In light of speeches on religious freedom coming from top church leaders, and concerns expressed by family and other church members locally here in Britain recently, I wanted to take a brief look at this topic. Here, at least, I don’t think the rhetoric from the top is helpful.
In Britain we have the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC), and as part of Europe are also subject to the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR). The latter sometimes comes in for some bad press nationally, but on the topic of religion at least, that would appear to be undeserved.
Following last weeks post by Mormon Heretic, I thought it would be interesting to take a look at the workplace. Back in 2013 and updated in 2014 the EHRC produced guidance on the topic of religion and belief in the workplace. The first “Religion or Belief in the Workplace: An Explanation of Recent European Court of Human Rights Judgments” and the second “Religion or Belief in the Workplace: A Guide for Employers Following Recent European Court of Human Rights Judgments”.
I want to highlight this section from the first document:
“Until recently, the European Court of Human Rights and our domestic courts tended to take the view that a practice was protected under Article 9 only if it was required by the particular religion or belief. The new judgment confirms that a practice or manifestation motivated, influenced or inspired by religion or belief, and which is sufficiently linked to the religion or belief will be protected, regardless of whether it is a mandatory requirement of the religion or belief.
…
“The new judgment means that the courts cannot simply dismiss a case because of the possibility of changing jobs to other employment that allows the religious observance. Instead, this possibility should be a relevant factor, to be weighed amongst others, when considering whether or not the restriction is proportionate.
“The judgment means that courts will now give more attention to deciding whether restrictions on religious rights in the workplace are appropriate and necessary.”
That looks like a strengthening of protections to me, not a loss of privileges.
The summer before starting university, I took a job at the local hospital as a cleaner, specifically cleaning student nurse accommodation. We had to wear a uniform. That uniform was a knee length dress. It was made clear to us at that time that no exceptions were made for those who for religious reasons had to wear trousers, or otherwise cover their legs. None at all. Yet the city I lived in had and has a relatively large Muslim population. Employers would be expected to make accommodations now, given there is absolutely no pressing reason why a cleaner should not wear trousers. From the employers guide:
“The judgment affects employer responsibilities for policies and practices affecting religion or belief rights in the workplace, the rights of employees (including job applicants) and the rights of customers or service users.”
…
“An employer should take all requests seriously and should not make assumptions about the significance of a religion or belief, or disregard a request because it is made by only one employee. Even those who have the same religion may not share the same beliefs or practices.
“Employers are encouraged to take as their starting-point consideration as to how to accommodate the request unless there are cogent or compelling reasons not to do so, assessing the impact of the change on other employees, the operation of the business and other factors…”
It seems to me that because more cases are coming to court as opposed to simply being accepted as the way things are, it can look as though religion is under attack. In reality the cases cited were brought because people expect more freedom than had hitherto been given, and since then are being contested because things have improved, and there is room in law to contest.
Obviously, in a pluralist society, it is necessary to balance competing interests. The documents discuss this. It looks to me that the ECHR tries very hard to be fair in enabling a harmonious society.
From the first document:
“…since April 2011, section 149 of the Equality Act 2010 requires public authorities when exercising their functions to give due regard to eliminating prohibited conduct, advancing equality of opportunity and fostering good relations. These positive obligations, commonly known as the public sector equality duty, cover eight protected characteristics including religion or belief.”
It can frequently appear that those advocating loudest for freedom of religion, are interested only in freedom for their religion, and demonstrate little respect for the freedoms of those with whom they disagree. Surely that’s only going to give religion a bad name.
“There should be room for all good-faith views in the public square, be they secular, religious, or a mixture of the two. When expressed sincerely and without sanctimoniousness, the religious voice adds much to the text and tenor of public debate.”
So far so good, and I especially appreciated that mention of secular views. All too often respect for those of no religion seems to fall by the way.
Given the recent changes in law in Europe, and the treatment of heretics throughout history, I don’t see “recent evidences of a narrowing definition of religious expression” or the “current public and legal climate of mounting threats to religious freedom” Elder Oaks also describes. On the contrary. In my view ramping up the ‘at risk’ rhetoric in the face of increased protections can only irritate those who are being asked to make more accommodations for religion and belief.
- What do you make of all the talk about religious freedom?
- Do those of a traditionally majority religion sometimes feel threatened by those of minority religions, now given equal protection?
- How does the legal position in the US differ to that in Britain?
Discuss.
Wheat & Tares 
The thrusting of the US Church view on Religious Freedom via Elder Oaks et al, to the rest of world is a result of the historic tangle that exists in US of Church and State . The issue for most of the rest of us non US is that it is projected as a problem that must be addressed even it it doesn’t exist.
Sorry for the, so far, purely Australian perspective on this post….but I shall continue.
The litigious nature of the USA culture also plays into this. Wanting and/or needing the government to wade into every aspect of life when something goes wrong produces the type of blurring of the lines between religion and state that we see in such countries.
The LDS commentary on religious freedom to me, has got to a point where I feel like Pavlovs dogs. Except I’m about to throw up.
This article is so offensive and misguided.
The bretheren are telling us there is a distant problem coming to them and us as members in the future and posts like this fall under a “blame the victim for complaining the loudest” catagory. Why not step out of the closed minded bubble of telling us they cant complain and have some sympathy for the bretheren and find out what they are complaing about instead of just saying that it all looks good from your point of view.
Disgusting blame the victim post from begining to end.
Ron:”Why not step out of the closed minded bubble…”
That’s what I’m asking, how are things different in the US?
I’m not asking them not to complain. I would like them to be more specific in who or where they are calling out. Members here hear what our leaders say often totally devoid of the context in which they are said, and that’s a problem. They frequently seem to be speaking in a US bubble. And from the way they speak it doesn’t come across as sounding like a “distant problem”.
I do think it’s a legitimate concern when I see members in this country becoming belligerent/militant on the topic of religious freedom (and in the process showing little regard for the freedoms of others), when so far as I can see it looks as though religious freedoms in western Europe have never been greater. I think it would behoove us to recognise that.
Kangaroo, LDS Aussie, thanks for the comments. Glad I’m not the only one…
In much of western Europe we don’t have separation of Church and state of course, yet things seem so much more amicable.
Ron – rather an aggressive response. Where is that coming from. Sounds like there’s more to your position than you are saying..??
Hedgehog – it is difficult for some people in the church (the USA version) to believe that issues raised by the leadership don’t always actually apply to the entire world. I believe that’s what Kangaroo was alluding to.
It’s called ( by me) the “Wihirlpool Principle” starts at one small point but then spreads to a large area…my experience is that it is very difficult for many , particularly in the a Church and more so in the west and beyond but not only( we too have a few myopic people) to appreciate NOT all people in the world think the same nor do governments nor do societies view issues with the same weight or perspective.. Yep it’s true…..and it’s a threat for some and so liberating for other……try it.
The entire “religious freedom is under attack” mantra has me scratching my head as of late. I live in the US nowhere near Utah, but I don’t feel that in my daily lived experience that I am persecuted.
But then I look at a very close relative that lives in Utah county and he decided that the church was not for him and just wanted to stop attending. No bashing of the church or trying get others to leave. Just quietly stopped attending. Once he mentioned to a friend he really didn’t believe in the church, he was let go after decades of raising up the ranks of his company. It is hard to see this anything other than a lack of religious freedom. “You have to belong to church X or you will lose your job” just seems like something more akin to some European countries a few hundred years ago. Maybe I am just overly sensitive after seeing how much this hurt my relative and split his family.
“ramping up the ‘at risk’ rhetoric in the face of increased protections can only irritate those who are being asked to make more accommodations” I agree with this. You can’t be an ungracious winner.
As an American with global experience, I have to agree that this rhetoric bears no resemblance to life outside the US. It is largely due to the litigious nature of American culture. We immediately think legal position and lawsuit rather than government redress, infrastructure and pluralism in society.
As a politically independent American, I also observe that this so-called issue is largely a Fox News fiction. Those on the right see erosion of privilege as a threat to their freedom. The privilege they want to protect is the right to say and do whatever they please without regard to protected minority classes. That’s my opinion.
Happy Hubby, your relative’s treatment is illegal. Anti-discrimination laws prevent being fired for religious reasons. If that’s what really happened, he should sue for wrongful termination.
#9 – Have you considered that your friend’s dismissal could be a mere coincidence, or related to factors having nothing to do with his change in religious preference? Were this ‘friend’ to have proof that his dismissal was the result of religious discrimination, he’d find no shortage of attorneys in “Yew-Tah”, many very faithful Latter-Day Saints themselves, who would eagerly take his case.
This is the trouble with this manner of railing accusation against the collective character of Latter-Day Saints. While there’s certainly no shortage of glaring shortcomings and outright hypocrisy among the Saints, of which we’re reminded of semi-annually in General Conference, once again, no specifics, no evidence presented. As for your friends “religious freedom”…while I uphold what is the law as currently interpreted and enforced (e.g., he shouldn’t have lost his job just b/c he longer adhered to the tenets of Mormonism), in principle, as long as that company is PRIVATE (and not doing business with the public wherein affirmative non-discrimination in employment practices is part and parcel with Government contracts), they ought to be able to hire and/or fire on whatever basis they deem fit, capricious and/or silly it might seem to be. Of course, conversely, no one ought to be forced to do business with companies and/or persons whose conducts and expressed opinions we find distaste and odious. It’s called freedom of association, and it cuts BOTH ways.
I’ve not been impressed with the whole religious freedom discussion. I realize it is, in many ways, a preemptive strike that prevents Churches from having to have anything to do with Gay marriage if they choose not to.
Other than that, I am not sure what the end goal is. If it is to allow people to legally discriminate, It is an unworthy goal. Because where do you draw the line? Because we have a rich history of discrimination based on religious views which have been totally discredited. It seems odd that we would now trip backward over a different, yet equal set of religious views.
We live in a secular society. We need to learn to live with it.
A Happy Hubby – that’s interesting. I would hope the way your relative was treated is illegal. Hawkgrrrl says it is, so that’s a good thing.
Hawkgrrrl – “Those on the right see erosion of privilege as a threat to their freedom. The privilege they want to protect is the right to say and do whatever they please without regard to protected minority classes.”
That would fit with my observation of the complaints that I hear. Often along the lines “and now we can’t say what we believe…”. Really? Plenty of people seem to be saying exactly what they believe, even as they’re complaining they can’t. What is more the linked documents include provision for the sharing of belief in the workplace, with a proviso that the other party are happy to listen, and that it shouldn’t become harassment, and noting extra care should be taken where there is a power imbalance.
Douglas, not everyone wants to face the stress of a court case. It would be nice if LDS employers behaved better (assuming A Happy Hubby’s assessment is correct). From your second paragraph I take it you wouldn’t want the level of protection in law for religion that we enjoy in Britain?
Jeff “I realize it is, in many ways, a preemptive strike that prevents Churches from having to have anything to do with Gay marriage if they choose not to.”
Possibly. I’ve wondered that myself. But it does seem over the top.
I found Elder Rasband’s address to BYU students this week to be thought-provoking. His theoretical examples in the beginning rang very true to me.
http://www.byutv.org/watch/e6dde3a9-515a-4563-b8fe-b6e2ee892196/byu-devotional-address-elder-ronald-a-rasband-91515
And it was interesting that he spent a full minute of the talk explaining that he was there in his role of working with the Public Affairs committee.
I would have a different take on this if the ousting of Brendan Eich from Mozilla had not happened. Many people I know, even some who support gay marriage, found that to be a very chilling event, a sad commentary on the failure of tolerance for other views.
Thanks for highlighting that speech Naismith. I wasn’t aware of it. Waiting for the transcript to read in full (https://speeches.byu.edu/talks/ronald-a-rasband_religious-freedom-and-fairness-for-all/) once it becomes available. As reported it does seem to be the most usefully specific address, in what is meant, and I certainly like what I see as an emphasis on fairness as the speech is reported.
Thanks also for highlighting Brendan Eich and Mozilla.
I’ve been a Rasband fan in the past, but I found his theoretical examples to be unequivalent and more or less ridiculous. How can he (with a straight face) equate the systematic discrimination in which a gay man is subjected to a hostile work environment then subsequently fired with a straight woman who evangelizes at work and then feels like people don’t like her so she quits?
Social skills matter in the workplace. Bad manners and intolerance are not a protected class.
I suppose, in the ultimate irony, religious people now feel as persecuted as the religions have made others feel for thousands of years.
It seems if I read it correctly that Brendan Eich also chose to step down.
So, hawkgrrrl, the cynical view would be that this is an all out attempt to get the millennials on board. Praise them for their compassion etc., tell how much the church needs it (which is true), emphasise the importance of fairness (a concept appealing to them), and then present the two cases as equivalent in some kind of sleight of hand….
I think I really need to wait for the transcript to give it a fair assessment.
It all depends on where you live and what your particular government has legislated and how effectively that government can enforce that legislation on your local level.
I live in a(non-USA)country where various members of the church have had to deal with government blacklisting and job loss because their local political officials, who have the power to effectuate that sort of thing, believe that Christian religious affiliation is a threat to society and the government.
Other examples? Google “Islamic Dress in Europe” or “Anti-semitism in Malmo” to read about struggles for freedom of Islamic and Jewish religious expression there. Or the “Hinduisation of India” that has created huge public debates about government involvement in religious legislation in the past decade there to the great dismay of the Muslim minority.
The United States Commission on Religious Freedom, a independent, bipartisan U.S. federal government commission that has some of the brightest minds on the subject that I have ever met, recently updated their list of countries where religious freedom is particularly threatened (where I live is on that list). A number of them are ones that I know have LDS congregations living therein, for example: Central African Republic, Cyprus, Nigeria, Pakistan, Vietnam, China, Cuba, India, Indonesia, Malaysia, Russia, Sri Lanka, and Turkey.
And that’s not mentioning the dozen or so other countries on that list where there are no official LDS congregations that I’m aware of who are in a position to respond.
So though you may feel that where you live there is no current threat to religious freedom or that religious freedom is actually increasing I reject the idea that this idea of threat to religious freedom is JUST a United States issue. It’s a real and ongoing issue that is being addressed where I live. And it is an ongoing challenge in a number of other countries and communities where our fellow saints live too.
Hedgehog – yes, when seen in your “cynical” light or not, that is the objective for sure. I don’t think it’s cynical, though. I really think Rasband thinks the two things are equivalent. Most of the 70 and apostles don’t seem to understand anti-discrimination and protected status law suits, but these are also the same sources giving BYU students the terrible advice to shun, fear, or harass members of the opposite sex even in working situations, another bit of advice that is destined to curtail their careers.
Miriam, yes there are restrictions on religious freedom in the countries you mention, particularly the communist and Muslim countries. I’ve been in a number of those countries, and can agree with you. While we should continue to work to open other countries to freedom of religion, that’s not at all the dialogue coming out of the newsroom. This is all about opposing gay marriage and not being labelled a bigot, a US issue.
Miriam, thank you for raising the issue of religious freedoms globally. I would tend to echo hawkgrrrl, in that that doesn’t seem to be what is emphasised in what we hear from Salt Lake. I wish it were. I think I’d be seeing an altogether different response from members locally in that case.
Many of the countries you mention have other issues with freedom, in addition to religious freedom, so seeing religious and LGBT folk as both being on the side of freedom is a welcome development overall (despite my cynical interpretation above), though still a way to go.
Religious dress in France got some discussion in this post (http://www.wheatandtares.org/14595/advocacy-activism-for-women-in-religion-a-wider-view/). For sure France seems to take a slightly different approach to the rest of Europe on that particular issue. Anti-semitic fascist groups have also been a problem in places, but that doesn’t mean there’s no legal redress for their actions.
There is assumption in Elder Rathbrands talk that he is defending Gods will with regard to Gay marriage. Is anyone questioning this at head office? If you take what he says and change it to racism, you understand why no end of calm fair advocacy will get you far.
The leadership seem to be painting themselves into a corner, and then claiming they don’t have freedom there.
I agree with the title of the blog, some religious people are being offensive, and intolerant and then claiming to be the victims, and that does not help the cause of religious freedom. As a foreigner the main people I see doing this are church leaders.
Taking this BYU talk as part of a push, and Bruce Haffens article in the Ensign as part of it also, the leaders are assuming that it will remain socially acceptable to be ant gay, and not become socially unacceptable like racism has.
My uncharitable summary of Haffens article is – We need more racism, sexism, child abuse, and homophobia, like we had in the 1960, so us good old white boys don’t feel out of place in our own country. Do we want to defend such a message, it attacks so many.
I think the church should be looking in the mirror, and asking whether the problem isn’t bigotry that’s being questioned, rather than freedom attacked. Are there introverts there?
Agree with the others that the religious freedom angle here in Utah is very much associated with LGBT issues. If the global religious freedom issues that Miriam highlighted were being addressed by the brethren, I’d have a much easier time with the rhetoric. If this really is supposed to be about global issues, though, then my suburban Salt Lake ward hasn’t got the memo. Our religious freedom is being threatened by society’s acceptance of nontraditional families, and the government attempting to force us to also show approval for these nontraditional families or to suffer consequences. That’s the message I’ve been hearing anyway. Perhaps I’ve misunderstood.
The church really is working on improving living conditions internationally through it’s humanitarian programs. The service they’ve provided has probably done more than any general conference talks to establish good relationships with civic leaders and other religious groups. The church could very well defend the argument that it is committed to improving religious freedom in general worldwide. That just isn’t the case they’ve been presenting.
Just this year the U.S. supreme court upheld a lawsuit by a woman who was denied a job because the she wore a head scarf. The court found that she didn’t even have to claim a religious exemption: the employer should have recognized its probable religious significance and made an exception to the dress code. The employer was Abercrombie and Fitch, a clothing retailer, so I think they could even make a case saying that clothing worn is relevant to job performance. This is the first time I was aware of a requirement for employers to make such religious accommodation in the US, but it has been law for quite some time. It sounds similar to the UK law mentioned in the OP.
The US is different than the UK in that the US courts have historically recognized young children in school as particularly vulnerable to involuntary indoctrination, which is why the US does not allow mandatory prayer in schools. (There is no rule against student-initiated prayer). This is remarkably different than my understanding of the UK, where there is a state sponsored church and schools have regular prayers (please correct me if I’m wrong on any of this – I’m not a lawyer).
Another aspect of the situation in the states is that each state has its own rules to apply as well. The California state Constitution for example is much more strict than the federal government about separating church and state, to the point that the state can not even imply an endorsement of religion. Litigants have used this to force the removal of religious symbols from government owned property. This is often confused as a constitutional issue, but it is the state Constitution and not the federal Constitution. I don’t know if there is a local corallary in the UK.
The rhetoric that religion is under attack is, as far as I can tell, not supported by any evidence or history. Litigants appealing to free exercise of religion are most successful (both legally and emotionally) when they are made by a persecuted minority. The LDS church as been such in times past, but on the current issues seems to be on the side of a privileged majority fighting to maintain the status quo. If church leadership has inspiration that some change or threat is on the horizon, they haven’t made any details known. (I wouldn’t expect them to, either.)
Some of the at-risk rhetoric has related to gay marriage. It is possible the church leaders are worried about the slippery slope of gay marriage. Will bishops be forced to perform gay marriages? Will the church lose tax exempt status? Will gay people sue to gain access to temples? Will gay students sue to be allowed to attend church schools? Will landlords be forced to allow gays and lesbians to live in BYU approved housing? Will other universities refuse to play BYU in sports? I only see the latter two realistcally as possible outcomes.
It is also possible that the intent is more subtle. As society becomes more accepting of gays, more gays come out in the open, more people realize that they have friends and family who are gay, feeding again the acceptance. This is a creating a cycle (virtuous or vicious, depending on your perspective) leading to more and more acceptance. The if people manage to codify into law the right to discrimate on religious grounds, that creates a barrier to slow down the cycle of acceptance.
#14 (Hedgehog) – w/o knowing the specifics of UK employments laws and how discrimination is dealt with ‘across the pond’, I’ll have to say GENERALLY, yes, I wouldn’t want THAT level of “protection” (nor the Mafia’s version, which I consider not much different morally).
PRIVATE affairs, including employment in the (exclusively) PRIVATE sector, ought to be, for all practical purposes, completely “laissez-faire”. Freedom of association, by definition, includes the ‘freedom’ to be an utter jerk (or collective of jerks), to be capricious, or downright stupid. It should be obvious that no Government can equally and effectively ensure an outcome that the majority of its citizens would like in private affairs, and intruding into the free marketplace of employment will inevitably result in the loss of both freedoms and employment opportunities. Witness how even in my lifetime (and I’m a dirty MIDDLE-AGED man, thank you, not an “old” one…) we (of my years) have seen what would have been considered utterly preposterous…to force the butcher, or baker, or candle-sticker maker, to wait on person(s) they don’t want to do business with.
Hedgehog, where we’d likely agree is that in the PUBLIC sector, which includes those companies doing Government business, affirmative non-discrimination policies ought to be a matter of public law and policy. After all, if you’d willingly confiscate tax monies from all, you must treat all equally. Since so many firms eagerly chase Government funds (which, as a Libertarian, I would contend are far greater than they should be), this effectively renders a significant portion of the “private” sector in line with non-discrimination policies, and it’s one that said “private” firms do so willingly.
Evangelizing? I am not sure that fits the situation described. The woman did not go out of her way to preach Mormon doctrine. What actually happened is that someone asked her if she was a Mormon, to which she assented. Then the person followed up with, “Why do you hate gays?”
I agree that social skills matter in the workplace. The questioner is demonstrating lack of social skills by such a loaded question that could only put the woman on defense. Why bother to ask a question if you don’t care what the answer is?
How would you handle the situation better than the woman did?
Those of us who graduated from an LDS university are often going to get the obvious are-you-a-mormon question. Should we lie or refuse to answer?
I think the amount of prejudice against gays varies from place to place and on the situation. It was way back in 2001 that I was at a conference with a gay woman who gave a sub-standard presentation, then at dinner made comments about how stupid straight people were. I was hurt because I had never did or said anything negative about her sexual preference; I had spent time with her wife at an earlier conference, and I asked about her and their baby. But I was not being respected in return. Her behavior was pretty outrageous both professionally and personally, but her bosses could not consider any kind of termination because of fear of ugly lawsuits.
I think it is important to consider that the audience for Rasband’s talk is college students, not the worldwide church population.
“It seems if I read it correctly that Brendan Eich also chose to step down.”
Yes, he stepped down because he is a class act who cares about the company he founded. There were boycotts and petitions that threatened to hurt the company. As well as a massive outpouring of personal vitriol that were a distraction from the work he was trying to do.
What is your point?
Mary Ann, #26, yes I’m happy to see the church doing those things, and getting involved in ecumenically and wider.
Naismith #29, I think we can all agree that most groups will have their fair share of jerks.
Yes, Rasband’s talk was to college students, hence my reference to millenials. Since my kids are fast approaching that age (I just got back from a university open day for prospective students with my son) I do feel an interest in how these things are being presented to that group, and I do think it’s an improvement on the things we’ve been hearing more generally, and the OP is a comment on the the way things sound when they reach us here.
#30 “What is your point?”
I simply wanted to add clarity. It’s not quite the same thing as being ousted, which is how you’d described events in your initial comment, is all. That’s not to say I don’t think it was unfortunate.
Rockwell #27, Thank you for addressing where we are similar and where different. It’s not uncommon to see women in headscarves working in department stores in Britain, including the high end fashion dept.
Schools here are required to have an assembly each morning. This was originally for communal worship, but has morphed somewhat. So not all schools will have prayers, though the schools my kids attended always did. Whilst schools have to have a daily assembly of some sort, parents can opt to have their children not attend, so there are always a few Jehovahs Witness children, and (Plymouth) Brethren children who skip assembly. Indeed when we first moved to this area and put our children into a local primary school, upon discovering we were Mormon the first thing the head asked was whether my children would be able to attend assembly or not.
Now they are older, they currently attend the local CofE state-maintained cathedral school so have services in the cathedral at the start and end of the academic year, and at Easter and Christmas. Church schools are very popular with parents because of the moral ethos, so there are muslim, hindu a whole variety of faiths whose children attend the school. There the children are encouraged to take an active part in the assemblies, take turns presenting an assembly to their classmates, and year group, which includes writing their own prayers on the particular theme for the week. Many secondary schools now have a prayer room to be used by students of any faith. I believe the devout muslim students find this especially useful.
“Will landlords be forced to allow gays and lesbians to live in BYU approved housing?”
This comment reminded me that as an undergraduate student my landlady was gay, and lived with her partner in a flat in the same building. At some point during my residence she became very ill with cancer, and her partner gave up her job in order to care for her. The landlady was a bit of a prickly personality, but her partner was lovely. I certainly wouldn’t have wanted them to deny me and my flatmates the flat on the basis of my religion.
Some time ago there was a blog on Times and Seasons, about the options for the future of marriage equality. Whether it would, in 10 years, be seen as bigotry to oppose it like racism is viewed, or it would be optional, like the attitude to abortion.
Is the vehemence in the debate indicating a move to the Bigot model, and will we be left trapped by our policy on this matter?
I have had a number of Gay tenants in my properties, and don’t see why I would have discriminated.
I also have a number of tenants who share their beds with opposite sex partners, to whom they are not married, and don’t think it is my right/responsibility to throw then out either.
Do some of you think I am responsible for my tenants sex lives?
“How would you handle the situation better than the woman did?” Easy. I’d simply say “I don’t hate gays.” Because I don’t. I was never asked that because I was friends with many gay colleagues. My behavior spoke loud enough that the question was moot.
And yes, it would be poor form for someone to ask a question in such an attacking way. I was once told, “But I didn’t think Mormon women were allowed to work.” And I just said, “Obviously that’s not true. As you see.”
“Those of us who graduated from an LDS university are often going to get the obvious are-you-a-mormon question. Should we lie or refuse to answer?” Of course not! We should just answer the question asked and move on. We don’t need to elaborate beyond the questioner’s interest level. At some point that crosses over into evangelizing, but I would never elaborate to a hostile questioner in the workplace. Let your behavior speak for you.
In any case, this was a hypothetical situation, not a real one. I didn’t find it true to my experience at all, but I’ve worked at companies that were committed to a non-discriminatory workplace (as the law dictates) as well as diversity. Mormon rights were equally defended with other religious groups and other protected classes (minorities and women), but unsolicited evangelizing was poor form.
“In any case, this was a hypothetical situation, not a real one.”
It felt real to me because I have faced that kind of thing. Despite clearly not hating gays and being friendly to them (being in carpools etc.)
Brendan Eich was totally supportive of Mozilla offering health insurance to gay partners, had them to social occasions, etc. But that was not enough.
Dismissing that woman’s pain because it was her own fault for “evangelizing” is unkind to say the least.
I’ve seen Mormons evangelize in the workplace. A friend asked me to counsel with an employee who was brilliant, and they wanted to keep him–but he was obnoxious in his judgmental attitudes and constantly babbling about church standards.
But when we are asked direct questions, it does get tricky.
@hedgehog and @Geoff-Aus
I wish to clarify that I don’t think landlords should discriminate on religion or sexual orientation. My comment on landlords was a guess at something that I think BYU administration may think, not my own opinion.
A few months back Elders Holland, Oaks, Christofferson, and Sister Marriott held a press conference advocating anti-discrimination legislation protecting sexual orientation and religious freedom. I was confused by the linkage, but my best guess was that they wanted to allow fair housing and employment for everyone but preserve the right of church owned schools and properties to discriminate. It’s not a position that I advocate.
Naismith, how can I be unkind to a fictional person? This is a made up scenario. It never happened!!
Rockwell, “My comment on landlords was a guess at something that I think BYU administration may think, not my own opinion.”
Don’t worry, I didn’t take it to be your own opinion, rather a prediction of what may play out.
hawkgrrrl, Naismith, I’m with hawkgrrrl on doing no more than answer any question in the simplest way possible, and not elaborating further.
I suppose moving from being a majority in a community that constantly validates a persons beliefs to a workplace where this is no longer the case can be difficult to deal with. Maybe even cause pain. Perhaps this is the theoretical situation being discussed? But outside of Utah, Mormons are very much the minority. Dealing with that is a way of life for those raised Mormon here in Britain, and no doubt elsewhere too.