Religious exemption for gender discrimination?

The latest controversy between freedom of religion and discrimination laws have taken place in North Carolina. A 51-year-old sheriff’s deputy named Manuel Torres is filing a lawsuit, claiming that he was fired from the department because he refused to train a female employee alone due to his religious beliefs. This belief is one most commonly called the Billy Graham Rule. Billy Graham was an evangelist figure who proposed those beliefs. The reasoning behind this belief was to prevent temptation on the male part, exhibit integrity, and to be isolated from any instance pertaining to sexual misconduct. Graham himself refused to have alone time, eat, or even travel with a woman who was not his wife. From this, Torres believes that his religious beliefs prohibit him, as a married man, from being alone with a woman for an extended period of time if she is not his wife. Therefore, he believes his refusal to be alone with a female coworker should be accepted as a means of his right to free exercise of religion.

Torres asked his sergeant for religious exemption and was immediately denied. Torres then went to his sergeants’ superiors to obtain exemption and was met with retaliation from his sergeant. In an altercation between two civilians where a gun was present Torres needed backup, of which his sergeant refused to send. After that incident, he was soon fired without explanation. Torres and his legal team suggest that religious discrimination and a violation of Torres’ first amendment rights was the reason in which he was fired, after asking repeatedly for a religious exemption. Torres is also claiming a “loss of income and benefits; loss of quality and enjoyment of life; (and) loss of reputation” in addition to monetary compensation. Although this case has not yet been decided upon, it will be interesting to see the outcome of the court’s decision, and whether they will privilege Torres’ religious obligation supported by the first amendment, or North Carolina’s discrimination law in which Torres potentially violated.

            The first amendment upholds the truth that one has the right to free exercise of religion. Therefore, the question that comes into play is whether or not Torres should have been fired from a public office for upholding his religious beliefs? Torres was willing to do every other aspect of the job besides train with a woman who was not his wife for a long period of time. However, what happens when one’s first amendment right clashes with existing discrimination laws? It is also worth noting that there are reasonable alternatives that could have trained the female employee and simultaneously uphold Torres’ religious obligations. A religious exemption has been used to opt-out a variety of practices. One of the most common is a religious exemption from the draft. There were some religious sects that were granted religious exemptions from joining the draft on the grounds of religious beliefs. Joining the draft as well as discrimination laws are both existing laws that society must adhere to, but why is a religious exemption from joining the draft seen differently than a religious exemption to train a female employee alone?

            Although Manuel Torres and Billy Graham’s ideologies surrounding their religious duties are not the beliefs of the majority, it does not mean that they don’t have the right to free exercise. Some might say that nowhere in the holy text does it say that a married man cannot have any interactions with a woman who is not your wife, but who are we as a society to say what beliefs should and should not be allowed to be exercised. If one feels it is their religious obligation to not interact with a female for a long period of time alone, who is the government and or employer of a public office to try and restrict that right despite it being written in the constitution. If anything, the free exercise clause in the First Amendment was used to protect then current and potential religious minorities against the tyrannical majority. Face value, the non-toleration of “discrimination” based on gender is a good thing that promotes diversity and inclusion in the workplace and is applied across the board for all peoples, both religious and anti-religious. However, despite this same rule being applied to everyone, it does not go against everyone’s rights. It is however hostile to Torres’ religious obligation to stay the utmost faithful to his wife by not interacting with other women for long periods of time, such as training a new female employee. And to that point, this is not just a belief that Torres holds, but a religious obligation. Who are we as a society to say that Torres must choose between making a living, and fulfilling a religious obligation? If that is the case, then we are preferencing everybody BUT Torres. Allowing Torres an exemption from training a female employee on religious grounds, no matter what the moral belief is should be protected by the first amendment free exercise clause.