Serious Conscience in the workplace.

[mattj]

I've been meaning to post this for a while, but VGC happened, so I got busy. :p

In the news:

Hobby Lobby Risks Fines to Defy Obamacare - The Daily Beast
If Muslims Can’t Eat Pork, No One Can Eat Pork
Woman denied haircut goes to Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario - thestar.com
Update: Sign at Wegmans draws attention | www.WHEC.com
Pharmacist refuses to sell pill | Mail Online
Christian Science Pharmacist Refuses To Fill Any Prescription | America's Finest News Source
Masterpiece Cakeshop, Colorado Bakery, Allegedly Denies Wedding Cake To Local Gay Couple
Pharmacists Not Required To Provide 'Morning After' Pill, Illinois Court Rules
Burger King Sued For Discrimination After Allegedly Firing Pentecostal Christian For Wearing Skirt

I know we've had discussions here and there, and even full on threads to discuss many of these stories in-and-of themselves. There are as many unique situations as there are people in the world, but I thought it could be an interesting exercise to discuss the thread that unites each of them: conscience in the workplace.

Should an individual's conscience deserve any protection in the workplace? If so, to what degree?

For me personally, and this could have a lot to do with the fact that we share the same, exact brand of Pentecostalism, but the last story about the young woman who wanted to wear a skirt, and asked if it would be okay before accepting the position, is an example of where accommodations probably ought to have been made. Being a part of that same particular brand of Pentecostalism, I know countless eateries that have made exactly that accommodation, none of which suffered any noticeable harm because of it.

But what about the Muslim teen who didn't make it clear that handling pork and alcohol would be a problem for her, because of her religious beliefs? I certainly hope it's not simply because I'm not Muslim, but it seems she ought to have realized that was going to be a problem and have notified her employer either before accepting the position, or as soon as she realized there was going to be a problem.

But then again, if my fellow Pentecostal deserves the right to wear a skirt at Burger King, shouldn't that Muslim deserve the right to accommodation too?

Do all employees deserve whatever accommodation their particular religious beliefs require? Is there a limit? What should the limit be?

And what about employers? Should the president of Hobby Lobby be forced by our government to provide for abortions? [Do not turn this into an "Is, or is not, abortion justifiable" debate. That is just how the owner sees the issue. Agreeing to the reasonableness of any religious belief is in no way necessary in any case of accommodating religious conscience in the workplace.] Or that bakery? Should there be legal protection and accomodation for the religious convictions of employers?

And finally, have you ever experienced a situation where your conscience came into conflict with your expected work duties? What did you do? How did your place of work respond? Are you satisfied with what was done?

One example that springs to mind for me is back before I married my wife. I had just asked Heather to marry me. A few days later I found myself laid off from my factory job. I had to have some sort of income so I sent out applications to nearly every business in town. The first business to respond was our local gas station, which I gladly accepted.

Per the norm, I started out at the cash register. Pretty simple work. Swipe the product, let people pump their gas, take their money, smile. But as you know, almost every gas station offers much more than gas. I found myself handling alcohol.

My dislike of alcohol is somewhat religious in nature. While the Bible never explicitly states, "Thou shalt not drink alcohol.", nor does it state "Thou shalt not HANDLE alcohol". It does quite plainly condemn inebriation, as well as warning of the dangers of addiction. But here I was, handing people a product that I sorely disliked, knowing full well that they could use it to get drunk and do who knows what. In, albeit a small way, I was a part of what I consider to be sin.

Needless to say, it didn't feel very good at all.

Luckily for me, I had sent out a ton of other applications. So as soon as the next offer came in, I gave my employer a two-week's notice, as required by the terms of my employment there, with which he promptly fired me on the spot (LOL wat??). And after a tw0-week vacation I found myself at the job that I have currently been at for 9 years.

Personally, I think he went a bit overboard, with the whole "WELL YEAH? THEN TODAY'S YOUR LAST DAY!" thing, but it was his business, and it would have been difficult at that time to switch the schedules around to accommodate my religious objection. Plus, no one was forcing me to do anything. I was free to find any other job. So I do understand his irritation.

But whatever. It was short and now it's over and 9 years past.

What about you guys?

[edit]

Just to make this clear now, I referenced several religious cases in my OP because those are the most common and easiest to showcase. But the topic really is issues of conscience, which doesn't restrict the topic to religious cases. There are plenty of completely secular people who object to various activities because of completely secular reasons of conscience. Conscientious objectors in the military spring to mind. Some are religious, but many are not.

 

[VKCA]

If Muslims Can’t Eat Pork, No One Can Eat Pork

don't I have the right as an existing being to murder whatever I like and eat it (besides endangered things)? why the heck would someone's freedom of religion trump that?
does the quran say anything about stopping others from eating pork?

 

[Nastyjungle]

You shouldn't accept a job which you know might conflict with your moral beliefs, because it isn't your business to direct other people on how their lives should be when you are on the job. You are welcome to have opinions, but the moment you start forcing people around you to be a certain way, or deny them certain products or care which they would expect from you at your job, then you are in the wrong. It's that simple.

I suppose if you made clear to the potential employer what special things you needed beforehand (that only affected YOU), and they agreed to accommodation, then it isn't a big issue. But if you get on the job, start asking for stuff, and then act like an asshole when they do or don't give it to you, then that's not ok.

 

[Stratos]

If some random tries to cite the first amendment i will shoot them

 

[Temperantia]

In certain respects, no, their rights as members of their religion should not interfere with their jobs. It should be, quite frankly, illegal for a pharmacist to refuse to provide a woman with birth control and the same goes for denying employees the use of insurance for contraceptives/abortion if that's what it is supposed to cover. Your morality should not affect your responsibility to provide a service as either a producer or an employer.

 

[elcheeso]

I think my opinion on the matter is largely the same as NJ's. If you have a problem with supplying goods or services that would generally be expected from you on the job, then it's a job you shouldn't really be getting into in the first place. Concessions could be made if it's something that isn't affecting the actual job, but if you're one of those vile, disgusting arseholes who won't supply the morning after pill to a woman who needs it (for example), then you should be fired and/or put out of business and sent back to school to look up what that Plan B actually does.

Hint: It's a contraceptive. It literally cannot be used as an abortifacient, no more than a condom can be used to abort. Plan B and RU486 are not the same thing. Are these people not supplying condoms and other contraceptives, as well? Or are they just stupid?

As for being "forced" to supply for abortions and/or other medical conditions that would otherwise come from the employer... it really seems similar to putting regulations on what your employees use their money on. Like if you give them their paycheck and tell them "you're not allowed to spend this on the rock and roll music because I believe it's a mind control tool invented by Satan. No rock, rock, rock, rocking with the rock for you!"

 

[Gabe]

I will never understand why someone cites their religion as a reason not to participate in a societal activity. DON'T join the society then!

Seriously, think how fluid society would be if people weren't so anchored to their religious beliefs. Fact of the matter is the world is greater than you & your personal beliefs & if people learned to place their positions in society before their religious beliefs numerous forms of conflict would be greatly reduced. Granted, I am pretty much Atheist so I can't empathize with someone who suffers from self-conflict in regards to their religious beliefs.

But as others have stated, if a part of your job is doing something that goes against your religious beliefs, you shouldn't have taken the job in the first place.

 

[mattj]

Just to make this clear now, I referenced several religious cases in my OP because those are the most common and easiest to showcase. But the topic really is issues of conscience, which doesn't restrict the topic to religious cases. There are plenty of completely secular people who object to various activities because of completely secular reasons of conscience. Conscientious objectors in the military spring to mind. Some are religious, but many are not.

Is there anything you can think of that you might object to, in the hypothetical sense, Gabe?

 

[WaterBomb]

I actually quit a job that required me to "mislead" potential hires. I was a recruiter for a Financial Services company, and my boss specifically told me to "not tell" candidates certain things to get them to accept job offers. I don't regret this decision in any way, and I think a person should not be required to go against their beliefs or morals in order to perform their job.

Also @ Gabe - some people don't find out until after they accept a job that they're being asked to go against their beliefs. You can't just say "don't accept that job" as a blanket solution because it's not always that simple.

 

[mattj]

Now is this something you think our government should regulate? Or is it something that you think people should just leave their jobs over?

 

[elcheeso]

I actually quit a job that required me to "mislead" potential hires. I was a recruiter for a Financial Services company, and my boss specifically told me to "not tell" candidates certain things to get them to accept job offers. I don't regret this decision in any way, and I think a person should not be required to go against their beliefs or morals in order to perform their job.

Also @ Gabe - some people don't find out until after they accept a job that they're being asked to go against their beliefs. You can't just say "don't accept that job" as a blanket solution because it's not always that simple.

Well, in religious cases, it's usually going to be pretty obvious whether a job is going to infringe on your beliefs in some way, as with the morning after pill and muslims/jews with pork and/or alcohol. I'm kinda curious about what kind of stuff you were told not to mention to hires!

As for mattj's question in post 8 (even though it wasn't directed at me)... hrm. Well, I do a decent amount of baking and have been looking into selling some of my stuff since a bunch of people have asked about it. I guess I'd be really bloody uncomfortable doing cakes (or what have you) with racist/homophobic/whatever bullshit decorating it. Lets say for some reason the KKK wanted me to do stupid racist blackface Obama cake pops, for example. Would I do them? It's actually a pretty hard to question to answer!

On one hand, I don't think people should necessarily be turned away because of their own stupid ass beliefs/looks/whatever, mostly because I feel like the opposite may lead to a bad place where people (historically minorities) struggle to get any kind of service. A "seperate but equal" sort of situation, which is stupid because we all know that that shit doesn't work out. On the other hand, to what degree does a business have the right to refuse service? Obviously they have a legal right, but what moral right? No shoes, no service is a thing... should people looking and smelling like hobos with no shoes and a dirty dog be allowed into a fine dining establishment? Does the right to refuse service extend to big businesses, or should it be small business only? Dunno!

Personally, I can't really answer the latter in a (mostly) logical way. I don't think it's really possible to that fits every situation. I'd probably end up making those cakes, but I'd also most likely put in the bare minimum effort and then act in a way that would ensure that I'd never get repeat business from Mr KKK or his friends again. I also feel like no matter what your answer is to the other situations, medical practices (ie. pharmacies and hospitals, particularly) and perhaps grocers have no right to refuse service.

 

[vonFiedler]

I think making a racist cake like that has the slim potential to turn around and bite your business in the ass PC wise.

 

[zorbees]

This topic makes almost zero sense to me. Are you saying that (using waterbomb's example) if waterbomb doesn't want to mislead people due to his moral values, that his employer cannot fire or reprimand him, despite the fact that it is affecting his performance?

 

[Gabe]

Just to make this clear now, I referenced several religious cases in my OP because those are the most common and easiest to showcase. But the topic really is issues of conscience, which doesn't restrict the topic to religious cases. There are plenty of completely secular people who object to various activities because of completely secular reasons of conscience. Conscientious objectors in the military spring to mind. Some are religious, but many are not.

Is there anything you can think of that you might object to, in the hypothetical sense, Gabe?

If I were asked to do something that would hurt someone in a damaging way I'd tell my employer that I quit. It depends on the severity of what I'm doing. I think McDonald's, Wal-mart, & Starbucks are evil but if I had no other options I would work to support my family.

Also @ Gabe - some people don't find out until after they accept a job that they're being asked to go against their beliefs. You can't just say "don't accept that job" as a blanket solution because it's not always that simple.

I understand that, there is no way this situation is one hundred percent unavoidable though there has to be some estimate on the chances that you do come into a moral conflict on the job.

 

[elcheeso]

I think making a racist cake like that has the slim potential to turn around and bite your business in the ass PC wise.

Exactly. There's so many factors to take in, though I had somehow managed to forget the repercussions of having something like that out on the market, especially with the advent of shit like Facebook. I'd probably have to rethink my answer, in that case.

Edit: Since I had only been thinking about it on a personal level and not on a "how will this affect my business" level.

 

[billymills]

I'm inclined to argue 'no legal protection' for all of the examples in the opening post, but I still voted 'in certain situations' because I think there are positions in which there should be legal protection.

I think first and foremost, if the action required is illegal, then there needs to be protections for the employee. I remember a case where an employee blew the whistle on some misinformation put out by the company (relating to knowledge of tabacco effects) that meant the company had committed perjury (or something along those lines), but was not held responsible because the employee was not permitted to reveal that information. This is a situation in which I believe legal protection should be given, even with it causing a burden for the employer.

The second obvious case is if the business is public sector. If regulations required post only be delivered to christians 6 days a week, and everyone else once a week (or any ridiculous situation you want), then this is ridiculous and ought to be fought. I don't have any specific examples here because I don't want to bother looking for them, but I'm sure plenty exist. In the private sector you have the ability to look elsewhere as both an employee or a customer. In the public sector you don't always have this choice.

 

[mattj]

This topic makes almost zero sense to me. Are you saying that (using waterbomb's example) if waterbomb doesn't want to mislead people due to his moral values, that his employer cannot fire or reprimand him, despite the fact that it is affecting his performance?

Actually, I am asking just that. Should our government step in and say, "Hey. The dude has a problem with lying. It's a conviction of his that he ought to tell the truth. Make an accommodation or face a fine." Or should a person in that situation just do what he and I did, quit and find a job that doesn't require them to do something that they conscientiously object to? I wouldn't get too hung up on the specifics of his individual situation though. I'm looking for a much broader conversation.

I asked this on another forum, concerning our government legislating what might very well seem to be a religiously neutral issue (to them):

I don't have a problem with handling pork, and I'm concerned about families not having enough to eat during the holiday season. Should I be able to legislate that all businesses be required to give their employees holiday hams every holiday season?

 

[Adamant Zoroark]

Although I may be biased as an atheist, I don't see any reason why employees should be given legal protection based on their religious views. Like, a Christian Science pharmacist? Come on, really? If you object to the use of something, don't work somewhere that specializes in distributing it. There are many other jobs you could have taken. Granted, a lot of things are harder to tell, but in-your-face obvious things like what is distributed have to be considered before you take a job.

The way I see things, the government should not try to cater to everyone's religious objections, nor should religious objections be forced upon employees, customers, or whatever. Like, a pharmacist refusing to provide birth control or really any prescription (in the case of the Christian Science guy) is just dumb. The whole Obamacare fiasco with Hobby Lobby is another discussion altogether, but when you get to pharmacies refusing to provide the morning-after pill... Why do I even need to explain this?

 

[frogoholic101]

The way I see things, the government should not try to cater to everyone's religious objections, nor should religious objections be forced upon employees, customers, or whatever. Like, a pharmacist refusing to provide birth control or really any prescription (in the case of the Christian Science guy) is just dumb.

But what if you've got a doctor who doesn't wish to perform abortions? If the doctor is opposed to it for religious or consciental reasons then he shouldn't be forced to perform it. He can still be useful for other operations or treatments. It is hardly 'dumb' for someone to not do something that's against their beliefs. I appreciate there are problems if, as you say, things like morning after pills are refused outright, but surely there would be another pharmacist who could provide them? (In a similar way the Muslims barbers tried to get in another man to cut the woman's hair in the third link).

But what about the Muslim teen who didn't make it clear that handling pork and alcohol would be a problem for her, because of her religious beliefs? I certainly hope it's not simply because I'm not Muslim, but it seems she ought to have realized that was going to be a problem and have notified her employer either before accepting the position, or as soon as she realized there was going to be a problem.

She should be awarded accommodation in the same way the Pentecostal girl was. How far this is a liability depends on the business; if a Hindu that's working at a Burger King says she won't work with beef then that's a major problem and the company should have the right to kick her out, but if the Muslim girl is a chef and will cook everything except pork dishes then I believe some form of protection should be in effect. Still, I rashly voted the first option, and then I realised second option is one I agree with more.

We had the case in the UK a while ago where a B&B refused a gay couple with a room with a double bed. They were sued and lost the court case. I didn't agree with this but the court's logic was sound; when they became a B&B they agreed to provide a service and comply with all the service laws, including allowing all people a double bed if they ask. But they disagreed with homosexual intercourse and the B&B was essentially their own house. Whilst this isn't exactly the topic of employees getting protection, it showcases the issue of whether one's beliefs should be respected in their workplace.
It's a tricky question, though I think there should be some government regulation.

 

[MrIndigo]

But what if you've got a doctor who doesn't wish to perform abortions? If the doctor is opposed to it for religious or consciental reasons then he shouldn't be forced to perform it. He can still be useful for other operations or treatments. It is hardly 'dumb' for someone to not do something that's against their beliefs. I appreciate there are problems if, as you say, things like morning after pills are refused outright, but surely there would be another pharmacist who could provide them? (In a similar way the Muslims barbers tried to get in another man to cut the woman's hair in the first link).

Absolutely wrong, ESPECIALLY in the case of doctors (and lawyers, and financial advisers). It is exactly this thinking that caused the recent death of a woman in Ireland because her Catholic doctor refused to perform an abortion to save her life.

See, the roles of doctor, lawyer etc. are fiduciaries - the interests of their clients come before their own by the very definition of the career. If you are not comfortable setting your beliefs aside in favour of the interests of your client YOU CANNOT BE A FIDUCIARY.

That's just that. If your religious convictions will interfere with you making the best decisions for a patients life or well being, then don't be a fucking doctor, be a priest.

 

[pookar]

religious freedoms are protected under the RFRA and the fourteenth amendment

the only ones arent are the ones that break federal laws explicitly

boerne v flores
oregon v smith
sherbert v verner
goldman v weinberger
wisconsin v yoder
reynolds v uS

six cases on religious freedom, i believe 4 of them are workplace related (one is military, and reynolds is about polygamy)

 

[frogoholic101]

MrIndigo, what you say is false. The girl died because abortion is outlawed in Ireland entirely. The doctor couldn't legally have performed an abortion even if he had wanted to.

Where there are issues of debate, like balancing the foetus' and the mother's right to life, the opinion of the doctor should be respected, but the patient should be referred to a doctor who will help her with an abortion.
(On a personal level I'm fine with abortions but I respect that there's still a divide of opinion on this in various countries)

 

[Trax]

But what if you've got a doctor who doesn't wish to perform abortions? If the doctor is opposed to it for religious or consciental reasons then he shouldn't be forced to perform it.

If a doctor (in a relevant role, it's largely irrelevant if a brain surgeon will not perform abortions) in a hospital won't perform abortions, I'm ok with that so long as the hospital receives zero government funding - I am talking 100% private with patients paying 100% of the bill with their own money with absolutely no government subsidies. Same applies to other similar positions.

That said, any employer, private or public should be legally entitled to fire an employee for refusing to do something that's part of their employment (like handle pork, or sell alcohol, or perform abortions, or sell contraceptives, etc etc) due to religious beliefs because they're refusing to do their job and if you refuse to do your job you shouldn't have one.

I can fully understand some workplaces not allowing skirts or dresses, for much the same reason I can understand a construction site requiring work boots and a hard hat - the employer has to protect their employees health; if the employee's religious beliefs conflict with that they shouldn't be there for their safety and that of their colleagues.

 

[Fishy]

i think it's sort of hilarious to think that the government should fine a workplace for "forcing" an employee to do something they don't want to do. using waterbomb's personal example again, his former employer should not be fined should he suggest to another employee that lying is a cornerstone of his job. are those businesses given a sigh of relief when they find an employee perfectly okay with lying? which are you trying to solve, poor business infrastructure or unhappy employees unsatisfied with the work they're meant to be doing?

if someone finds that they don't like their job, or aren't uncomfortable fulfilling certain duties of their job, then they should quit. someone else will come along and do their job with zero objections, and their employer will be giddy. it's laughable to believe a budget could exist to placate employees of jobs they dislike, for whatever reason. find a job you DO like, and that you WILL perform no matter what. it's not that difficult.

unfortunately, as just a single employee for whatever company you're a part of, you're always going to be a singular minority if you're unhappy with doing your job because of personal reasons which do not reflect on the rest of the work force.

 

[LonelyNess]

Does your religion hinder your ability to perform the basic functions of the job you're supposed to be performing (such as handling pork / alcohol in a restaurant, or selling the morning after pill as a pharmacist)? Then you deserve no protections. Get a different job.

If your religion doesn't (like the pentecostals needing to go outside of the dress code in order to wear a skirt to work), then yeah you deserve to be protected.

And as a business owner, you can't deny your employees the rights they've been afforded over the years just because of your religion. If you don't want to have to give health insurance which could potentially pay for abortions, then stop being a business owner.

Also I'm not sure if you're serious about that article from "The Onion"... but that "news" site is a pretty obvious parody news site.....