A Fundie in Florida (where else?) is whining that his employer wrongly fired him for harassing his co-workers with religion.
The following excerpt was taken from an article published on http://worklifelaw.blogspot.com/2006/02/people-who-comment-on-this-blog-post.htm.
The article was posted by Disgusted Gregster. To access the post click on the link above.
Kenneth Weiss was fired from his job because he berated his co-workers with Christian fundamentalism. The U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear his sad story.
Under the guise of "practicing his religion," Weiss handed out Bibles to co-workers (including a Muslim co-worker) and told a lesbian that the Bible says homosexuality is "vile" and "unseemly." Weiss also laid his hands on ill co-workers and prayed over a malfunctioning machine (presumably to exercise the demons within the sinful machine).
Not to be a strict constructionist or anything, but I cannot find anything in Title VII that gives Mr. Weiss the right to evangelize his religion.
If I were to say that to "practice my religion" I had to rape all the women in the office, I would be rejected in a nanosecond. Some people have to understand that there are limits under the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Two questions which routinely come up in courts are, "When can government forbid something required by religion?" and "When can government require something forbidden by religion?"
Unfortunately for Mr. Weiss, causing a scene while attempting to pray for a copy machine (and thus leading to a loss of productivity in co-workers) is not a right of his under Title VII.
What is your opinion on this post?
The article was posted by Disgusted Gregster. To access the post click on the link above.
Kenneth Weiss was fired from his job because he berated his co-workers with Christian fundamentalism. The U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear his sad story.
Under the guise of "practicing his religion," Weiss handed out Bibles to co-workers (including a Muslim co-worker) and told a lesbian that the Bible says homosexuality is "vile" and "unseemly." Weiss also laid his hands on ill co-workers and prayed over a malfunctioning machine (presumably to exercise the demons within the sinful machine).
Not to be a strict constructionist or anything, but I cannot find anything in Title VII that gives Mr. Weiss the right to evangelize his religion.
If I were to say that to "practice my religion" I had to rape all the women in the office, I would be rejected in a nanosecond. Some people have to understand that there are limits under the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Two questions which routinely come up in courts are, "When can government forbid something required by religion?" and "When can government require something forbidden by religion?"
Unfortunately for Mr. Weiss, causing a scene while attempting to pray for a copy machine (and thus leading to a loss of productivity in co-workers) is not a right of his under Title VII.
What is your opinion on this post?
posted by Anonymous at
8:40 PM
1 Comments:
I have a number of "thoughts" on the post to which you refer, but I'll limit them to these:
1. This case is from 2001 and I'm having trouble finding much of anything about it. Quick searches of legal databases left me empty handed. So, while I don't like to take facts presented in a post like Disgusted Gregster's at face value, I don't have much choice.
2. Disgusted Gregster clearly has an axe to grind here. The site is polemical to the extreme. So, some of his claims (including the title Lauren cribs) should be taken with a grain of salt ( . . . and may well be intended to be taken that way).
3. He makes the common mistake of mixing Title VII's religious accommodation requirements with the Constitution's Free Exercise Clause. I don't mean to suggest that they're altogether unrelated; it's just important to remember they're not the same and the contexts in which they apply and the legal standards implicated in each are distinct.
4. Gregster's analogy to his fake religious beliefs (rape) are inapt, because he doesn't sincerely believe them. Thus, to make a claim of accommodation based on them is not the same as Mr. Weiss making a claim for accommodation based on his beliefs (assuming Mr. Weiss sincerely adheres to the beliefs and practices he claimed). At any rate, it appears that Mr. Weiss's claims met the same fate as would Gregster's, so it's unclear why Gregster is in a lather.
5. It's important to remember, as we'll study in more depth after spring break, that Title VII does define religion as including sincerely held beliefs, practices, and observances, which an employer must accommodate so long as the accommodation would not cause the employer an undue hardship on the operation of its business. Gregster seems to think the hardship here is a no-brainer. If that's the case, then the employer is wholly protected by the defense set out in Title VII. So, if Gregster is correct, Title VII is diong its job, the courts are doing their jobs, and Weiss loses.
6. These religious expression cases are difficult and the courts do struggle to deal with them. Rumor has it that a certain professor you know has a law journal article in press, which offers a new analytical framework for the courts to use when addressing just this type of claim. Stay tuned for further details . . .
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home