There are many ways to look at my Father's situation with Spring Arbor University. Among these are: moral/ethical; theological; economic; cultural; political; and legal. I've touched on a few of the other areas, but I wanted to say something about the legal side of things. I am not a lawyer, obviously, but I live in DC, so I get some legal-mindedness by osmosis. There are a number of freedoms from the Bill of Rights and EEO laws that enter the discussion here: Freedom of Speech (and expression); Freedom of Religion; Freedom of the Press; and Freedom from discrimination on the basis of sex, race, or creed (I'm sure I'm missing some there). The Bill of Rights offers protections first to individuals - "the People." The freedoms apply not only to individuals, but organizations as well, though some restrictions are placed on organizations. We'd hardly want to trade the tyranny of government for tyranny of some other organization, so the Bill of Rights protects the rights of each individual over those of organizations except in certain circumstances as defined by law. SAU could have claimed those exemptions if they were primarily a religious institution or owned by a religious institution, or if they had a "BFOQ" (Bonafide Occupational Qualification). I don't think they've satisfied either condition, but as I said, I'm no lawyer. If you want to know what a lawyer has to say about all of this, check out this blog on my father's claim.
Of course, I'm not the only one with a legal opinion. A Conservative blogger at HumanEvents.com claims that if my father's claim is upheld it would "be a serious blow to freedoms of religion and association." He seems misinformed in some areas, often confusing "sex" and "gender" and resorts to hyperbole to try and prove his point. I don't know if I should even take this blogger seriously, but their claims that upholding my Father's claim would harm freedom of religion and association seem to turn the situation on its head. The University forced my father to accept a contract that restricted his religious freedom, freedom of association, and freedom of speech. Overturning that contract does not "damage" freedom, it restores it.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
DC,
You speak of the confusion between "sex" and "gender" with offered links of their definitions. This confusion is what racks my brain. From my experience with the two words (all twenty or so years of them), I have thought "gender" was a euphemism for "sex" to keep us "good Christian kids" from saying sex as much as possible. The definitions you have offered from that site even shows that gender's 2nd definition is in fact "sex."
(Um ... there's a question in there somewhere. Probably, what's the difference between sex and gender? I may ask additional questions later.)
As for the situation with your father, I have little to argue over the SAU conflict. Transgender, though still scientifically inaccesible to me, seems to be a Biblical issue closer to that of leprosy than homosexuality -- if there is an issue at all. But I still have not chosen sides. For one, both extremes bother me, as you have pointed out in your recent post. Secondly, I am not really politically active, so I prefer to observe the reasons between both sides and hold my judgment.
I do pray, though; your father, you, your family, and SAU on my mind, this has all been in my prayers.
God bless.
"Sex" refers to your biological condition. "Gender" refers to masculine, feminine, or neuter (in English).
P.S. I first learned the differences between these two words at a Public Speaking course at Spring Arbor.
For more info on the legal issue, you can also see: http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/laborprof_blog/2007/02/a_bfoq_issue_at.html
I've been doing some thinking about this. While searching my heart about Julie's situation, I realize that the same libertarian heart that thinks your dad should have no shame in being who she is also wonders if SAU doesn't have the right to whatever opinions they care to have, bigoted or otherwise.
Let's take the Bob Jones University situation. In 1971, they were informed by the IRS that their tax exempt status was going to be revoked if they chose to continue excluding African-Americans from enrolling. They sued the IRS, but a Supreme Court ruling determined that they could not sue the IRS until they served BJU a tax bill.
Perhaps, and I say this hoping like hell I don't offend you Julie, SAU should be allowed to discriminate against who they will, but lose their tax-exempt status in the process. Maybe this is a tack you and your legal team could approach.
I'd also add to my last post that after the Supreme Court ruling, Bob Jones University dropped their policy excluding African-Americans.
Post a Comment