Can I Just Say…

My boyfriend sent me a link to an article by the renowned atheist Richard Dawkins entitled "Should employers be blind to private beliefs". The article is about whether it is acceptable to reject someone for a job based on their religious beliefs. The instance in the article was of a of guy called Martin Gaskell who was rejected for the position of Director of a new university observatory at the University of Kentucky. He sued the university on grounds of religious discrimination; Mr Gaskell is a creationist astronomer. The university has now settled paying him $125,000, while declining to admit wrongdoing.

The likely reasoning behind the University settling was their belief that the Court would find that the university had unfairly discriminated against Mr Gaskell by rejecting him for the job - so the university decided to deal with the situation out of court without admitting wrongdoing. That led my boyfriend to ask me if I thought that this position was fair? (I, by the way, am not an atheist - I have Jewish beliefs; my boyfriend on the other hand, is an atheist.) My belief (pardon the usage :) is that the law in such a situation should not deem the University guilty of unfairly discriminating. Certainly, they appear to have discriminated against Mr Gaskell based on his religious views, but I don't believe that this is unfair. In my opinion, the world of science has particular rules and philosophies that underpin it - much like religions, political systems etc. I think if someone wishes to work within such a world, their personal beliefs should ideally accord with the system's essential tenets, or at the very least not conflict with them. It seems that someone who believes that the world was created approximately 6000 years ago, is putting the preponderance of scientific weight that the earth is billions of years old to the side, in favour of their religious beliefs. In these circumstances, the university should be able to reject a person for employment - especially where they will be involved in teaching, research and other core university activities. The university should not have to fear prosecution in rejecting a candidate like Mr Gaskell just because his views are based on religious convictions, when these views do not accord with the university and its scientific values.  

My boyfriend decided (ironically :) to play Devils' advocate, arguing that society shouldn't discriminate in relation to employment on any grounds. I wondered, is this the only principled position? I thought about it, and then responded that society does already discriminate, and it does so in a much more pernicious way and this is explicitly sanctioned by the law. What I am talking about is the fact that religious organisations are permitted to hire and fire staff based on the sexual behaviours and/or identities. As the recent Sydney Morning Herald article by David Marr entitled "Faiths rule on sex form staffroom to bedroom" highlights, some Churches, Orthodox Jewish and Muslim organisations discriminate against potential or actual employees based on their sexuality or sexual behaviours. This discrimination is explicitly permitted by law; this discrimination is treated as an exception to general anti-discrimination laws that would otherwise prohibit such behaviour.

I believe that the discrimination here is of a more serious type, as someone's sexuality is not a choice nor a belief that they choose; rather it is an essential part of their being. Unlike a scientist whose belief in creationism runs in direct opposition to the scientific approach and thus makes their employment in universities questionable, there is nothing inherently contradictory about being gay, and working in a religious organisation, as say a secretary. Yet the law, and society more broadly, currently permits and abets this discrimination. 

This privileging of religious organisations so that they may discriminate when they are the employer, while at the same time protecting religious adherents from discrimination as employees, seems to me to be wanting to have it both ways. Will religion continue be treated above the law, while at the same time demanding its protection? This unfair, and exceptional preferencing of (conservative) religious sensibilities over other, equally important sensibilities, such as sexuality or gender is unacceptable in a democracy where everyone should be equal before the law.