Religious Liberty Matters Because Individual Liberty Matters
Thanks to Bruce Jenner's transformation, a SCOTUS case involving religious freedom is receiving far less attention than it should. The case comes down to this: Samantha Elauf, a Muslim, was not hired by Abercrombie & Fitch because her religious head scarf violated their dress code. Initially being awarded $20,000 by a jury, Elauf's case was overturned by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th circuit because A&F was not aware the scarf was for religious purposes. SCOTUS voted 8-1 in favor of Elauf, with Justice Clarence Thomas being the lone dissenting vote. Thomas' reasoning was that since A&F's policy is neutral, it could not be the basis of discrimination. More on that in a moment.
Many are proclaiming the result as a huge win for religious freedom. Writing for The Gospel Coalition, Joe Carter (whom I highly respect) proclaims "religious liberty is the law of the land" and that "while not every religious practice can be reasonably practiced at one's job, those that can be accommodated should be accommodated." Over at Cannon and Culture, the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission's web publication, Travis Wussow agrees that "This case is good news for religious people" because "It means that religious beliefs and practices remain protected in the workplace, even when employers have only a suspicion that a job applicant's religious beliefs may need to be accommodated." CAIR, who filed an amicus curiae on the case, has also voiced support for the decision, with their senior staff attorney William Burgess stating that "A company engages in illegal employment discrimination when it decides not to hire someone out of a desire to avoid accommodating his or her religious needs, confirmed or not."
Obviously it's nice to put one in the win column for religious liberty. On the one hand this is an encouraging sign for potential future cases revolving around, say, a Christian baker's religious beliefs regarding marriage which leads him to not sell a product for a same sex wedding.
Or does it?
Your religious liberty is important because you as an individual are important. This country is founded less on the idea of religious liberty as much as it is on individual liberty. You as an individual matter. Therefore, if you choose to believe or not believe in a religion, you may do so as long as it does not interfere with another's life, liberty, or property. The heart of the issue is whether someone can act on what he or she believes.
In this case, Elauf believes in wearing the head scarf for her Islamic faith. It reflects modesty, an incredibly important trait to Muslims (one I wish some Christians would take a little more seriously, but that's another post). However, those running A&F believe that wearing certain accessories is in some way a hindrance to performing the tasks assigned at A&F. Now, I think that's complete and utter horsecrap, but it is still their belief. And since it's their company, and since Elauf is not required to work at A&F, I tend to think that Justice Thomas is the only one to get this right.
Over at Reason, Jacob Sullum rips into CNN analyst Jeffrey Toobin for claiming this court decision was a win for libertarian ideals. Sullum points out that "while letting florists and bakers turn down jobs they do not want to take embodies a libertarian principle, forcing employers to change their dress codes does not."
At the risk of being an Islamophobic hypocrite (since it may seem I am favoring Christians over Muslims), let's play this out differently. Let's say a modest Southern Baptist girl applied to work at Hooter's, but says that she cannot wear the orange shorty-shorts or the tight tank top because it would go against her religious beliefs of modesty. Now this analogy may be imperfect because Hooter's could claim the shorts and shirt as a "uniform" and say that's different than not allowing someone to wear something. But the point is this: Hooter's has a dress code and A&F has a dress code. If you do not like what those codes state, then you do not have to work there.
Now the social aspect of both those codes would lead us to believe that A&F are a bunch of jerks, while Hooter's is trying to sell something specific: hot wings and sex. We may even decide to boycott A&F, which I would join in on, except for the fact I've never owned a thread of their wardrobe. But the point remains: businesses can establish the codes of their office.
Many will argue that because of the 1964 Civil Rights laws that the court got this one right. That point is obviously valid. But that still doesn't address the importance of individual rights. Individuals have the right to be terrible people, as long at it, once again, doesn't hinder another's life, liberty, or property.
And that's why this case could backfire for religious individuals when the bakers, photographers, and dress makers inevitably stand before nine robed men and women, Because while this may seem like a win for religious liberty, it's still a loss for individual liberty. The court may in the future need to determine whether a consumer has the right to a good; essentially, a right to another's property. I'd rather SCOTUS in the mindset that no one has a right to another's property (whether that's a tangible cake or an intangible job) than attempt to balance religious liberty and and anti-discrimination laws.
Many are proclaiming the result as a huge win for religious freedom. Writing for The Gospel Coalition, Joe Carter (whom I highly respect) proclaims "religious liberty is the law of the land" and that "while not every religious practice can be reasonably practiced at one's job, those that can be accommodated should be accommodated." Over at Cannon and Culture, the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission's web publication, Travis Wussow agrees that "This case is good news for religious people" because "It means that religious beliefs and practices remain protected in the workplace, even when employers have only a suspicion that a job applicant's religious beliefs may need to be accommodated." CAIR, who filed an amicus curiae on the case, has also voiced support for the decision, with their senior staff attorney William Burgess stating that "A company engages in illegal employment discrimination when it decides not to hire someone out of a desire to avoid accommodating his or her religious needs, confirmed or not."
Obviously it's nice to put one in the win column for religious liberty. On the one hand this is an encouraging sign for potential future cases revolving around, say, a Christian baker's religious beliefs regarding marriage which leads him to not sell a product for a same sex wedding.
Or does it?
Your religious liberty is important because you as an individual are important. This country is founded less on the idea of religious liberty as much as it is on individual liberty. You as an individual matter. Therefore, if you choose to believe or not believe in a religion, you may do so as long as it does not interfere with another's life, liberty, or property. The heart of the issue is whether someone can act on what he or she believes.
In this case, Elauf believes in wearing the head scarf for her Islamic faith. It reflects modesty, an incredibly important trait to Muslims (one I wish some Christians would take a little more seriously, but that's another post). However, those running A&F believe that wearing certain accessories is in some way a hindrance to performing the tasks assigned at A&F. Now, I think that's complete and utter horsecrap, but it is still their belief. And since it's their company, and since Elauf is not required to work at A&F, I tend to think that Justice Thomas is the only one to get this right.
Over at Reason, Jacob Sullum rips into CNN analyst Jeffrey Toobin for claiming this court decision was a win for libertarian ideals. Sullum points out that "while letting florists and bakers turn down jobs they do not want to take embodies a libertarian principle, forcing employers to change their dress codes does not."
At the risk of being an Islamophobic hypocrite (since it may seem I am favoring Christians over Muslims), let's play this out differently. Let's say a modest Southern Baptist girl applied to work at Hooter's, but says that she cannot wear the orange shorty-shorts or the tight tank top because it would go against her religious beliefs of modesty. Now this analogy may be imperfect because Hooter's could claim the shorts and shirt as a "uniform" and say that's different than not allowing someone to wear something. But the point is this: Hooter's has a dress code and A&F has a dress code. If you do not like what those codes state, then you do not have to work there.
Now the social aspect of both those codes would lead us to believe that A&F are a bunch of jerks, while Hooter's is trying to sell something specific: hot wings and sex. We may even decide to boycott A&F, which I would join in on, except for the fact I've never owned a thread of their wardrobe. But the point remains: businesses can establish the codes of their office.
Many will argue that because of the 1964 Civil Rights laws that the court got this one right. That point is obviously valid. But that still doesn't address the importance of individual rights. Individuals have the right to be terrible people, as long at it, once again, doesn't hinder another's life, liberty, or property.
And that's why this case could backfire for religious individuals when the bakers, photographers, and dress makers inevitably stand before nine robed men and women, Because while this may seem like a win for religious liberty, it's still a loss for individual liberty. The court may in the future need to determine whether a consumer has the right to a good; essentially, a right to another's property. I'd rather SCOTUS in the mindset that no one has a right to another's property (whether that's a tangible cake or an intangible job) than attempt to balance religious liberty and and anti-discrimination laws.
Comments
Post a Comment