Friday, April 17, 2015
Monday, April 13, 2015
In 2013 Cochran self-published a book titled, "Who Told You That You Were Naked?" The book is written from a Christian perspective and reflects on a variety of topics including the very controversial and relevant topics of homosexuality and lesbianism. In the book Cochran strongly criticizes same sex relations. He goes so far as to characterize them as "sexual perversion" and "vulgar" and also compares them to "beastality" and "pederastry."Cochran handed out copies of this book in the workplace to fellow employees. An AFRD member complained to a member of the city council that a book containing such religious and offensive material was being distributed in the workplace.
Cochran was originally suspended without pay due to violation of city policy. City officials say Cochran violated city policy by distributing a self published book to employees at the workplace. Mayor Reed claims that Cochran was dismissed not because of his religious beliefs but, "because he displayed bad judgement," and did not follow correct protocol. According to the city code of ethics Mr. Cochran was required to get permission from the board of ethics before engaging in any activity privately for profit. This part of the case is suspect in the sense that Cochran claims "he was authorized during a 5 minute phone conversation with Hickson (ethics officer)." Hickson denies the claim and claims she has no memory of the call nor does she have the authority to approve his proposal.
Cochran and his legal counsel feel as though he was not terminated due to his "bad judgement" or lack of compliance with protocol, but because of his devout Christian perspectives on same sex relations reflected in his book. Attorneys say, "the devout Christian was targeted by the city simply for espousing his biblical views on sex."
ADF Senior Counsel David Cortman said,"In America a religious or ideological test can not be used to fire a public servant. That's precisely what the city did." The first amendment protects a public servant's right to distribute religious material at work to those willing to receive them. The salient constitutional issue regarding Kelvin Cochran's termination is that it represents a hostility towards religion and discrimination based on religious perspective on same sex relations. Cochran's counsel highlights that the city is being hypocritical in terminating him for being intolerant of other lifestyles, but then being intolerant of his first amendment right to practice and express his religion without discrimination or threat of termination. Cochran told a news outlet that he believes, "his dismissal is symbolic of growing threat on religious freedoms facing Christians and other people of faith around the nation."
I feel as though termination on the grounds of violation of policy or for breaking the code of ethics guidelines is certainly justified. It is unclear due to the conflicting opinions of Mr. Cochran and Mrs. Hickson, whether or not Cochran violated that protocol. However any termination based on Kelvin Cochran's religious perspective reflected in his privately funded and self published book is unconstitutional.
Although I personally do not agree with the views expressed in Mr. Cochran's book, I acknowledge that the first amendment protects his right to express them. As often mentioned in class, no one has the right to not be offended. It is shame that a member of the AFRD felt uncomfortable with the content and presence of the books at the workplace, but Kelvin Cochran was within his rights to distribute them and express his view. Mr. Cochran was essentially terminated because the state did not support the views expressed in his book. This shows both discrimination and hostility towards the Christian religion and is unacceptable. I understand that there is a compelling state interest to have leading public figures be tolerant due to their presence in the public sphere, but there is no evidence that this personal belief has led to any on job discrimination or problem with Cochran's work. I understand that if he wrote in the book saying that he wouldn't save a homosexual from a burning building that is different, but Cochran should be able to have a religious stance, regardless of its popularity amongst the city council, and be able to express that outside his role as fire chief and as his role as a citizen of the United States, protected by the first amendment. I think there are some ties between this case and the situation with California judges that must remove themselves from involvement with Boy Scouts groups. California judges can't be leaders of Boy Scout groups due to the Boy Scouts exclusion of gay group leaders and their religious stance on homosexuality. Again I disagree with any LGBTQ discriminatory policy, but I think it is also wrong to disallow the judges from being apart of a group outside their realm of work, they are public figures and therefore all of their actions are put under a microscope, however, they should have the freedom to be citizens outside of their profession and participate freely in such a group. By the same reasoning Kelvin Cochran should be able to write a book containing Christian perspectives without the fear of termination. This case causes the issue of hostility towards religion and now other public servants, police offers, military officers will be living in fear of termination if they express their religious beliefs openly.
What do you think? Was Cochran rightfully terminated? Read the article here.
Sunday, April 12, 2015
Original Article:http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/instagraphs/washington-nationals-sued-for-religious-discrimination/
Throughout the 2013 baseball season, three men of the 7th Day Adventists church were permitted to avoid working games that were on Friday nights, and Saturday days, citing those times as being ones designated for religious purpose under their religion. However, at the end of the season, the Nationals decided to fire the employees because their religion required an accommodation.
The three employees have filed a religious suit against the team citing religious discrimination, and are seeking damages as well as back pay for time missed due to their termination. All three of the defendants are DC residents who had been given significant praise by their supervisors, and were regarded well within the community as efficient and effective ushers. The suit further claims that the team had began reassigning its ushers, and scheduling more games during the sabbath time of observance for the three men. According to the 7th Day Adventist church, the sabbath is supposed to be observed from sundown Friday until sundown Saturday. The Nationals fired the ushers on the grounds that their religious observance prevented them from working the minimum 80% of the teams games.
Under the Civil Rights Act of 1964, employers are generally forbidden from discriminating against an employee based on religion, and must accommodate the employee should their sabbath observance come in conflict with their work schedule. Exceptions to the rule come into play when the employer experiences some form of 'undue hardship'. This qualifies as excessive expenditure by the employer, or requiring other employees to overcompensate for those who are in observance. While there are potential legitimate cases that could be made regarding undue hardship, it is unlikely that the Nationals will allow this to go to court, and a settlement is sure to come.
In regards to free exercise, I understand the position that the 7th Day Adventists find themselves in. The three ushers are obligated by their religion to be in observance. However, I find myself siding with the Nationals in their termination of the ushers. The inability to work Fridays and Saturdays at a baseball stadium is, in my opinion, a sense of undue hardship. These are key nights in baseball, where there will be the most attendance, and the highest necessity for reliable employees. If the organization cannot rely on these ushers to work these key time slots, I am sure there are other people more then willing to show up on time and work those shifts. It is an unfortunate circumstance where religion crosses over into the workplace, however, I think it is most efficient for the organization to have consistent employees. In this case, they will be able to find those employees, who are not in need of such accommodations.
What do you think? Constitutionally, this is a grey area, as I interpret the Civil Rights Act of 1964, however, you may have another opinion. Is there a case to be made for undue hardship? or is the organization blatantly exhibiting religious discrimination?
Jennette Martonosi has recently become outraged due to an assignment that was given to her Tenth Grade high school daughter. Her daughter, a student at Jenison High School in Michigan, was instructed to create a pamphlet regarding Islam. Part of the instructions that were given with the assignment were that in should be comprehensible enough to be able to "introduce Islam to 3rd graders." The project was assigned in the student's World History Class. The thinking behind the teacher was that in order to understand historic and current events around the world, students should have a full picture regarding other country's religion and culture- which unlike America are often times inseparable.
Outraged by the content of the assignment, Martonosi decided to make her concerns public on Facebook. Her concerns with the project were that she felt as though the assignment was promoting Islam over other world religions. Additionally, she was offended that it claimed that "Allah [is] the same God of the Christians and Jews." (A statement which I will not take to touch up on in this post).
In response to Martonosi's post, principal Brandon Graham also took to Facebook. Clarifying some of the misunderstandings, Graham ensured the concerned parents that these pamphelts were, and never were intended to be, distributed to Third Grade students. Furthermore, Islam is one of five major religions which are part of the Jenison Public Schools; curriculum. "The religions include Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism, and Islam." That being said, in an additional post, Martonosi argued that, "Islam was the ONLY religion of the 4 studied so far that was given the assignment to create a pamphlet."
The question here is whether or not the First Amendment Establishment clause has been violated by promoting Islam over other religions. I do not believe that by assigning a pamphlet during the Islam section of the course promotes one particular religion over another. It simply is a way of "stirring" things up in the course in order to keep the students engaged rather than allowing the class to become mundane. If we view this issue from an accommodationist approach, than the fact that the curriculum is incorporating the five major religions- Judaism, Christianity, Hinduism, Buddhism and Islam- than the school is appropriately acting with neutrality (granted that some minor religions do not play such an impacting role in a course discussing World History and therefore can be reasonably excluded without acting discriminatory towards them).
In is in my opinion, however, that the assignment has violated the First Amendment. The subject is World History, and although it is important to understand the role which the five major religions play in that subject, students should not be forced to do assignments which are directly engaging with the religions in particular. For a secular purpose of understanding World History, world politics, etc, incorporation of these religions into the material does not violate the First Amendment. However, an assignment geared specifically at addressing the world religions outside of World History is no longer secular but advancing religious purpose.
