seeker (aka didn’t follow any organized religion).  He founded a Baptist church, ran it for three or four months, and then left to become a Seeker and never rejoined a formal religion.  So it’s kind of a stretch to call him a founding father of Baptists in America even though he helped found the first Baptist church.

I doubt that today’s Foursquare Baptists (among others) have much in common with Williams’ beliefs.  I wish they did, because he apparently believed in absolute religious tolerance, but I guess not.

Oh, Anabaptist is an umbrella term that covers Quakers, Mennonites, Amish, and several other sects.  Anabaptist /= Baptist, though Baptists may have a few roots in the Anabaptist movement.

I remember arguing with a Baptist friend who was convinced the Baptist church had existed since the beginning of Christianity.  As a Catholic, I knew better, but boy was she PISSED when I pointed it out.

“Because if you’ll notice it’s called the Council for Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships.  Which at least implies that it’s not seeking out only religious groups. “

When it comes to their “faith”, I’d rather that politicians just STFU about it.  I personally see these programs as a way to curry favor with certain religious voters by throwing them some cash, no matter what you call it.  Just because Obama adds Neighborhood Partnerships doesn’t make it any less problematic for me.

Rea, one might make the case that the Home is religiously discriminating against Pedreira because her religion does not proscribe lesbianism.

Sorry, Rebecca, but that argument doesn’t work.  You don’t violate somebody’s religion if you merely forbid them to do something that their religion doesn’t require.  Moreover, if your argument is accepted, you’re setting up a peculiar situation in which the only people who are forbidden by law to fire lesbians are people who have bona fide religious beliefs that lesbianism is sinful—secular assholes can fire lesbians at will.  That doesn’t make a lick of sense.

No, the answer is simple—change the law to ban discrimination against gays and lesbians in employment.

I’d rather that politicians just STFU about it.  I personally see these programs as a way to curry favor with certain religious voters by throwing them some cash, no matter what you call it.

I ultimately agree, except that Obama doesn’t have a prayer of being elected if he doesn’t at least give lip service to this sort of thing.  And I’d rather open and blatant lip service than open and blatant theocracy. 

I’d love to live in a country where secularism is the unquestioned law of the land and no politician would ever dream of even veiling a scaling back of theocratic policy with the clever use religious dog whistles.  But unfortunately I don’t have the means of moving to France anytime soon.

Quakers are not Anabaptists. They do not hold baptism as a sacrament or an ordinance. The original definition of Anabaptist was someone who insisted on baptism following a mature profession of religious faith and so re-baptized those baptized as infants.

Rea, my argument was not that her religion was being violated, but that she was being discriminated against based on her religion.

If you take as a given:
1. The Home requires that its employees conform to their religious standards.
2. Pedreira does not conform to their religious standards, or, Pedreira’s religious standards are not the same as theirs.
3. Given #1 and #2, Pedreira was fired.
then one might, as I said, make the case that she was fired because her religion was not acceptable to them.

(Of course, the reason I did not bring up the possibility of secular assholes firing a woman for being a lesbian is because we were discussing religious discrimination. I agree that laws against discrimination based on sexual orientation are absolutely necessary.)