I read this article: Christian Counselor Loses Case on Gay Sex Therapy and here is my response.
If we simply look on the surface of this we might sympathize because, as it is presented to us, we would not like to be fired for a personal belief.
Looking deeper though, we would see that it was not a thought or ideal that caused the outcome but an action. It does not matter what our religion says when it comes to secular law. Any action that harms another is illegal. Discrimination, assault, murder etc.
When you apply for a job that offers services to the public, you are agreeing to present said service to ALL of the public regardless of personal belief. Once you are hired by a public company; you ARE the company in the eyes of the public. If you discriminate, or perpetuate any other crime, while working for said company then the company can be held liable for your actions. This is applicable for ALL employees of ANY religious denomination working for said company.
If a public company offers services to the public it cannot discriminate against ANY member of the public. A religious institution is similar to a entity that offers services via membership. You must be a member to receive services and to become a member you must follow x,y and z. The fact that churches offer memberships to everyone is what prevents it from being discrimination.
Unless you are a part of a religious institution, representing that religious institution and working for that religious institution, you as a simple member of that institution do not have it's legal protections. You are simply a member accessing services. To have this article cite the entire religion (Christianity) for marginalization due to the anger of one member, for actions in representation of that member, is preposterous. The church that member attended was not offering Sex Therapy; that member's employer was.
Even the church keeps repeating that they do not turn away the GLBT community but offer limited services to those members. Or at least that's their legal stance. A member of one organization cannot use that membership as a legal defense for denying services in representation of another organization.
Comments