We have all been counseled to avoid discussing religion and
politics in order to reduce the risk of a hostile encounter. I recall being reminded of this maxim when
dining with a new acquaintance many years ago.
My response? ‘That’s all I like
to talk about!’
I am writing this at 9:30 a.m. on a Saturday and I’ve
already had multiple conversations – both directly and electronically – with
people in my life on both of these radioactive subjects. As far as I know, all of the friendships
remain whole. Indeed, these debates and
exchanges serve to fortify our friendships rather than to threaten them.
I recognized that discussing religion can be fraught for many individuals and might be best avoided for them. Same with politics. Many a thanksgiving dinner has been sullied by someone who decides to serve as the family turkey
Look at the national response when a Colorado baker refused to bake a wedding cake for gay couple in 2012. The cake shop owner claimed this violated his religious beliefs at a time that the state did not recognize same-sex marriage.
The COVID-19 pandemic has provided fuel for some to argue
that the vaccine encroaches on their religious freedom. Indeed, federal law provides for a vaccine
exemption for a sincerely held religious belief. (Individuals can also claim a medical
disability exemption under the Americans with Disability Act.) If the exemption claims are legitimate, then
the employee is entitled to receive a reasonable accommodation at the workplace
so long as this would not pose undue hardship on the employer.
While defining a medical disability can be somewhat
objective, how does one define a religion?
This is murky terrain. Try to do
this yourself before reading further and you’ll see what I mean.
Here’s a summary statement on the definition of religion
taken from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC).
The presence of a deity
or deities is not necessary for a religion to receive protection under Title
VII. Religious beliefs can include unique beliefs held by a few or even
one individual; however, mere personal preferences are not religious
beliefs. Individuals who do not practice any religion are also protected from
discrimination on the basis of religion or lack thereof.
Seems rather a broad definition to me. The courts will be charged with defining
religion and they will need Solomonic wisdom to achieve this. Might veganism or vegetarianism be religions? Satanism?
Atheism? One man’s religion is another man’s cult. All of this will be good news for
discrimination lawyers whose prayers for prosperity have been answered.
Comments
Post a Comment