The Seattle Union Gospel Mission is a religiously based group who helps the homeless by supplying food, shelter, clothing, etc. They are a faith based organization and want all of their employees/volunteers to share the same views. They are now being scrutinized for not hiring a person who did not share the same religion beliefs. The article, Seattle's Union Gospel Mission v. Woods states, "The ministry's religious convictions and evangelization are the foundation for everything it does, and therefore every staff member must share and live out the Mission's religious beliefs for the Mission to be successful." Here the intention is shown that the mission wishes to only higher those who share their belief because they feel that is the message they want to send and share to make their organization effective.
The Mission refused to hire a person who did not share the same beliefs as them. They were sued because of this and now they are wanting to be seen by the Supreme Court. They are being defended by Alliance Defending Freedom and Senior Counsel/Vice President of Appellate Advocacy John Bursch states, “As the briefs filed with the Supreme Court rightly argue, churches and religious organizations have the First Amendment right to hire those who share their beliefs without being punished by the government,” He is supporting a non-profit religious organizations right to hire who they wish when it comes to aligning with their religious beliefs. He shows that it is protected under the First Amendment and the government shouldn’t have any bearing on who they can and cannot hire. The first court saw this case and dismissed the lawsuit because they felt as though the non-profit was acting within their rights. Then the Washington Supreme Court decided to take the case. The article states that, “The Washington Supreme Court overrode the exemption and held that the Mission has no First Amendment right to hire only people who share its beliefs.” The Washington Supreme Court is saying that it isn’t right for the Mission to deny a person a job due to their religious affiliation. Whereas, the Alliance Defending Freedom who is representing the Mission says that having the government trying to regulate what religious organizations can and cannot hire based on religion is a violation and they are acting within their First Amendment rights.
Looking specifically at the Free Exercise Clause this is an interesting case because they specifically didn’t hire this person due to their religious beliefs, but they should not be required to do so because they are not a government organization. Requiring the Mission to hire a person of another faith could go against their right to free exercise. They have displayed that they wish to help the community through like minded people, so forcing them to hire someone who doesn’t align with their views could be looked at as a violation of their free exercise. They are not a governmental organization so this isn’t an establishment of religion it simply a religious organization choosing to hire people that share their faith. The article goes on to state that, “As a result, Washington law now requires houses of worship and other religious nonprofits to employ those who contradict the beliefs they were created to foster unless a position qualifies for the Washington Supreme Court’s narrow interpretation of a “minister.” The decision threatens to undermine religious nonprofits like the Mission that are organized around and designed to promote a specific, shared set of religious beliefs.” This is a slippery slope because now the government is regulating who religious groups can hire and they are attempting to define what is to be considered a “minister” this could go along with the court case, Cantwell v. Connecticut where a government official had the authority to dictate what should be considered authentic when it comes to sharing your religion or trying to solicit for money. Allowing the government to dictate how private organizations conduct their business is a slippery slope and in the context of religious organizations can be a violation of the free exercise clause.
Looking at the decision I believe that the Mission should be able to hire who they wish. They are a private organization that is known to have a religious background. I see that the government attempting to regulate who they can hire based on religion is going towards violating their free exercise. I feel like this can go back to the reasoning of you have no right to not be offended. This organization has no obligation to hire a person that they believe does not align with their religious purpose. I can see the view from the other side being that they should not discriminate against someone because of their religion or lack thereof, but if they are a known religious group and they found another person to hire who aligns with their beliefs instead I think that should be permitted. They are an organization that is looking for specific qualities in a person they are wanting to hire. They want a person to meet their requirements and I do not feel like the government should have any bearing on that when it comes to religious organizations.
7 comments:
I agree with your analysis of the case. I think that since the organization has no connection to the state, they should be allowed to hire whoever they would like. I do not think that taking this away would infringe on their ability to freely practice their religion. However, I do wonder about the other side of this case: does it also infringe on someone else's ability to freely practice their religion. For example, if a Jewish person wants to work at the organization, is it negatively impacting their ability to freely practice their religion if they can't do so while working there? It is a tricky and slippery slope.
I couldn't agree more with your analysis, but playing devil's advocate let's assume the slippery slope aspect of this case, drawing on the Civil Rights Acts, one may argue that the Union Gospel Mission's hiring practices are discriminatory, in violation of the Civil Rights Acts. Then what's next if we allow organizations to discriminate on the basis of one's religion, or lack thereof? the slippery slope argument would devolve to say that denial of employment will later extend to an organization's religion being exclusionary based on race and gender. The issue lies in whose rights are primary and secondary in the hiring process. Personally and in this case, I see the right lying with the employer, Union Gospel Mission, because the potential employee doesn't have the right to demand an organization to change their business model. Further, it is that potential employee's decision to seek employment anywhere with whomever they so choose. they do not have the specific right to employment with the UGM.
I completely agree with Libby's analysis of this case. It is a clear violation of the "free exercise clause" to force a non-profit religious group to hire someone who does not meet their religious requirements. In this case, it would paint the state as an adversary to religion, clearly not the purpose of the first amendment. The state is also infringing on the groups freedom to exercise their religion, which is carried out in the hiring of employees with their beliefs.
As mentioned in the comments above, a case like this is definitely a slippery slope. However, after looking at solely the facts of this specific case, I do agree with your analysis that this would be a violation of the free exercise clause. To me, it really comes down to whether an organization is connected to the state through either funding or any other type of way. In this case, because the organization is separate from the state, I believe that they should be able to hire whoever they see fit. Under the free exercise clause, anyone should be able to practice their religion as they see fit. If this group feels like someone does not meet their religious expectations, then they have the right to hire how they see fit. After all, potential employees can apply for any job they want. If they see that their beliefs don't line up with what the organization is looking for then they have the ability to look for job opportunities elsewhere.
As mentioned in previous comments, I do agree with your analysis of the case. It is a violation of the Free Exercise Clause to force a private non-profit organization to hire someone that does not align with their beliefs. However, I do recognize the point that it could prove to be a slippery slope. In my opinion, if it has been established that this is a private organization and they are in no way connected to the state, who's to say this exclusion or slippery slope matters? Private organizations have not been held accountable in this way, and even a case like this won't change that. This organization clearly advertises itself as representing specific religious beliefs and values. A private organization is allowed to act in a way that they believe is right, and others are not entitled or deserving of acceptance or a certain treatment just because they believe that they are. Additionally, to Paul's point that the slippery slope of denying someone based on religion could lead to discrimination based on race and gender, the bottom line is that they are a religious organization. Their beliefs directly contradict the religious beliefs of someone that wanted to work there, so they were not accepted. Difference races and genders do not have the same clear-cut beliefs (all races and genders could align with or diverge from their beliefs), and further, are not contradictory to the organization.
This is a tricky case because as has been previously mentioned in the comments, there has to be a decision whether it is a violation of free exercise of religion upon the for the employer or the employee. One could argue that to not allow someone to work for the organization is a violation of that person's rights, but it could also be argued that to force a group to hire someone who doesn't share their views that is a violation of the employers rights. I think it comes down to the fact that the group is a private organization that is not affiliated with the state. This means they are not required to hire people if they do not fulfill the established requirements. I think a similar way to look at this is when social media companies remove people for violating their rules. Someone could try to make the argument that this violates the first amendment, but private organizations do not have a requirement to hold themselves to the same constitutional standard as the state does.
I agree that the private religious organization has the right to hire whom they choose. This group has no affiliation with the state and maintains a specific mission grounded in religious convictions. I think there are similarities to the Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission case. In this instance, the bakery had the right to deny cakes to homosexual couples due to their religious convictions on the grounds of free exercise. I similarly see a right for the religious organization to deny employment to those who do not align with their beliefs.
Post a Comment