Should churches and religious organizations be able to hire and fire based on their religious principles? What if that means discriminating against federally protected classes?
The Seventh-day Adventist Church says yes, and they’re suing the state of Maryland for their right to refuse hiring a wide range of groups, from members of the LGBTQ+ community, to those who've remarried, and even pornography consumers.
Fire at Will
Earlier this month, the Maryland-based Seventh-day Adventist Church filed a lawsuit in Baltimore, alleging that the state’s anti-discrimination laws prevent them from hiring and firing employees in accordance with their faith-based ideals.
Maryland’s Fair Employment Act guarantees equal opportunity employment for all Marylanders. The Seventh-day Adventist Church says they should be exempt from that law.
Last year, Maryland courts narrowed religious exemptions in matters of employment, ruling that religion can only be considered in hiring employees who “directly further the core mission” of the church, widely interpreted as clergy as senior officials only.
But the church says that “all their employees are representatives of the Church and are responsible for sharing the Church’s faith with the world.” That means that their discriminatory hiring practices would extend not only to clergy and other employees in overtly religious roles, but even to employees and contractors in non-faith-based positions, like maintenance workers and support staff.
The Big List of Sins
According to the lawsuit, the Seventh-day Adventist Church believes that all employees should be baptized, tithe-paying church members, and must follow personal conduct standards that align with the church’s values. That includes avoiding the following:
- “Homosexual practices”
- Adultery
- Remarriage “without biblical grounds”
- Premarital sex
- Drug use
- Tobacco use
- Alcohol use
- Profanity use
- Pornography consumption
- Child sex abuse
Preventing them from hiring and firing based on those principles, they say, is nothing less than “excessive government entanglement with the Church’s internal religious decision-making.”
Right to Discriminate?
Should religious organizations be able to not hire a janitor because he or she is gay? Or an IT worker because they are divorced? The Seventh-day Adventists believe the answer is yes.
In their lawsuit, they say that “a critical component of [the Church’s] religious exercise that all their employees embrace the Church’s faith, support its religious mission, and share the faith with others.”
They also argue that in addition to being able to legally discriminate in the hiring and firing process, they should also be exempt from state investigations into allegations of discrimination against them “simply for practicing their sincerely held religious beliefs.”
At the heart of the matter is a simple question: where do the rights of the faithful begin and the rights of others end?
In that push and pull, who should win?
88 comments
-
Daniel Todd Kamm
Please.
Tax them or better yet sanction them financially and when they violate anti-discrimination laws and they will shore up or settle up legally pretty quickly.
Religious institutions may have certain privileges, but they are not beyond the law.
And they never should be.
If it's someone espousing the institutions teachings, like a preacher...that's one thing. If it's a secretary , book keeper, janitor or other doing his or her job it's something else.
There is a difference between the public sphere, the private sphere, and the no-accountability for a religious institution sphere.
And too many religious institutions are in the latter.
No pity here on this organization's poor corporate decisions.
As a Jew, I'd never work for them. But then they would fire me if I did .
Reb tk
-
Colleen McAllister
As a former church secretary I assure you that it does matter what beliefs all employees of a church hold. As the first person that most people contact the secretary gives the first impression to outsiders. Even maintenance workers are often approached by others to inquire about the church and what it stands for.
As for taxes, churches do pay property, payrole, and income taxes.
-
Patricia Ann Gross
As a non-profit they are exempt from taxes (property and income, even though their employees still pay payroll taxes and as a church enjoy some leeway against discrimination on religious grounds. Doing background checks and "bed checks" on contract and custodial staff is pushing the envelope on this, so I agree with most of what you say.
-
Joseph SCott Queen
There is a law in the land that keeps the church from sticking their nose onto your business. It works for the church as well. The state can't still their nose into the churches business. Separation of church and state. LQGT is part of the state trying to get a foot hold into the church. The church follows God. Not man. It's against God. The church is right.
-
-
James Riggle-Johnson
I have 3 questions about this.
1) Why are Christians wanting to discriminate?
2) Does one constitutional right outweigh another constitutional right?
3) What happens when a company owned by atheists decides they do not want to hire a Christian or other religious person?
-
April B
Or when a white company says they will only hire white workers? Are we heading towards a new type of civil war? We’ve already been down this road as a country. This won’t end well.
-
-
Matthew W Meister
I read through a number of the comments, but did not get to them all, so I apologize if I missed something somewhere, I cannot believe no one has made this distinction yet. If the church wants to fire or not hire people based upon drinking, drug use, child sexual abuse, adulterous behavior, consumption of pornography or use of profanity, I see no problem with that. The obvious thing that stands out here is LGBTQ. This is not a behavior, it is who they are. It would be as abhorrent as a church wanting to ban people who are black or latino or not employ someone because they are a woman or a man or because they have a family. The actions of the employees and potential employees is not a federally protected status. Who they are can be a federally protected status. Employers can choose their hiring practices as long as they do not discriminate against protected classes. What this church is asking to do is simply wrong, but only as it relates to who people are, not what they do. Oh, and be careful what you wish for. You may find you will lose many of your church elders and leaders if you ever knew the truth about who they are or what they do.
-
Rev. MichaelRS
Before you a form an opinion on this, put the shoe on the other foot;
Should the Metropolitan Community Church be forced to hire people who believe that homosexuality, transgenderism and the broader gender ideology is sinful?
Or should a mosque be legally sanctioned for not hiring Jewish workers?
Okay, so now tell us what you think about the position of the Seventh-day Adventist...
-
Reverend Andrew
Also with that can a non religious employer not hire a religious person and can I not use 1 Timothy 2:12 and only Hire Men
-
Rev. MichaelRS
Noooo, because this is a First Amendment issue dealing with freedom of religion and the "deeply held and established religious beliefs are they religious Institution.
-
Keith D
Is 'non religious' a religion central to the mission of the enterprise? The class that would enable Seventh Day or Mormons or Buddhists or ... to base employment on a person's religious view is based on religion being central to the enterprise.
Truth is, if business weren't suffocated with elites-serving regulatory and other corporatist adventures, getting a job wouldn't involve tolerating miserable mismatch and other pains of modern employment. Thisvis because employers would have to compete for employees rather than the other way around.
-
-
-
Irvin March Cutler
I totally agree with the Seventh-Day Adventists. I applaud their move here as I believe these groups of unholy and other unnatural groups of people are trying to govern the rights of normal people. I personally am against any unnatural behaviors especially when using surgery to go against Gods will. Any group or company should have the right to hire and fire who they find goes against their standard.
-
Reverend Paula Copp
Thank the deities you’re not judging anyone or anything…
-
James Riggle-Johnson
And this is exactly why we have anti-discrimination laws.
-
Joseph SCott Queen
Also separation of church and state
-
-
Elizabeth Jane Erbe Wilcox
A wonderful transgender friend of mine got her vaginoplasty today I don’t suppose you mean “that kind” of surgery? I have yet to come across any bible verse that calls it “unnatural” or “against god’s will.”
-
-
Eugene T Rice
It seems unchristian to fire a porter because he takes a glass of wine with dinner. There is a great difference between saying "I think alcohol is harmful, therefore, I will not drink" and saying "I think alcohol is harmful, therefore, you will not drink". Maryland provides essential services to the Adventists and receives not a dime in tax revenue. Now the Adventists wish to place themselves above state employment law. What other laws do they feel entitled to violate? This is exactly what has turned the youth in this country against religion. Perhaps we should be just as concerned with being good Americans, as we are with being good Christians. I would argue that accomplishing the former, would better prepare us for the latter.
-
Robert Gagnon
Once again it is their house and their rules, and that's a very strict house to be in if you don't meet their standards. Leave them be and stay away from them, I'm sure their parties suck anyway. Reminds me of second grade when there's always some unpleasant kid that runs to the teacher to force a certain group to play with them. Take the hint, you're not wanted.
-
Cheryl M Saley
What if their rules require members to break laws.....murder? Assault? Battery? Thieft? Do they still get a pass?
Once one group gets a pass for some laws it's an easy, slippery slope, into other darkness.
-
Robert Gagnon
That's a big leap and would apply to every group of more than two people. We're not talking about fight club here.
-
-
-
Matthew Mastrogiovanni
Freedom of religion is your personal freedom to practice your faith. It's a personal thing. It doesn't give you the right discriminate against others, because they have their own freedom. If you want to run a legal business, you must follow the law. If you want to be selective on who's in your place of worship, your only recourse is a volunteer staff who are there to serve the church.
-
Rev. Dr. Father JJ
" but even to employees and contractors in non-faith-based positions, like maintenance workers and support staff."
"Should religious organizations be able to not hire a janitor because he or she is gay? Or an IT worker because they are divorced? "
Based on the above two quotes, my understanding of the issue is that the church wants to be able to hire or fire any employee who works directly for the church. If they are employed by the church in any context it's up to them to decide if they want to hire or not.
I take this to mean cleaning people, bldg maintenance people, electrical/carpenter/plumber contractors, lawn/snow removal; anything in and around their church.
I see no problem with the above; they should be able to hire whomever they want in the furtherance of their mission.
And I suppose that would mean that any member of their (or other) church that offers a service to the general public (cake bakers, anyone? Service/repair contractors etc can refuse to work for non-church members, it's their call as well) can pick and choose for whom they work. That happens even without the 'convenience' of religion: some people telegraph immediately that they will be difficult customers and experienced contractors pick up on this.)
So my point here, besides the fact that so many simply do not bother to read the entire blog or have problems comprehending the issue, is that a church should be allowed to hire/fire whomever they want. You have the exact same privilege when hiring people to work in or for you business or even in your home, or on your car, or your teeth, etc.
As some may know I lean hard into kkkrisfascism and make my feelings known. But in this case a an open mind can realize that things like churches should be able to be picky about whom they hire. No different than private religious schools deciding who they want in the classrooms.
-
Russel A. Kester
JJ, we are agree here. Isn't it a nice feeling considering how often we disagree? Good post. :-) And I thought your reasoning here was clear and easy to follow.
-
Rev. Dr. Father JJ
That is because we are both using logic and intelligence instead of mystic woo woo and goat herder fairy tales. Follow my lead and before you know it you'll be a thriving, healthy and successful atheist because how these things are achieved are up to you, the economy and genetics.
P.s. although I haven't seen one in a long time, I used to get the biggest kick when I'd see a car with the bumper sticker, 'god is my co-pilot'.
For starters god never seemed like the kind of deity that would tolerate being a passenger (you're going too fast, you're going too slow, you're going too hell) and besides, I'd rather sit back and let that crazy ol god chauffeur me around. Talk about safe and fast!
-
-
Robert Gagnon
Totally agree. At what point does the exclusion ability become nullified? If everyone that does not qualify has some personal right to force the issue then where does it stop? Do pedophiles have the inalienable right to work with children? Why does that exclusion become common sense, while churches or private groups are forced to yield to the unwanted. When personal rights are used as a weapon to impinge on everyone else it becomes a form of tyranny.
-
-
Gerard Anthony Ritchie
It's very simple. Discrimination laws are to help produce a fairer and more inclusive society. Either we want a fairer or more inclusive society or we don't. Many people argue that society in the US is becoming more divisive and polarised. This case is just another small example of how that happens. Collectively, we get the society that we vote and legislate for.
-
Thomas J Kasprik
O K I’ll say it ALL religions are cults Or at least cult like
-
Nicholas J Page
Why would anyone work for the Adventists where they discriminate about your life style it has nothing to do with the company and it's the individuals right to a private life gay or not.
-
Kevin Joseph Kervick
Yes of course they have that right and they should discriminate. Otherwise why have a religion?
-
Trent Gordin
As much as I rail on organized religion, in particular Christianity, I can't help but to agree with what the church is wanting in this case. When it comes to directly hiring employees to work at or with said church, the church has the exclusive right (freedom of religion) to choose who they want working for them. They are part of the private sector. Now, if this was a general purpose business that was selling goods or services to the general public, and if the hiring manager had a personal religious belief that would affect who he hires, then I WOULD have a problem with them discriminating based of protected statuses. The difference here is this is a church, not a public business. They should get the narrow exception to the law.
-
David M Hines
It takes real nerve to complain about other people discriminating against you in the same filing where you claim the right to discriminate against them. So you can do it to them, but no one can do it to you? Aren’t YOU special?
-
Alma Suzette Richwagen
Nobody anywhere should hire a child sex abuser ever, a child sex abuser is a criminal and should be in jail. As for the rest of the list, if someone is qualified for a job, their private lives should be just that, private. Wwjd?
-
Kathryn Darcy Smith
Their church, their rules.
-
Cheryl M Saley
Are there any limits on this? The Catholic Church and it's "troubles" comes to mind.
What if someone creates a church that requires members to break laws of the land? Should they be held to account? Or is their membership in their church enough to give them a pass?
-
-
Marie Hampton
Our constitution separates church and state so churches of any kind could follow their core beliefs in hiring. However, in my humble opinion, according to Mathew 22:36-40 states "love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind" and "love your neighbor as yourself". Jesus' teaches us love and forgive. He called to himself disciples who were hated and judged harshly. He ate with sinners, fed the thousands and never said "don't get near 'those' people", in fact, He sought out those people to teach, heal and most of all accepted His own people's rejection of Him as our Savior forgiving to the very end. Forgive them for they know not what they do and to the fellow crucified with Him: I will see you today in paradise. As a Christian barring, discriminating and judging is not the truly authentic way of practicing the faith we are taught. Yes, many parts of the word say to separate yourselves from such people as a way to preserve the Jewish community which was to bring us our Savior yet, once He's come His word, to me especially, means to love, forgive and teach others the same. If Seventh Day Adventists don't want to hire or accept those who go against their way, I accept it. Though I pray that no one has a child who is LGBTQ+ as their rejection or ostricized lives will suffer to the point of suicide or a divorcee be excomunicated from the only life they've ever known or from a new love creating the desire for remarriage being a cause for judgement under church authority not to leave it to God for judgment lest they be judged accordingly. Remember the adultress who had no one left to cast the first stone? Yea, not a one of us is without sin so my choice is to forgive as much as possible, to love those who go rejected and most of all to love the Father, Son and holy spirit because we'll all have to face what we've done in these clay pots once they break and the silver cord breaks. Love and peace beats the heck out of war and judgment! Look at how much damage it is still causing. Blessings to all of us sinners. Amen
-
Daniel Gray
The Constitution does not now nor has ever separated church and state as that does not exist. The Constitution was started/passed in 1789, the first mention of this myth was from Jefferson to his Danbury Conn complainers in 1802, a good fifteen years AFTER the constitution was made supreme law of the land. Now in EVERY constitution that has ever been printed, it clearly states that the ONLY way to add or remove something from this document is by a little thing called a Constitutional Amendment. So if you would be so kind as to please show us exactly where and when this amendment was passed by Congress and sent out to the states for ratification and then was sent back to the Congress and they voted on it again and then it was sent to the President for his signature? I have scoured the Constitution with a microscope and even traveled to Washington DC to see the original one they have on display and at no time have I ever seen anything like you are claiming of this myth being part of the Constitution.
And please dont say the SCOTUS said it was as SCOTUS does not have the constitutional authority to add anything nor to interpret anything the original constitution says (read Article 3 powers of the Judiciary and then read the 10th Amendment which clearly says unless the Constitution SPECIFICALLY grants you an authority, then you dont have it and never will) SO you might want to rephrase your post just a little bit.
-
Michael Hunt
Once again, Daniel Gray comes in with his misunderstanding of constitutional law. You'd think after being proven incorrect so many times you'd take the hint but I guess not.
-
Daniel Gray
Once again I come in with historical FACT and not the BS that Hunt tries to pass off. And you have yet to prove me wrong on anything I have said about the Constitution. buty do keep trying and we will keep laughing at you
-
-
-
-
Keith Graham Ainsworth
I once knew a lady who was Buddhist and married to an ex Catholic priest. She was offered a teaching post in the local Catholic school. It was interesting that a traditionally conservative organisation is more progressive than a more modern church but the principal was a decent, principled man.
I, as a Buddhist man was once employed as a teacher in a Catholic school, the best school that I ever taught in. I never mentioned my belief to the students, but I have a Muslim on my arm and was often questioned about that. I was accepted by all at the school despite my different beliefs, and I would go back to the school if the opportunity arose (I'm retired now).
I fulfill all the criteria that the school in question stated, so morally, I'd be OK, but just because I don't believe what they believe, I would be rejected. That attitude is downright ridiculous because it in no way affects my ability to do the job.
-
Daniel Gray
Sorry to the ones that dont agree, but when you start work at any place you sign an employment contract, a legal and valid contract according to the US Supreme Court in "little Sisters of the Poor" so if you break that contract, then what happens after that is all up to you. No matter how you feel about it, you do not have the right to demand that people violate their religious beliefs just to make you feel better.
-
Lori-Ann Neeb
While I wouldn't want to work for backwards bigots, they should not be allowed to dictate other people's beliefs or even care what they are as Long as the person performs their job duties adequately. Yet I wonder how they would feel if I owned an restaurant that refused to serve Seventh Day Adventists because I disagree with their views?
-
Daniel Gray
dont need to get too excited as these "backword bigots" as you call them would not even consider hiring you with your attitude. So problem (at least for you) is now solved.
And if they were not preaching or disturbing other customers, you try and do this and they find out you refused to serve them because of your bigoted views, and the state and federal government would come down on you like a ton of bricks as you wold have violated at least 16 different federal laws.
-
Michael Hunt
So the religious can deny service based on their beliefs but the non-religious can't deny service based on theirs? That's quite the double standard.
-
Daniel Gray
Sorry for your d@&M luck Hunt but the 1st Amendment says yes.
-
-
Lori-Ann Neeb
I highly doubt that. Places of business Constantly post notices that they retain the right to refuse service to anyone . I bet you supported the case of the , I believe wedding photographer or close that refused to serve a guy couple. I am sure the couple were normal people behaving normally and offended no one. It wasn't like they walked in and did it on the counter or anything. Lol. Yet that person bigoted business owner refused them for no other reason than they didn't like their lifestyle. Somewhere along the way Bible thumpers acquired an entitled attitude believing they are always right and the rest of the world is wrong. For most of this country's history outdated conservative views tended to give them their way and the thumpers evolved to believe that alone gave them the right. While there are some humans evolved enough to get past that thinking, the human species as a whole has been very slow to evolve as humans. If all the inhabitants of intelligent worlds opened a school, humans would be in the remedial studies classes wearing our helmets and eating the crayons. We truly are a very , very slow learning race. Mr. Gray.
-
Daniel Gray
Sorry Hunt then you can doubt it all you want but the courts say different https://www.cnn.com/2024/05/09/us/appeals-court-catholic-school-lonnie-billard/index.html in short they sided with the school.
What you seem to ignore is the schools are protected by the 1st Amendment, the individuals are not.
-
-
-
-
Clay Serenbetz
The Seventh Day Adventists are demonstrating their hate for those who differ from them. Is that an appropriate mission for a Church? In my view, it's violates the tenants of their faith. They may do as they please, but this demonstrates their hypocrisy.
-
Russel A. Kester
Clay, the Seventh-Day Adventists are not displaying hate as you write. They are staying true to their beliefs. A church environment is very different other environments. Even business operations owned and operated by churches should enjoy these rights without government interference. It's simply not that same as a capitalist out to make a profit.
-
Clay Serenbetz
As I said the Adventists may do as they please. In my opinion, by doing so, they are only demonstrating their hypocrisy. Specifically, professing Christian love for their fellow persons, but practicing hate and division.
-
-
-
arawngraalrd
This throws the whole of Equal Opportunity into question, and it's about time. Discrimination is unprofitable, but employers and employee must be free to communicate.
-
Stacey Owens
He that is joined unto the Lord is one spirit. The Lord is not Seventh-Day-Adventists, it's not holy or of the spirit of Yahweh, but of the world. He did not create Seventh-Day-Adventists as the Kingdom of God. It is a church building or organization of the world. So, its the kingdom of Seventh-Day-Adventists and since it want to sue, they're doing it of the world and not of the spirit. Why, what's of the flesh is flesh and the flesh of them agree. Because they are Masqurading as God. They didn't go before God and trust Him in Christ by faith. They choice to go before the law of the world. The world is caranlly minded and the world will not honor the law suit. The law of the world does not honor the will of God but the world. It honors it self, because its of the flesh. For God is a Spirit and they that worship Him must worship Him in spirit and in truth. They should have bought the case before God in Christ becase they are one. Amen.
-
Rev. MichaelRS
Well because there's probably a 7-Day Adventist who needs the job to support his family as well. So I not have that be the tiebreaker between two or more candidates for the position.
Also, maybe they would prefer not to support people not only outside their Community but that may be diametrically opposed to it. Maybe they don't want to hire an atheist or a Satanist.
-
Tammy Lynn Breeden
James 4:10 God being the one true judge saying, “There is only one lawgiver and judge, he who is able to save and to destroy. But who are you to judge your neighbor?”
Matthew 7:1 Judge not, that you will not be judged.” This harkens to the idea that we should not judge others as we are not perfect and should rather focus on our own shortcomings and strive to better ourselves
Acts17:31 For he has set a day when he will judge the world with justice by the man he has appointed. He has given proof of this to everyone by raising him from the dead.”
Hebrew 9:27 Just as people are destined to die once, and after that to face judgment,
I could go on and on with these scriptures. But I think I made my point. You judge people the the Lord will judge you.
-
Mario Lisi
I agree they should have the right To stay True to there faith
-
Farajallah Michael Yazbek
It seems to me that the courts are forgetting that very document that gives them their authority to rule in these cases, especially the First Amendment To The US Constitution, which opens specifically with the words, "Congress shall make no law..." It expressly cites the abridgement of the practices of religion, which include upholding the tenets and instructions in the Gospels and epistles (letters) from the church fathers. Don't just read and cite a verse from the Bible. Instead, read the entire passage and get the entire gist of the writings, along with the context of the teachings. By doing this you'll have better materials in your heads to guide those who are seeking answers. There are similar situations for almost every malady, both mental and physical, throughout the Bible. Use the concordance and the index to find what you're looking for. You'll be a much more effective counsellor this way.
-
Steven Ferrell
The church should be able to follow their beliefs in hiring.
My question is, why do you only ever see this battle when it comes to Christianity? The muslims do the same thing in their hiring, but you never see a lawsuit against them, you NEVER see a judge rule against them.
Christian is always being so attacked.-
Rev. Dr. Father JJ
actually, kkkristinsanity is not being attacked. kkkris chins have, if you'll pardon the pun, a martyr complex. the feel anytime they are not treated with the highest of respect, they claim they're being attacked. just like you did, here.
the fact is that it's kkkrs chns that are now pushing the limits, lawsuits to SCOTUS about an issue that hadn't even happened...preemptive suing, if you will. there is a flavor of kkkrisinsanity that is looking to turn this nation into a theocracy, always trying to get "their" beliefs into public schools, kkkrs chn ideology into public buildings, into the courts, into the law. maybe that's why it "appears" that kkkrsinanity is being attacked.
but if you look, you'll see that it's a particular type of kkkrsinsanity, one that wants to make laws that limit what others can do with or to their bodies. instead of abiding by the age old maxim, MYOFB they want to make all others tow their line of beliefs, their flavor of religion instead of just living their beliefs as it affects their lives. because as soon as they try to judge, control and affect the lives of others, push back begins because while they, you and all others have the right to believe or not as you see fit, there's nothing in the Constitution that says or allows for people of one religion to supersede, or subsume, or be given superiority over others (religions or people)
And to your last, clearly you don't bother to read the news, follow along on issues of religion and religious freedom because if you HAD, you would know that JUDGES have and are ruling IN FAVOR of kkkris chn individuals and religious organizations, hobby lobby, the cake bakers, wedding venues, hiring/firing, etc etc. so clearly you are the part of the problem I started off with, one with a martyr complex and one whom everyone else should kow tow to because of your religion. It looks like it's turning your (and kkkrsinsanity's) way but the worm does and will turn.
-
-
Jamie Frost
First.. the word "transgender" is dumb...people want equality but won't just call themselves male or female like the supposedly want to be.. always mentioning they've changed genders as if it matters to anyone except their Dr and bed partner 🙄
so yeah.. they shouldn't be discriminated against.. unless a church official can stand there and look at a person in a dress and claim they are 100% biologically male and turn them away.... then also do that to any female not wearing an ankle length dress. Can't have trans males either; so no pants or shorts for any girls; I guess
Personally . I believe it's no one's business what your gender is.. if you obvious look like what you prefer not to be . I'm sorry.. but just accept others mistaking genders its not their fault... And there would be no issues if it wasn't for the crazy ones on tiktok .
-
Marisol Santiago
Well, each religious institution follows a set of beliefs and practices that are what describes that particular congregation. If a person doesn't agree or adhere to those sets of believes are they really a member of that congregation? Or should they be accept it? The answer is a big... NO! And that congregation has every right to do so. A member of a particular believe must follow those same sets of rules, beliefs or moral standards, and no religious institution should change their believes or rules to accommodate non believers. If you don't agree with a particular institution why on earth are you seaking to be part of it?
-
Katreena Kay Hayes-Wood
I have two trains of thought, first and foremost churches and religious organizations are not (and should not) be above the law! Our laws are there to protect everyone! If we need to get religious about it, I'd ask my fellow religious zealots, "What would Jesus do?" I'm pretty sure he'd welcome anyone with open arms!!
Secondly, if I'm a job seeker and an organization that has beliefs that are in opposition to mine, has a job opening, I'd hesitate to apply for a job with that company. However, if I was desperate for a job (as many folks are), I'd take the job, keep my beliefs to myself, and keep looking for something more in line with my beliefs.
-
John Casillo
Queers want to be gay and proud....so proudly go elsewhere
-
Rev. Dr. Father JJ
John Casillo Oct 16, 2024 at 09:02 am Queers want to be gay and proud....so proudly go elsewhere
Seems someone is hostile. So much for that kkkris chn love and compassion, amirit?
Be funny if one of your kids or grand kids is gay/lesbian. You gonna tell them to "...proudly go elsewhere."
-
-
Larry Chalew-Fuller
We are all Gods children, and any organization the discriminates on the physical appearance, race, creed, and who they choose to love is not abiding by the primary tenants of the Bible “ the second is this, ‘you shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no other commandment greater than these“ Mark 12:31
-
Michael S. Russell
They are a religious organization and for that fact, as much as I really hate to say it, religions have that right. NO OTHER COMPANY/ EMPLOYER SHOULD HAVE THAT OPTION. Why would you want to work for a religion that spews hatred anyway? Especially towards you?
-
Luke Jensen
Even as someone who's gay and partnered, I wholly agree with the SDA Church on this one, and I furthermore share the sentiment of many of you that the church should be able to hold its employees to whatever standards it chooses.
I read an article about an almost identical situation some years ago, this one involving a teacher at a Catholic school who claimed to have been "fired for being gay." In reality, she was fired after having entered a same-sex marriage, albeit ostensibly a civil one. Since the Church is against that practice and has every right to that belief no matter how much some others (me included) may not like it, it follows that institutions affiliated with the same Church have the right not to hire or employ those who live in a way contrary to Church teaching. In other words, continuing to employ that teacher would have created a visible conflict of interest between her own beliefs and those of the Church. No surprise there at all. In fact, the article I read seemed to imply that the teacher didn't know she would (or even might) be fired over that decision. The fault lies with the Church (for not sanctioning marriage equality), yes, but also in much greater proportion with the teacher (for evidently failing to anticipate the consequences of her actions before she married her wife).
This is a very cut and dry situation. I think the ULC, whether knowingly or not, just wants to stir the proverbial pot by inviting debate on this issue. And that's something I understand much less than any church's refusal to sanction marriage equality.
-
Russel A. Kester
Luke, nice comment. I take issue with only the last paragraph about the ULC's article on this and similar topics. These types of articles don't stir the pot, as you say, as much as they give us an opportunity to understand and react to issues in the religious world all around us concerning various beliefs. Since we ministers here hold very different beliefs it gives us a chance to here from those perspectives we might not otherwise hear from. I find great value in these experiences.
-
-
Cheryl M Saley
My litmus test is, was the position publicly posted? If so, then all public laws apply. If the position was listed in the church bulletin or a closed, members only website (hosted on a private server - I won't get into the nit of internet - public v. private) then their rules apply.
-
Alan Meunier
I don't think I know anyone who would actually qualify...
-
Kevin Venteicher
i think one should not apply unless aware of the religion practice and be fully made aware of there beliefs before one should even let them apply
-
Walter J. Holbrook
This is sad.
-
Quinn R Amaro
Is the Seventh-day Adventist church special and that they do not have obey to obey the laws? Does the Seventh-day Adventist church think they are more special than other's and can pick and choose which lawd they will and will not obey?
-
Genevieve Friday Ard
Short Comment: Matthew 22:21 “They say unto him, Caesar's. Then saith he unto them, Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's” is Jesus saying “pay your taxes”, but also its this Passage that our Founding Fathers embraced knowing, if you take Caesar’s Gold you work for Caesar and do Caesar’s bidding. The Seventh Day Adventist takes money from the Federal Government to provide Social Services to the General Public, and that includes every Minority Group they look down upon and object to. They do Lobby our Nation’s Government to extend their ‘rights’ to include Un-American illegal discrimination.
Long Explanation: I think its highly ironic and hypocritical for the Seventh Day Adventist Church, or any institution calling itself a ‘Church’ or a ‘Religious Movement’ that takes a stance ignoring their history and our history. Nearly every major Migration Wave to the New World began in Europe where it was Persecuted starting with the Spanish Moors in the 1540s. If you look at the Founding Fathers Faiths, and where their Families came from in Europe and which Religion they were practicing you see Religious Persecution in sky high flaming letters. Spanish Moors were subject to La Inquisition, the French Huguenot (French Protestant) were subject to King/Pope Charlemagne and his depraved indifference to the persecution of the Huguenot by the Bishops, Cardinals and Clergy, the Jewish people driven from Venice to Austria to Prussia to Belgium, to England to Ireland and then ‘New Zion’ in the 14th and 15th British Colonies of East and West Florida, the Pilgrims we celebrate every Thanksgiving were driven from England, and I can go on for pages, but will end here on, Indigenous Peoples who had their libraries destroyed by Europeans wholesale and punished for having a different Religious experience.
The Above is WHY when Our Forefathers built this Nation, Separation of Church and State was a Cornerstone of its birth. This is why we have ‘Freedom of Religion’ within the 1st Amendment. This was our bedrock core principle from 1776 to 1993 when George W. Bush signed into law ‘The Religious Freedom Act’ which opened a can of worms and caused a massive Continental Shift in who provides Social Services in the United States and who and how it is compensated and it has led to MAJOR ISSUES, and an age-old classic US Government BETRAYAL.
The Betrayal, originally the ‘The Religious Freedom Act’ (1993) was presented as an Act to Empower and Free Indigenous People to celebrate their Religions as per the US Constitution Guaranteed. It was promoted as a means to allow Indigenous People to celebrate their Religion by following their historic Elders by letting them legally use Marijuana, Peyote and other traditional medicines for Religious Observations, and allow them to perform Sacred Rights in historic Religious Sites to include places that are now either Federal Park, State Park, Public Lands in General and even Privately owned Indigenous Religious Sites. This was the stated original purpose put forth. Yeah, Indigenous peoples are still persecuted for those practices by the Federal DEA Agents, US and State Park Servants, and Private Individuals. Part of the Law made it a Federal Crime to interfere with Religious Ceremony and Religious Practice. I still read about how this part of the law, simple does not appear to Protect the Rights of our Indigenous Neighbors and Family. So, what does ‘The Religious Freedom Act’ (1993) do? Well, it protects mainstream Religious movements in the US, but not fringe movements or Indigenous. Then, there is the ‘Major Issues’ I alluded to, which really sounds like a Con Game. Prior to 1993 Local Social Services were often in house and part of the local government and only sometimes subcontracted out to Non-Partisan, Non-Religious Social Service Providers. Very few Churches engaged in providing much more than a meal and a place to sleep at night, with Catholic Services, Salvation Army, Hare Krishna being three of the big main stays in the Inner City being subcontracted or, as an adopted keystone of the religious movement. One part of the ‘The Religious Freedom Act’ (1993) allowed for Compensation for Churches to engage and become direct sub-contractors for Social Services and, quickly a wave of Churches stood up Social Service Providers. Prior to this, it was often uncompensated by the Federal Government. Catholic Charities used money from Parishioners, Salvation Army had funding drives like the Red Kettle at Christmas time, and Hare Krishna sent out Petitioners to beg for Alms; Prior to this Law Social Service was either Direct from Government or approved Sub-Contractor, After this Act became Law? Social Services became majorly contracted out to Church backed Charities providing Social Services. This led to an increase in costs and deep impacts within the Communities the individual Church demanded to discriminate. End Part 1
-
Nehkhemya Abey Nahkhsh
Discrimination rights for purposes of employment are not to be considered as a matter of law when the hiring agency is a religious corporation. The First Amendment right of Freedom of Religion, champions the companion-Right to Association (also found within the First Amendment, along with the peripheral-Right to Association, also protecting the same). There is no discrimination for purposes of employment where qualifications are specific, and the job description is detailed to hire persons meeting those qualifications. A Church - in a Court of Law - is falsely interpreted much the same way that a corporation does (to us, however, are greater Privileges extended: i.e., a Church has the Legal Right to Refuse Employment to anyone seeking employment not an active participant in his faith/congregation). Legally binding the right also of "Good-Will", and "Good-Will-Transference" (Which, when you get right down to it, is just as important to the survival of the Church Identity and it's ability to engage the community it serves, or raise much needed funds therefore [and, for the sake of its own general upkeep]), the Church has SERIOUS legal standing and persuading authority against claims such as this when argued the right way...
-
Daniel Gray
Wrong! using your logic then the Catholic school in Toledo would have had to keep the teacher on even after they signed an employment contract and then decided to get married to their same sex partner. federal law ruled they didnt. Same thing for employees at the Little Sisters of the Poor charities demanding they fund abortions...SCOTUS ruled they didnt have to. So sorry to bust your bubble but you cannot force someone to violate their religious beliefs just to make you happy.
-
Lori-Ann Neeb
Or save lives? Or prevent harm of any kind? Referring to rapists creating pregnancies that the victims are prevented from making their own decisions about. What rights do the victims have and what rights or penalties, if you even think rapists deserve punishment because at this point you come off as a rightfighter not even caring about that, do the rapists have?
-
Daniel Gray
what are you talking about Lori, nothing in your post has anything to do with the subject.
-
-
-
-
Patrick Castagnola
2 Corinthians 6:14–15
Do not be mismatched with unbelievers. For what partnership is there between righteousness and lawlessness? Or what fellowship is there between light and darkness? What agreement does Christ have with Beliar? Or what does a believer share with an unbeliever?
I think 2 Corinthians can explains what the church's and our responsibility is. It has to do with the church's beief, not the government! The church has the right to practice, participate, engage, OR hire without government interference.
-
Kenneth Kling
I can't imagine that a person of "different persuasion" would remotely feel welcome in such a cloistered environment. But, as soon as I say that, one would surely prove me wrong by filling out an application. The easiest way around the State Law would be to have every hire/employee sign an affirmation of Morals and Ethics stating that as condition of employment they will refrain from participating in or practicing any of the following activities: Homosexual practices” Adultery Remarriage “without biblical grounds” Premarital sex Drug use Tobacco use Alcohol use Profanity use Pornography consumption Child sex abuse
Violation of any of these conditions would be cause for immediate termination of employment. This should clear up any question of the Organization not following the applicable laws. I would have this Affirmation resigned during each Annual Performance Review. By doing so there would be no question of the Company position on the matter.
-
James Manley
If you cannot live by the standards set by the organisation then the organisation has the right to dismiss you. If the bible says it's a sin then it's a sin! Therefore it is not compatible with a church.
-
Lloyd Blackwood
Two cannot walk if they cannot agree. If your workplace vision does not align with your vision why stay at such a place. You will be unhappy, frustrate your employer and yourself.
-
Teresa Freeman
Don't matter the labeled religion, we aren't supposed to sue anyone or judge lest he be judged , No one is praying for the wisdom of God as they should ,but playing God in people's lives , first mistake
The Seventh-Day Adventist church should have the right to hire or fire employees who do not align with the church's religious beliefs. They are correct that every employee is a member of its mission and subject to its doctrines. We can disagree with the church's beliefs or doctrines but have no right as a society to force it to employ those who are not in accord with them. To do so is overreach on the part of the government..
I totally agree that the Seventh-Day Adventist church should have the right not to hire people who are not in agreement with their tenets. I don't understand why a person who didn't agree with the church's doctrine would apply for employment with them, anyway.
I agree with you especially your comment of why would anyone apply to an outfit that disagrees with your lifestyle. I think it’s mainly to stir up a hornets nest Which has a lot to do with our planets problems anyway.
I hasten to agree! Why on earth would any non-Seventh Day Adventist want to work in an openly hostile workplace? Why would any Seventh Day Adventist employer want someone who wasn’t a follower to work there? I don’t want to ever be in a place where I’m not wanted!
Because they are desperate to find a job? Because they are desperate to find a job? Why should it matter that a janitor believe everything they do? What are they afraid of?
Because they are desperate to find a job? Why should it matter that a janitor believes everything they do? What does cleaning a bathroom have to do with their religion? What are they afraid of?
You don't understand why? Because people like to eat and have a roof over their heads.. So, sometimes any job will do.