Recently,
a federal worker gained headline prominence for his refusal to watch
an LGBT training video as part of the Social Security
Administration's LGBT diversity and
inclusivity training.
The
employee, David Hall, who has worked with the SSA for the past 14
years, is now at risk of losing his job in information technology at
the agency’s office in Champaign, Ill, a report by The Washington Post said.
The
Chicago-area Social Security office explained in a statement that
their diversity and inclusion
initiative “includes a
brief session on tips for increasing cultural awareness in a diverse
and inclusive environment.”
But
for David Hall, who professes to be a Christian, he believes God does
not want him to watch the video, and doing so is tantamount to
endorsing it which, according to him is “an
abomination,” and “I’m
not going to certify sin.”
This
is just another example of the ongoing conflict between religious
freedom and diversity: liberals/liberal-minded
faith groups vs.
conservatives/strictly-adhering
faith individuals/groups and institutions;
the Left vs. the Right of the political spectrum.
The
First Amendment is invoked by Christians and members of other
religions who uphold their religious freedom. Employees, business
owners and religious institutions find themselves having to defend
their religious beliefs and practices, when their faith values are
compromised by company policies and federal/state laws. So they cry
persecution and/or loss of autonomy.
While
those advocating for equality, the inclusion of LGBTs in the
workplace and giving them just accommodation, cry discrimination,
when for example, a Christian business owner refuses to cater to a
same-sex couple, or when religious-run institutions fire employees
who are LGBTs, and are in a same-sex relationship/marriage.
Thus,
caught in this continuing battle – between the freedom to
exercise one's religious beliefs and practices, and the promotion of
equality and fairness for all, without discrimination – is
diversity.
The
United States is not the only country facing this clash between two
rights: the right to religious freedom, and the right to equality and
fairness. The United Kingdom, Australia and Canada are some of the
countries that also struggle to find a balanced resolution to this
divisive issue.
This
brings us to the question of how can diversity be working in a
society wherein advocates of freedom of religion and of diversity do
not see eye to eye, and refuse to see each side with openness and
tolerance?
Just
to establish context, the Law is not meant to persecute anyone;
rather, these are meant to establish law and order in society, to
protect people's lives, properties and human rights, and to resolve
conflicts. Laws are not meant to favor a particular individual or
group because the rule of law applies to every citizen. The problem,
however, arises from different interpretions of the law, and how it
should be implemented. One point of contention is to what extent
should the laws
be applied.
This
becomes particularly challenging when the issue brought forth is
which should get the upper hand, religious freedom or the right to
non-discrimination.
For example, the
Religious Freedom Restoration Act (1993)
is a federal law which “ensures that interests in
religious freedom are protected.”
Even then, there is
an exemption to this protection, when 2 provisions are met.
First, the burden must be necessary for the "furtherance of a
compelling government interest." Under strict scrutiny, a
government interest is compelling when it is more than routine and
does more than simply improve government efficiency. A compelling
interest relates directly with core constitutional issues. The
second condition is that the rule must be the least restrictive way
in which to further the government interest.
-
This
article that appeared on the Harvard International Law Journal
presents some key principles
that can help determine when
it is appropriate for exemptions to non-discrimination laws
to be
given to religious organizations – whether in the U.S., the United
Kingdom, Australia, Canada, and other countries facing such conflict.
The
argument in the above-article is that neither non-discrimination
nor religious autonomy should always be the dominant value in
deciding on conflicts
between these internationally protected
rights.
Thus,
the principles presented can serve as guidelines to deal
with such tension. The authors of the study state: In
the process of reconciling non-discrimination and freedom of religion
it
is important to hear the views both of those who seek to preserve
traditions, and of
those who bear the costs of such traditions and
may seek protection.
That
point is well-taken; however, what seems to be missing from the side
of religious freedom – in relation to how faith
groups/religion-motivated individuals view LGBTs - are the elements
of compassion and tolerance.
Hence,
many gays, lesbians, bisexuals, and transgenders remain closeted, for
fear of harassment, discrimination, being fired from work or denied
equal opportunities for employment – all because of their sexual
orientation/identity and/or lifestyle.
Tolerance
does not necessarily mean supporting the same beliefs, but in this
context, it calls for the practice of Charity.
Although
it is within the rights of a devout Christian business owner
compelled by his/her faith to deny service to a gay or lesbian, but
as we come to think of it, we see that very act of denying someone
goes against the very principles the Christian faith espouses –
acceptance and love of neighbor.
The
Christian faith for one denounces self-righteousness.
This
should be something worth reflecting on especially by religious
institutions/employers, when faced with the moral dilemma of having
to accept or deny an LGBT for a certain position, or firing an LGBT.
Which
carries greater moral weight – following strictly to the letter the
teachings of one's religion/Church, and denying someone the very
means to his/her livelihood, or living out the principle of being
good neighbors to others, of being a good Samaritan?
It
is all about giving space to the other to be what he/she is, by
virtue of mutual respect and undertanding. Diversity does not
say you give up your religious beliefs; rather, it is asking people
to be more tolerant and welcoming, and less judgmental.
The
laws indeed exists for good reasons, but somewhere in the very fabric
of society lies the heart that sees beyond dogmas and rules.