Religious bias gets OK in state job ads

[modrepub]

PITTSBURGH - A Christian college in Western Pennsylvania and a faith-based coalition can use a state-sponsored job site specifically to hire Christians, according to the settlement of a religious discrimination suit.

Attorneys for Geneva College in Beaver Falls and the Association of Faith-Based Organizations, a coalition in Springfield, Va., filed the federal suit over Pennsylvania's online CareerLink job-listing site in December. The state and federal governments were named as defendants.

The plaintiffs argued they were wrongly denied use of the employment service, which includes an Internet service called CareerLink. The service has a nondiscrimination policy barring job postings that require applicants to have particular religious backgrounds.

"The right of a religious organization to align itself with individuals of shared belief is as central to that organization's mission as other viewpoints are to nonreligious organizations," said Timothy J. Tracy, an attorney for the Christian Legal Society, which filed the suit along with the Alliance Defense Fund.

<snip>

link: http://www.philly.com/inquirer/local/pa/20070430_Religious_bias_OK_in_job_ads.html

[GeorgeGist]

1. Full-circle ...

jerk.

[BR_Parkway]

2. The the Wiccans and Muslims should start posting ads - lets see

how long THAT would be allowed.

[TechBear_Seattle]

3. Such businesses would be shut down by the Talibangelicals

The very existence of Wiccans and Muslims is proof that Christans are being discriminated against. The Christian faith, after all, requires that non-believers be converted or put to death; anything that prevents either is anti-Christian bigotry.

:sarcasm: (as if it was necessary)

[sneakythomas]

4. I may get in trouble for saying this

but I don't have a problem with some groups setting employment standards. There has been a long-standing religious exception to hiring, as alluded to earlier it keeps wiccans from being required to hire fundamentalist christians. It also means a bunch of straights can't take over a GLBT organization and declaring gays sinful or some stupid thing.

[cosmik debris]

6. You seem to be saying that the free exercise clause

grants permission to violate the equal protection clause. Is that your belief?

[sneakythomas]

8. What part of the equal protection law is being violated?

As I see it, if all religious organizations have equal access to public facilities then no religion is being favored or discriminated against.

Can an organization of atheists which requires that one be an atheist to work there, use this? I would think they could.

[cosmik debris]

9. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of l964

"Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of l964 prohibits employers from discriminating against individuals because of their religion in hiring, firing, and other terms and conditions of employment. Title VII covers employers with 15 or more employees, including state and local governments. It also applies to employment agencies and to labor organizations, as well as to the federal government."

http://www.eeoc.gov/types/religion.html

"Employers may not treat employees or applicants more or less favorably because of their religious beliefs or practices - except to the extent a religious accommodation is warranted. For example, an employer may not refuse to hire individuals of a certain religion, may not impose stricter promotion requirements for persons of a certain religion, and may not impose more or different work requirements on an employee because of that employee's religious beliefs or practices."

You seem to be saying that this is superseded by the free exercise clause? But the Constitution also calls for equal protection under the law--as in Title VII.

[sneakythomas]

10. Your own post cites the exception I'm talking about

"Employers may not treat employees or applicants more or less favorably because of their religious beliefs or practices - except to the extent a religious accommodation is warranted"

If you're running a religious organization, such as a church, you're allowed to hire only members of your organization. That's what we're talking about here (unless I missed something). I don't think this is a bad thing. Should NARAL be required to hire a pro-life fundamentalist?

[cosmik debris]

11. Accommodation is for employee's religious belief

Not allowing employers to discriminate.

And example of accommodation is allowing Jewish employees to take Jewish holidays off while Christians are allowed to take Christian holidays off.

You seem to be saying (several times now) that Title VII has been amended to exempt religious organizations. Can you supply me with some documentation of that?

[sneakythomas]

12. Title VII

As far as I know this is the document as written

http://www.eeoc.gov/policy/vii.html

EXEMPTION

SEC. 2000e-1.

(a) This subchapter shall not apply to an employer with respect
to the employment of aliens outside any State, or to a religious
corporation, association, educational institution, or society with respect
to the employment of individuals of a particular religion to perform work
connected with the carrying on by such corporation, association,
educational institution, or society of its activities.

[cosmik debris]

13. Thank you. n/t

[kiahzero]

14. You are correct.

Thing is, the government has no obligation to treat employers that qualify for that exception equitably. Under current Free Exercise jurisprudence, so long as a law is neutral and of general applicability, it can place restrictions on the exercise of religious beliefs. Thus, a blanket ban on religious discrimination in order to use the service would be constitutionally valid.

Quite frankly, I'm a bit perplexed what the claim was in this case.

[sneakythomas]

15. If I understand it

They seem to be claiming that they are restricted because they are religious. If ALL religions are restricted (because of the Title VII exemption) then they don't have a case.

To add a personal opinion I think that lawyers and religious fundamentalists are a doubly bad combination.

[kiahzero]

16. I'm a law student, thanks.

The thing is, it wouldn't matter if they were being restricted from practicing their religion because they can't use the service to discriminate on the basis of religion. Because the bar on religious discrimination is generally applicable, it falls under "rational basis" scrutiny, which it would pass.

It's really hard to figure out what's going on here without seeing what the claim was... there must have been something valid, otherwise they wouldn't have settled, but I can't for the life of me come up with anything.

[BillE]

17. Their right to hire people of their faith is not being disputed,

What is being disputed is using state (tax payers) money to discriminate, by using a state sponsored site, that is exactly what they are doing.

[Orrex]

5. Attorney Tracy gets it exactly wrong

"The right of a religious organization to align itself with individuals of shared belief is as central to that organization's mission as other viewpoints are to nonreligious organizations," said Timothy J. Tracy, an attorney for the Christian Legal Society, which filed the suit along with the Alliance Defense Fund.

The way I read it, the underlying issue isn't whether or not a religious entity can choose to hire only members of that religious group; at issue is whether or not that entity can use state funds to facilitate that (justifiably) discriminatory hiring practice.

To that end, it seems self-evidently unconstitutional for a religious entity to use state funds to aid in its discrimination.

[TechBear_Seattle]

7. But these are CHRISTIANS! Normal laws do not apply to them

Any effort to hold Christians to the law is de facto a matter of religious discrimination and persecution, doncha know. Don't just take my word for it, ask the Talibangelicals.