Religious Organizations and Civil Rights

Every once in a while, a court decision provides a “teachable moment.” A recent case provides one such instance, in another clash of dogma and civil rights.

In Massachusetts, a Superior Court Judge has found a Catholic High School guilty of discrimination for withdrawing a job offer it had extended to one Matthew Barrett; the offer was withdrawn when Barrett listed his husband as his emergency contact on his employment forms, and the school became aware that he was in a same-sex marriage.

The job in question was food services manager.

The nature of the position at issue is important, because the Courts have long held that the Free Exercise clause of the First Amendment exempts religious organizations from civil rights laws inconsistent with their religious principles—that religious organizations may discriminate on the basis of their religious dogma— when the position being filled is religious in nature.

As a post to a Law Professors’ blog reported

The school argued that it was justified in not hiring Mr. Barrett because his marriage was inconsistent with the school’s religious teachings. Judge Wilkins based his decision on several findings. Noting that the school was entitled to control its message, he said that right is limited to those in a position to shape the message, including teachers, ministers and spokesperson. Justice Wilkins noted that Mr. Barrett’s position was not in a message shaping catagory and Mr. Barrett has not been an advocate for same sex marriage.

Law is all about drawing lines and making distinctions. We distinguish between killing in self-defense and murder, between free speech and harassment, and—as here— between discrimination necessary to the exercise of religious liberty and discrimination that exceeds that narrow category.

Where those lines get drawn is always subject to debate and dependent upon facts and evidence.

Here, the issue appears to be straightforward: should a religious organization be entitled to hire and fire non-religious support staff-–janitors, secretaries, cooks, food services managers—on the basis of compliance with the institution’s religious doctrine?

This case is likely to go to the U.S. Supreme Court.  As the Law Professors’ blog says, “stay tuned.”

Comments

Santa, Baby…..

It’s Christmas, and I assume that even the least religious among us are enjoying the holiday, each in our own way, so this will be brief.

Our multi-ethnic clan exchanges gifts on Christmas Eve, so I plan to use the better part of this day to try out the shiny new toy my obliging husband bought me. (I didn’t hint–I told him what make I wanted, and I specified the model and accessories.)

I’m getting ready to read the manual, so that I take proper care of my spiffy new vacuum cleaner….

What can I say? My children routinely remind me that I’m weird.

It really comes down to being a control freak, and in today’s world, there isn’t much I can control–or even influence. So–our political system may be a mess, but I can see to it that my floors are clean!

Happy Holidays, everyone!

Comments

Every Once in a While, A Glimmer of Hope…

Several Facebook friends have shared a report from occupy democrats.com suggesting that not everyone has succumbed to insane Islamophobia:

Over a dozen girls from Vernon Hills High School are participating in the “Walk A Mile In Her Hijab” event, which aims to help spread awareness of Muslim cultural traditions and help combat the rising tide of Islamophobia in America.

Their principal, Jon Guillaume, has applauded the plan and the girls for their cosmopolitan interest in other cultures and their courage in standing up for their Muslim peers in these troubled times.

“I think it is a difficult time to be a Muslim student in our high school, in our community and in America. I think this is an opportunity for our kids to embrace the Muslim community within the school. For other kids outside of this organization, to understand what it’s like for these girls to walk through our halls in this garment in a way that stands out from other kids. So, I’m proud of them.”

We should all be proud of these brave girls for not only showing such support for the Muslim members of their communities but also, sadly, for enduring the consequences that donning the headscarf might bring. Since Donald Trump and other Republican candidates have begun their latest round of fear-mongering and discrimination against Muslims, bigoted attacks against innocent Muslim-Americans have sharply risen.

At some point, perhaps humans will redefine the “us” and “them” categories.

Here are my candidates: “us” will include the entire human race, with the only exception—the only “them”—being the bigots, haters, self-aggrandizers and other damaged and deranged people who, it is important to note, can be found among every race, religion and nationality.

The parents of these girls should be so proud. They’ve raised real human beings.

Welcome to “us.”

Comments

The Problem Isn’t Capitalism

‘Tis the season to bemoan crass capitalism. But we should think before joining that chorus.

Markets are wonderful things; as Adam Smith explained many years ago, the “invisible hand” channels self-interest toward socially desirable ends. Market competition has given us better goods at lower prices, and has demonstrably been a “rising tide” lifting many boats.

Why, then, is America’s capitalist economy generating so much criticism? What is the cause of the country’s growing and very worrisome inequality?

Two reasons are pretty apparent.

First, the system we currently have in the U.S. is not market capitalism. It is corporatism. Corporatism has been defined as the organization of society by major interest groups, specifically corporations. It isn’t exactly a secret that the last thing many of our captains of industry want is genuine competition. The legions of lobbyists sent to Washington and state capitals are not arguing for open markets; they are vying for competitive advantages and taxpayer subsidies.

The second reason is less obvious, but no less consequential. Markets don’t work for everything.

In the areas of the economy where market competition is appropriate—in the production of consumer goods and services, most obviously—markets operate as Smith’s theory suggests. But as every student of economics learns, there are areas where competition is unworkable.

Historically, for example, America has regulated utilities, and (at least since Teddy Roosevelt) tried to prevent domination of a market through monopolistic practices. (As technologies and markets change over time, these categories may shift, and it isn’t always clear that our governing institutions keep pace, but that is a subject for another day.)

What doesn’t change, however, is a foundational premise: In order for a market to function, there must be a willing buyer and a willing seller, both of whom are in possession of the necessary relevant information. When there is a significant and unavoidable asymmetry of knowledge or information, a true market cannot exist.

Health care is the poster child for that asymmetry. Not only does the consumer lack the information and expertise necessary to “shop” for a seller/provider, the realities of illness make it likely that she will lack the time needed to evaluate her options. Add to that the way in which the health insurance industry has developed, with “in network” and “out of network” providers, and you don’t have to be an economist to recognize that market principles are simply inapplicable.

Most Western nations came to that conclusion many years ago, and most have national health care systems. Here in the U.S., even the modest movement toward government-insured access to health insurance has met with hysterical resistance—and lots of rhetoric about creeping socialism and the superiority of markets.

The immorality of this refusal to make important distinctions was most recently highlighted by the actions of one Martin Shkreli, who bought the rights to a drug and raised its price 5500%. As several commentators noted, America is the only developed nation that lets drug-makers set their own prices — maximizing profits the same way that sellers of chairs, mugs, shoes, or any other seller of manufactured goods would.

Shkreli’s behavior underscores the irrationality—and yes, the immorality—of America’s healthcare system, where corporations set our public policies and insist upon market principles in an area where, by definition, genuine markets cannot function.

The moral of this story: don’t blame capitalism. This isn’t it.

Comments

Bosma: The Grownup in the Room

Well, the usual suspects are all ganging up on Brian Bosma, the Speaker of the Indiana House, who has had the temerity to suggest that, if we want roads we can drive on, we probably need to pay for them.

As the Indianapolis Star reported

Hoosiers could pay more for gas and cigarettes under a road funding proposal being crafted by Indiana House Republican leaders.

The proposal also would provide for a study about turning I-65 and I-70 into toll roads.

House Speaker Brian Bosma provided some details about the proposal during a legislative conference Downtown on Wednesday. The funding plan would index the state’s fuel tax to inflation and gradually shift all of the 7 percent sales tax on gasoline to the motor vehicle highway fund, which is used for state and local road projects.

Bosma said the plan would create a sustainable, long-term solution for maintaining Indiana’s roads and bridges, but he acknowledged that some would consider it a tax increase.

Now, it’s perfectly reasonable to argue for alternative ways to raise the necessary revenues, or to ask for assurances that funds raised will be prudently spent– but those aren’t the arguments being mounted by Bosma’s opponents. They are opposed to anything that looks remotely like a tax. No matter what.

Senate Appropriations Chairman Luke Kenley, R-Noblesville, said the proposed tax adjustments would be a tough sell in the legislature, where many Republicans have pledged never to increase taxes.

This impasse is a stark reminder that there are two kinds of Republican in Indiana (as elsewhere): those interested in actually governing, and those (like our embarrassing Governor) interested only in pulling down a public paycheck for posturing and pontificating. And there are more of the latter than the former.

News flash, ideologues: there is no free lunch. There is no way to provide necessary public services, no way to maintain critical public infrastructure, without adequate funds. Taxes are “user fees”–they are the price we pay for civilization, our social “membership dues.”

Grownups understand that.

Comments