At Slate Amanda Marcotte considers the expanding definitions of “religious freedom.”
Is “religious freedom” about being free to practice your faith, or just a generic cover story for any and all attempts to try to foist your beliefs on others? In this era of Hobby Lobby vs. Burwell, it’s understandable that many on the right have decided it’s the latter and are eager to start testing the limits of how much leverage the expansive new definition of “religious freedom” gives them to meddle with the private contraception choices of others. Next on the docket: Attempting to force family planning centers to hire nurse-midwives who refuse to let patients plan their families, all in the name of “religious freedom.”
That is indeed the question, and it’s the general principle behind the expansive new definition that is so infuriating, as well as the specific details of the case. I detest this idea that “religious freedom” includes freedom to force one’s religious claims on other people. It makes me bristle like a porcupine.
Sara Hellwege is a nurse-midwife in Tampa, Florida, who opposes the use of some of the most effective and female-controlled forms of contraception, such as the birth control pill. Despite that position, Hellwege applied for a job with the Tampa Family Health Centers. When asked by the human resources director about her affiliation with an anti-contraception group called the American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists, Hellwege admitted she would refuse to prescribe the birth control pill to anyone who wanted it. She was summarily told that prescribing the birth control pill was part of the job and was not hired.
Which is exactly what should happen. Rather than hiring people who will refuse to do parts of the job they were hired to do, and then making “accommodations” for those people (at the expense of everyone else affected), the thing to do is ask before hiring if the candidate will do all the parts of the job. If the answer is no, obviously that person should not be hired.
Win or lose, Hellwege’s case provides insight in how the war on contraception is shaping up. Direct assaults through legislation are going to be a much harder sell with contraception than abortion, so instead we’re getting the argument that someone else’s “religious freedom”—your boss, your nurse—entitles them to interfere with your ability to get contraception. Family planning centers are one place that women have long been able to trust will provide them contraception access without unnecessary hassle, and now the Christian right is trying to take even that away.
And then they’ll move on to interning women who refuse to marry.
I’ve mentioned this elsewhere, but I’m totally applying to be pastor of a megachurch. Which one pays the best? 😀
So that works only for some “extremist” Christians? (The quotes are there because that’s how I perceive them from where I live but that seems almost mainstream in the US)
An employer can force their employees to obey the christian rules and christian employees can force their employer to accept their christian rules. So only those christian have “religious freedom”?
I do think that both employees and employers who don’t want to be limited by these rules do so because of their deeply held beliefs. So isn’t going against those beliefs in favor of the christian ones an establishment of religion?
Even a smaller church. Free housing plus pay. I refuse to do sermons, teach Bible classes, or visit any parishioners who aren’t atheists. Better hire me or I’m suing.
Or would if I were a monumental jerk carrying a massive self-entitlement belief like Sara Hellwege.
The concept of ‘religious freedom’ has been promoted by the Islamic community as being somehow separate and distinct from other human rights, so it’s not surprising that demented Christian ideologues are trying the same tactics.
Actually ‘religious freedom’ is not about ‘being free to practise your faith’ either, that’s a misconception, any exercise of religious freedom should be subject to the parameters set by liberal democratic societies.
RJW @4:
If it’s about ‘being free to practise your faith’ subject to the parameters set by liberal democratic societies, then it’s indeed about ‘being free to practise your faith’.
More to the point, that’s what the OP is objecting to: the religious privilege parameters being set in the USA, thanks to the decision by its religious judges.
(One can call it religious freedom, but it’s patently religious privilege)
HERE’S A FEW MORE POTENTIAL EXAMPLES
A pastafarian who applies to cook in an Italian restaurant, but won’t cook pasta.
A Muslim who works at McDonalds but won’t make cheeseburgers.
A vegetarian who works at a butcher and refuses to handle meat.
A Jew who works at Burger King and refuses to put bacon on a burger.
A criminal who works as a police officer and refuses to make arrests.
Why not? If its good for one, it must be good for all.
I feel the need to exercise my own religious freedom. I wonder if ADF is hiring.
@5 John Morales,
“If it’s about ‘being free to practise your faith’ subject to the parameters set by liberal democratic societies, then it’s indeed about ‘being free to practise your faith’.”
No, it isn’t, as the parameters the state sets limit religious freedom, people aren’t free to practise their faith. My point is that the recent decision seems, explicitly, to place religious freedom in a separate and superior category–it’s completely hare-brained.
RJW @8, I dispute you.
If it’s about X subject to Y, then it’s indeed about X.
It’s also about Y, of course; what it’s not is only about X or only about Y.
I think what you intended to express is that it was not an unconstrained freedom — but then, the freedom to practice one’s religion is subject to the laws of physics, too.
It’s only in a different category* because it’s treated differently (or, as I put it, privileged).
—
* It’s in the exactly the same category as conscientious objection.
Datum: Conscientious Objection – 2013 position statement by the Australian Medical Association.
[Oops]
Datum: Conscientious Objection – 2013 position statement by the Australian Medical Association.
@9 John Morales,
You’re constructing straw man arguments, and being patronising at the same time.
“I think what you intended to express is that it was not an unconstrained freedom — but then, the freedom to practice one’s religion is subject to the laws of physics, too.”
Sophistry, two entirely different categories, you really are drawing a longbow by attempting to equate the two.
RJW @12, I agree that freedom from imposition and freedom from obligation are two entirely different categories.
Rather than hiring people who will refuse to do parts of the job they were hired to do, and then making “accommodations” for those people (at the expense of everyone else affected), the thing to do is ask before hiring if the candidate will do all the parts of the job. If the answer is no, obviously that person should not be hired.
As someone who’s worked with the ADA, I get really, really suspicious any time someone puts scare quotes around reasonable accommodations. Let’s remember that the law in question, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, protects employees from discrimination on the basis of race, color, national origin and sex. In addition, “reasonable accommodation” is the standard for employers to meet for both religious people and people with disabilities. Disparaging the protection that religious people get in the US contributes to undercutting protections for marginalized people.
What people should emphasize, and I agree with you on this, is that being willing to prescribe contraception is a bona fide occupational requirement. The problem isn’t that the plaintiff wants to change the conditions of her job to meet her religious beliefs, the problem is that she can’t or won’t do a necessary part of the job. I get that this may seem like a distinction without a difference, but far too many people ascribe to the belief that employees have no rights.
@qwints I appreciate your sensitivity, but as one who appreciates all the usual human rights I would use scare quotes when talking about the “right” to kill anyone who gets in my way, and so similarly I saw the use of scare quotes as appropriate when the word “accommodations” was being used for something that does not fall within any plausible range of truly reasonable accommodations.
The point that it’s a bona fide necessary duty of the job is a good one qwint. I can see allowing a clerk in a store who doesn’t believe in selling alcohol to get some other duty, or to be able to say, work in the U-scan lane so they don’t have to personally scan it. The *essential duty* is a good one to point out – I think a person who is against alcohol might have a case at a usual supermarket, but would be outrageous to demand to be hired and accommodated at a pub, liquor store or brewery.
As someone who is disabled and who requires accommodations, I feel strongly that workers need protections, but that doesn’t mean that you *must* be hired everywhere. There are jobs that I could not possibly do with any accommodations, and there are likely places of employment where there is not 1 job that I could actually do. For 2 reasons (legally blind, epilepsy) I can’t operate a vehicle.
With religion, I sometimes get irritated since I feel that it’s elective, rather than something you’re stuck with like a disability, but as long as nobody is demanding anything unreasonable I think places of employment should offer some accommodation.
String @ 6: I think you switched your Jew and your Muslim.
The Muslim-run bodegas near my apartment sell beer and lottery tickets. Also pork rinds, I think, and the one with a deli counter sells ham.