Freedom of conscience in doing one's job...

[Ignatius21]

So, having read (why, oh why?) quite an endless series of debates around Facebook, and recently also here in TAW, about Kim Davis and others who object to performing some aspect of their job because of religious convictions or reasons of conscience...I can say I'm really rather confused. For all the thought I've tried to put into it, I keep coming back to a place where I can see the points made on both sides, but taking either side to a logical finishing point results in a bad place.

On the one hand, saying "If you don't like some part of your job, just do the decent thing and resign from that job" sounds nice, but in the cases of judges, doctors, pharmacists, family counselors, adoption providers, etc. who've built their careers doing something they love and are good at--to suddenly sweep them all aside with "Sorry pal, the court says you have to issue marriage licenses based on fiction, and prescribe drugs to kill children, and adopt out babies to families you don't consider families..." seems rather tyrannical.

On the other hand, saying "Nobody should have to violate their conscience in performing their jobs" seems to run into chaos pretty quickly. How well would a society function where any given cab driver might not give you a ride, or a realtor won't sell you a house, or someone won't give you a license to operate your business because his or her particular religious or philosophical worldview says it's a no-no?

Clearly we're awash with people who see these issues as black-and-white and yell loudly about it on the Internet. Does anyone else here see the squishy middle and the shades of nuance that plague my thinking?

A few examples and hypotheticals...

Some years ago, there were news stories in various cities about Muslim cab drivers refusing to give rides to people with dogs, even when company policies accepted dogs, because they considered the dogs unclean. I don't remember how that was resolved, but conservatives on the Internet loudly yelled "This is America, don't force your Islamic views on us! Love it or leave it! If you don't like dogs, find another job!" Is this fundamentally different from someone refusing to issue a marriage license or bake a cake?

What if Kim Davis, as a born-again evangelical, decided that it violated her Christian beliefs to give marriage licenses to unequally-yoked Christians? "You're a Christian and he's an atheist...nope, go elsewhere."

What if a zealous Latin-mass Catholic baker refused to make cakes for Protestant weddings?

What if a Muslim elected official refused to issue a building permit for a pork farm?

Is there really a consistent solution to this, or must we end up either on the side of "Do whatever the government says to do" or "Abolish the government and let all of life operate in a free market?"

(And yes, both of those positions do also have their respective and very loud advocates).

 

[~Anastasia~]

I have to agree that I've looked at the positions and I see what you mean, that there can be a "middle".

Ideally you would have providers that could "specialize". The cakes are a good example. I'm sure there are any number of bakeries out there, and I'm equally sure that plenty of them are more than happy to bake a cake for a same-sex couple and take their money in payment. This really does not represent a major problem for the couple. Not really. Simply go to someone who wants to serve you, and get over the fact that not everyone agrees with your situation. Whatever do we think we are doing anyway, making laws that essentially say it's wrong to not agree with someone? That's really ridiculous at its core.

Since when is it my "right" to have everyone agree with me? There are plenty of people who don't support me being an Orthodox Christian. There are three major Christian bookstores here (who sell all sorts of things in addition to books). None of them have any Orthodox books, or music, or icons. I was looking for a thank-you card over a year ago, or a card I could write "thank you" inside of, and looked at every card in all three stores. Finally I asked at the most eclectic one if she might have a card that pictured an icon, or a saint or apostle, or Mary, or ... And the response was rather cold, that she didn't carry such things and I should probably download a picture from the internet and print my own. I ended up purchasing a set of generic cards from a drugstore with no picture. Should I have sued the stores? This logic says I should have. But no, I try to think ahead, and order from iconographers on zazzle, order books from monasteries, support those who ARE in the business, and Orthodox themselves.

But when there would seem to be no choice? I'm a teacher. And this question of teaching same-sex acceptance even to very young children IS in the public schools. I have asked a priest what I should do if I am given such a lesson to deliver. I'm still not sure whether it is the best answer, but I phrased the question to ask how can I proceed without sinning. I was told to deliver the lesson, but to do it in a factual manner - as in one might teach a lesson that says such and such a thing is a factual or historical reality, but not to offer value judgements either for or against, and not to offer my personal opinion. I'm not completely satisfied with that answer, to be honest. But perhaps it is the best one.

In the case of a county refusing to issue a permit for a pig farm, if that is the only official who may do so, that would be a legitimate complaint, not allowing a farmer to do as he wishes with his own land. If you want to respect the official's "right" not to issue it, then you MUST have another official available who can and will. If a pharmacist doesn't want to fill a prescription for an abortifactant, then you must have another pharmacist available who will. This would render some jobs unviable, in the case where only one is ever needed. The pharmacist is going to have to work at a large enough drugstore to need two pharmacists on duty, and is of less value as an employee because he cannot ever cover a lone shift.

I don't know. There ought to be a reasonable way to fix this as some sort of compromise in most cases, but it needs to be looked at in a sane case-by-case manner - something that can't be established by legislation (or at least is usually poorly done).

I don't have real answers. But I often see both sides and the middle as well.

 

[ArmyMatt]

Is there really a consistent solution to this, or must we end up either on the side of "Do whatever the government says to do" or "Abolish the government and let all of life operate in a free market?"

yep, it's called the Second Coming. until that time, these issues will always be around.

 

[gzt]

I think an important thing about the Kim Davis case is that she is the government.

 

[~Anastasia~]

I think an important thing about the Kim Davis case is that she is the government.

Which was a bit buried in my post. In her case, if it IS the local law to allow such a license to be issued, and she doesn't want to do it, then in order to keep her position and to be fair to those who wish a license they are legally entitled to, the presence of another official who could issue the license and was willing to do so should solve it for everyone.

From a legal standpoint it's no different from a Muslim official who doesn't want to issue a license for a pig farm, as the OP mentioned.

But not every job is big enough for two people. And not everything can just be shuffled over to another person.

 

[gzt]

First, the relationship you have with your employer is the most coercive relationship in your life. It really sucks. Workers do need protection from their employers. Generally, in the private sector, you should not have to choose between your principles, whether they are religious or moral convictions, and your job. The courts have generally agreed: if there is a reasonable way to accommodate an employee's good faith objections to something, an employer must do it. Termination of employment in the private sector should be a very last resort. I mean, somebody who develops moral objections to eating or preparing meat really can't continue working as a cook at McDonald's. There might be a job there they can still do.

It's a little different when you're a business providing services to people or the government providing services to people - you're the bad guy and customers need protection from you.

 

[Kristos]

yeah - I feel like I vacillate a bit on the issue depending on who is talking. Might seem like I'm wishy washy, but in reality, I think I just disagree with extreme opinions that, like you said, want to make it a black or white issue. The worst part about the whole Kim Davis affair is the ad homs - full of hate and disrepect - and that I can easily condemn.

 

[GregConstantine]

My issue and reason for posting the earlier tread had nothing to do with the actual decision made by Kim Davis. Frankly, I could care less what she decided to do. My issue was people are making her out to be a martyr and confessor of the faith when in my opinion, she is not, and I think it is inappropriate for Orthodox Christians to make her out to be a martyr or a confessor.

Again I will say She Was Not Forced. The martyrs in the early Church were forced to go against the teachings of the Church and the commandments of Christ. Kim Davis was not.

Is this distinction clear?

 

[seashale76]

I'll tell you what. Part of the reason I quit teaching was because I was being asked to promote things that went against my conscience. I'd say 95% of the time there wasn't an issue. However, there were a few incidents here and there in the last few years that I couldn't condone.

I had to sit through training/professional development where they knowingly withheld information they knew many of us would disagree with, and only presented a particular curriculum to us in a good light. What we were shown during our training was very selective and positive. Then, when we were asked to show our students a certain video series in our classrooms, I literally stood there horrified at what I saw cross the screen. It was blatantly anti-Christian in content. The state representative and our administration had deceived the teachers so they could get what they wanted out to the students.

I was very angry and upset about it. It took me a few years after that to stop feeling trapped so that I could begin transitioning to a different career. Teachers have little autonomy. Simply following a non-biased curriculum isn't enough anymore.

 

[GregConstantine]

If it was anti-christian, I would have sued them for hate speech. What was it exactly?

 

[seashale76]

If it was anti-christian, I would have sued them for hate speech. What was it exactly?

It was supposed to be an anti-bullying curriculum- but it was really just pro-gay Christian bashing, where the students in the video went on long rants about why they are no longer Christians.

 

[dzheremi]

I would think that following a non-biased curriculum is not only not enough anymore -- it's not even possible, since it doesn't exist anymore. Very sad. Instead of educating kids, they are intent on creating a new generation with the correct political and social opinions according to the media and others with power in this society.

It wasn't even so long ago that I was in school, and I remember things being quite different. There were still clubs for the support of gay people (this was long before the recent repeal of DOMA, gay marriage legal victories, etc.; when being gay actually wasn't all that hip in the small, rural town I grew up in), but they were not enveloped within a wider anti-bullying campaign that defines bullying in terms specific to gay issues more so than any others (since, again, being gay was not "in", politically-speaking). I think that's where a lot of things go wrong. Because of the environment I was raised in (very stratified racially and class-wise, though my family has both Europeans and Latinos in it, so I felt equally uncomfortable everywhere; hahaha), Hispanic people got a heck of a lot more harassment, including sometimes physical harassment, than gay people ever did. Maybe after my time in junior high/high school there was some kind of uptick in homophobic crimes or something? I don't know. I think it had more to do with events like Matthew Shepard's murder in Wyoming (many hundreds of miles away), which was at the time fresh news. I guess when something captures all the headlines, it's easy (and sensible) to not want it to happen anywhere else to any other people, and so perhaps the anti-bullying shift began to tilt toward sexual minorities and kind of forget that there are other kinds of people out there, and that not all discrimination is justified on the part of its perpetrators by religion. For instance, at my high school we had Cinco de Mayo celebrations because such a large percent of the student body was Hispanic. Well, one year (the last year that I remember having them, actually), some white students clearly not okay with this decided to drive their trucks onto school grounds, armed with baseball bats and knives and begin attacking Hispanic students as they left the celebrations and went out to their cars. Some kids fought back, many got injured in the melee, one student was stabbed and another run over by one of the trucks, etc. It was a huge mess. Now where was the "anti-bullying" crowd to come in an explain to the white students that it is not okay to attack people based on their (real or perceived) ethnic origins or heritage? Such a thing didn't exist yet, so the students indicted in the attack went to jail, because jail is where you go when you attack people. I think this is a much better system than the current "anti-bullying" campaign that seems to cast a wide net in its search for equality among students, and hence conflates Christian students' objections to glorifying certain lifestyles with actual physical attacks and the like. It is a huge, pie-in-the-sky distraction. I went to school with plenty of gay and transgender folks (as it turned out...; y'know...California and all) before any of this coordinated anti-bully stuff, and they seem no worse for the wear. If anything, they seem tougher about it than the current teens/early twenties generation, who are traumatized by the existence of people who won't agree with or validate their sexual or gender identities because frankly most of us have lived our entire lives without thinking that we were starfish, or attracted to trees, or whatever the newest, most cutting-edge gender identity politics are about.

Anyway...

Yes, OP, there are a lot of stick situations when it comes to this topic. Chances are Christians will lose out a lot of the time because our society is becoming secularized at such a rapid rate -- more rapidly than we are able to re-Christianize it, anyway. I believe the key is to work within terms that make the secularists feel as though their secular lives are being strengthened, i.e., they like the separation of church and state? Great! So do we (we don't want the most popular forms of Western Christianity in America to be calling the shots for us, do we? Just because Evangelicals agree with us that gay marriage is wrong doesn't mean that we'd be invulnerable to their finding us "unbiblical" and attempting therefore to object to various things we do, too; best not let them do it with the force of law behind them)! But we are well within our rights to advocate that it be upheld with equal rigidity on both sides -- we will not attempt to make canon law into the law of the land, and they ought not attempt to degrade the first amendment even more by constantly redefining what the proper practice of religion is. That's not the government's business, and your right to practice your faith is not to be limited to within the literal physical walls of the church building or monastery. People are right to say "Well, that doesn't mean that your cake shop is a church!" but wrong to think that this means that the committed and fair Christian business owner cannot use their legal recourse to RFRA defenses and (potentially) win cases involving businesses that are theirs in the first place.

If that means that in the future we will have to be a lot more upfront about our guiding principles in business, employment, etc., then so be it. We ought to be doing that anyway. Enough cowering and being quiet because the secularists think they have the right to define what the first amendment should mean for religions they don't even practice. I would have no problem with shopping at clearly marked Christian restaurants, bookshops, etc., because that's what I already try to do anyway. Even more so if they are owned and operated by proud Orthodox people. This is already the way it is in other countries, and it works fine, because nobody from the 'other' community gets to show up and be 'offended' that the shop that is run by Christians is (gasp!) actually run by Christians! What we have now is not like that, because lots of these "Christian" businesses are secular and functionally areligious until a gay person wants their services, and that is just ridiculous.

(Pictured: Clearly marked Christian and Muslim butcher shops in Ethiopia, side by side.)

I should note that this is essentially the same argument made by Fr. Josiah Trenham of the Antiochian Orthodox Church in one of his podcasts on the Christian response to secularist and Islamic law, in which he essentially said that our problem is that we shut up because we think we're supposed to, but we really don't have to. We really shouldn't. We should use the rights we have while we have them (in addition to trying to strengthen them and fight against popular misconceptions regarding their limits and parameters), or they will go away.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Agreed, sister. Teaching is HARD to do now if you're a Christian. It can get pathetic. I thank God I teach sixth grade, which is relatively less 'controversial' and uncomfortable than junior high and high school with their immoral nonsense.

I teach a Christian ethos in my class. I mention God's name countless times per day and say things like "the Christian thing to do would be..." without batting an eye. I teach history through a Christian lens with all my curriculum steadily building up into Christianity in the third academic trimester.

I use my ancient Greece philosophy studies to point to Christ. I use my Israel/Judaism unit to point to Christ. Even Egypt and Mesopotamia I use as building a foundation for Truth.

I refuse to teach "gaydom" in my class or any other controversial junk. If they actually enforce that Harvey Milk nonsense and the legislature's passing that law a few years back that LGBT should be taught in history curriculum, if they actually enforce that crud, I'll try to find ways around it. I'll call in sick, I'll put things off, I'll duck and maneuver. And if I get pinned down, I'll throw a fit and cite my religious rights, and try to defend myself with my union, though I'm sure with their penchant for gay stuff (my union is truly into rainbows) I won't get much help! Ultimately I'll take an early retirement before I teach kids sin.

But I totally hear your frustration. I told my own 3 kids, "if you guys want to be a teacher, I refuse to pay your college $$$. If you choose any other profession, I'll pay as much as I can!" LOL!!!!

I'll tell you what. Part of the reason I quit teaching was because I was being asked to promote things that went against my conscience. I'd say 95% of the time there wasn't an issue. However, there were a few incidents here and there in the last few years that I couldn't condone.

I had to sit through training/professional development where they knowingly withheld information they knew many of us would disagree with, and only presented a particular curriculum to us in a good light. What we were shown during our training was very selective and positive. Then, when we were asked to show our students a certain video series in our classrooms, I literally stood there horrified at what I saw cross the screen. It was blatantly anti-Christian in content. The state representative and our administration had deceived the teachers so they could get what they wanted out to the students.

I was very angry and upset about it. It took me a few years after that to stop feeling trapped so that I could begin transitioning to a different career. Teachers have little autonomy. Simply following a non-biased curriculum isn't enough anymore.

 

[Hank77]

If someone wants to teach they can teach in Christian schools or get together with other Christian teachers and start a private Christian school. Of coarse you may have to put aside denominational differences but any good Christian would do that in order to provide sound, safe, basic, Reading, Writing, Math, and History to Christian children. Would you not?
We homeschooled our youngest using a Christian School program and she is homeschooling her son with the same program.
We don't have access to any Christian schools where we live. My grandson's classes are streamed online.

Should I have sued the stores? This logic says I should have. But no, I try to think ahead, and order from iconographers on zazzle, order books from monasteries, support those who ARE in the business, and Orthodox themselves.

You wouldn't have a case to sue. No store has to provide any product they don't choose to.

Since when is it my "right" to have everyone agree with me?

It's not. No one has to agree with anyone they don't want to.

If a pharmacist doesn't want to fill a prescription for an abortifactant, then you must have another pharmacist available who will.

Not if they own their own pharmacy. They don't have to sell anything they don't want.

This would render some jobs unviable, in the case where only one is ever needed. The pharmacist is going to have to work at a large enough drugstore to need two pharmacists on duty, and is of less value as an employee because he cannot ever cover a lone shift.

This is true. When was this any different? If you worked for someone else and they sell a product and you are not willing to sell it, they could just fire you. Now they must Try to accommodate your religious beliefs, but if they can't they can't. Each case is looked at separately. So actually the new law is helpful to the employee who is a religious objector.

Which was a bit buried in my post. In her case, if it IS the local law to allow such a license to be issued, and she doesn't want to do it, then in order to keep her position and to be fair to those who wish a license they are legally entitled to, the presence of another official who could issue the license and was willing to do so should solve it for everyone.

In her case there are 6 deputy clerks who can, will, and have always been filling out, signing, and issuing licenses. Five of them are willing to issue licenses to all people. That is not the problem.
Ms. Davis doesn't want them issued to gays because her name has to be typed on the form also as county clerk, even though the deputy's name is on there as the one issuing the license.

 

[~Anastasia~]

If someone wants to teach they can teach in Christian schools or get together with other Christian teachers and start a private Christian school. Of coarse you may have to put aside denominational differences but any good Christian would do that in order to provide sound, safe, basic, Reading, Writing, Math, and History to Christian children. Would you not?
We homeschooled our youngest using a Christian School program and she is homeschooling her son with the same program.
We don't have access to any Christian schools where we live. My grandson's classes are streamed online.

That's not always as simple as you suggest. I've been teaching for years, public school, private Christian school, formed a co-OP school, homeschooled. But that might be a viable solution in some cases, and in some cases not.

You wouldn't have a case to sue. No store has to provide any product they don't choose to.

You mean like a wedding cake with a same-sex wedding message written on it?

It's not. No one has to agree with anyone they don't want to.

And in a sense that was my point. But it seems there are attempts to legislate agreement, which I contend is ridiculous.

Not if they own their own pharmacy. They don't have to sell anything they don't want.

Perhaps. But that might not be feasible. It's not always so easy. And whether or not they can choose not to provide "health care" through filling prescriptions in their business is something the courts haven't addressed. It may very well come about that the courts could decide differently. The trend appears to be heading that way in most cases.

This is true. When was this any different? If you worked for someone else and they sell a product and you are not willing to sell it, they could just fire you. Now they must Try to accommodate your religious beliefs, but if they can't they can't. Each case is looked at separately. So actually the new law is helpful to the employee who is a religious objector.

Perhaps. Time will tell.

In her case there are 6 deputy clerks who can, will, and have always been filling out, signing, and issuing licenses. Five of them are willing to issue licenses to all people. That is not the problem.
Ms. Davis doesn't want them issued to gays because her name has to be typed on the form also as county clerk, even though the deputy's name is on there as the one issuing the license.

To be honest, I have zero interest in that particular case. I was discussing generalities.

 

[Hank77]

That's not always as simple as you suggest.

I didn't mean to imply it would be simple just that it could be an option.

You mean like a wedding cake with a same-sex wedding message written on it?

No you were saying that 3 Christian book stores didn't sell the product type you were looking for.
The baker who makes wedding cakes cannot turn down anyone if they ask him/her to bake their wedding cake.
But the baker does not have to make wedding cakes at all. It just isn't a product that he sells. The Denver baker that was sued by the gay couple just stopped making wedding cakes. He makes all other cakes, cookies, etc. Just not wedding cakes. That way he doesn't have to make them for gay couples.

Perhaps. Time will tell.

Those new laws are already in place. An employer must try to accommodate the religious beliefs of their employees. Right now there is a case in court where a airline is being investigated because a Muslim stewardess just discovered her religion does not allow her to touch alcoholic products, so she refuses to deliver them to passengers. The airline has to try to accommodate her beliefs, but we will see how that one goes. Her refusal causes problems for the other steward/ess and more work for them.