In October toward the latter half of the first year of Joe Biden's presidency, President Biden signed two executive orders. Enacted by and enforced through the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. These orders mandate both religious nonprofit, and for-profit employers. Compelling these religious employers to fund, provide gender transitioning surgeries, counseling, insurance, and all other medical costs and benefits associated with transgender issues, all of which go against their core tenants and beliefs. Due to these mandates, attorneys from the Alliance Defending Freedom(ADF) are representing the Christian Employers Alliance (CEA) in a suit against the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). In the lawsuit it is claimed that the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission is improperly misinterpreting sex-based discrimination in Title VII, forcing religious institutions to provide healthcare services that go against their beliefs and moral/religious practices. Specifically, these employers are being coerced into paying for or providing the funds to individuals necessary for the expenses required for gender transition surgery, etc. The main challenge in the case is establishing the proper interpretation of "sex" under federal law, and if the law also includes gender identity. However, because of the nature of the mandate, it calls into question the obligation employers have in taking part in an act or process that goes against their beliefs. Further does the state have the right to burden, and or coerce private organizations to take part in said processes and acts?
The free exercise clause protects citizens' right to practice their religion as they please, so long as the practice does not go against public morals or government interests. The hard part is defining what are the accepted public morals, in regards to the issue of transgenderism. No one disagrees that any and all persons should live how they see fit doing whatever brings them peace and happiness, in regards to their own sexuality, if it does not harm or affect other people. But the same also extends to an individual's religious beliefs and practices. Thus the court must strike a decision to determine whether or not one's religious rights constitute a legitimate cause to "discriminate" against one's gender identity.
This issue is important for the future of religious liberty in the United States because the evolving state of our society is further distancing itself from God. As our society furthers itself from religion and religious institutions, the secular elements of our system will overcome and supersede the religious protections afforded to us in the Constitution. This slippery slope is more than just a fallacy. Power when it goes unchecked has a tendency to be abused, and be all-encompassing. These executive orders are the perfect example of that power being abused to achieve a political goal, while simultaneously undermining the religious liberties of individuals and private organizations. The fact that the First Amendment's free exercise clause explicitly protects from government coercion in how one is supposed to practice their faith, is proof enough for a cut and dry decision from the court to decide in favor of the Christian Employers Alliance and the Alliance Defending Freedom.
6 comments:
Looking a Biden's mandate I do see it as an overstep and a violation of the free exercise clause. I do not feel as though private organizations should have the burden of paying for something that goes against their religion. While I do believe people should have the ability to transition and do what they feel is right I do not think that it is okay for an organization to have to pay for the transition if it goes against their religious beliefs. If they choose to practice a specific religion and Biden's mandate goes against that religious choice it is a violation of free exercise in my opinion. I also want to point out your point of how these do not offer religious exemptions which is vital to the point of this being a violation and an overreach of power. If you aren't providing a religious exemption you aren't supplying people with the ability to practice their religion in effect going against the free exercise clause. I agree with your point about power unchecked can be abused and I believe that these mandates are an example of an abuse of power.
I also believe that this is an overreach of governmental power. This is a private organization, not one that is state-funded or anything like that. This mandate is an attack against the freedom of religion, as beliefs against these kinds of procedures are fundamental in the Christian religion. The government is directly trying to control religious profits and non-profits with this act, which goes against their constitutional limits. Although this is another difficult case, as the minority rights of transgender people are being obstructed, in this case, religious freedom takes precedence. The CEA members will face punishment if they refuse to comply, with no exemptions, which is a further act of the government in getting in the way of religious freedom. This can be seen as a similar case to whether the Christian doctors should provide abortions even though that also goes against their religious beliefs. There is a different burden on the government to intervene when it comes to matters of healthcare. However, I do still think that because this is a mandate aimed at religious organizations directly, it is an overstep by the government, limiting free exercise of religion.
You say that this mandate coerces employers into paying for things such as gender transition surgery, etc. What is etc. in this case? I understand the idea that it goes against free exercise of religion to force employers into paying for a specific surgery that goes against their beliefs. I think it is important to address what etc. is. If the etc. is the other general medical care that employers cover for their employees then I think they need to follow the mandate or else they are discriminating against transgender people. If employers are allowed to not cover medical expenses for people who they disagree with based on their identity, then this is a slippery slope towards allowing for other forms of discrimination by employers.
I understand the importance of these anti-discriminatory laws, however, there does not appear to be any evidence that the Christian Employers Alliance is discriminating against transgender individuals. While the process of gender transition surgery violates Christian faith, we learned in class that there is ‘no right to not be offended by other people's convictions.’ In other words, I argue that this case can not claim to be anti-discriminatory because there was no overt discriminatory actions. A belief may offend others, but there can be no claim to discrimination unless there is an unfair or prejudiced treatment toward transgender individuals. In addition to this, I want to note the significance surrounding the fact that the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission is a tax that violates religious freedoms. A dissenting judge from the Everson VS Board of Education (Ewing Township) case states that tax for religion would pave the way for oppressive levies. Although the money collected under this law is not for a religious organization (because the tax provides funds for gender transition surgery), this tax is violating the religious liberties of another group, and therefore, opening the door for further abuse of power. Forcing a group to violate their religious convictions is unconstitutional and should be considered an overreach of governmental power.
This case is particularly interesting because it begs the question of whether we can legally enforce our subjective and social morals upon others. Is it constitutional to “coerce” Christians to aid a process they deem as “sinful”? Although I do not agree, I see why the Christian Employers Alliance filed a suit against the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. For a government organization to impose laws that contradict a group’s values arguably does infringe upon their religious freedom.
The CEA’s response to Biden’s order highlights how religious sentiments do not necessarily evolve with social progress. Our societies somewhat new conception of gender and sex does not parallel the constitutions or Christian’s idea of transgenderism. However, the way in which transgenderism has become less stigmatized and ostracized in society questions whether the CEA is discriminating against transgender workers. A case could be made against the CEA for not providing this resources for transitioning employees.
I do believe that Biden's executive mandate is in violation of the free exercise clause in the first amendment. As I understand it, the purpose of this mandate is to require a private religious organization to financially support acts that explicitly contradict their religion. In other cases, we often see judicial officials say it is okay to believe in something but that does not mean it is legal to act. I think this somewhat applies here because it is unconstitutional, in my opinion, to require a a private group to actively go against their beliefs.
Post a Comment