Thanks to an annoying mailing list I somehow managed to get on, I just learned about an interesting case alleged to involve First Amendment violations and religious persecution by Allstate Insurance. (A guy named J. Matt Barber published an article which mentioned his employment with Allstate, and slammed the evil homos):

Barber says the human resources assistant vice president told him the column didn't reflect Allstate's view and that he was suspended with pay. Barber was immediately ushered off company grounds – "which was humiliating," the former employee said.

"I explained to Allstate that the article was a reflection of my personal Christian beliefs, and that I had every right to both write it and to have it published," Barber told WND. "I further explained that I had written the article while at home on my own time, that I never mentioned Allstate's name and that I neither directly nor indirectly suggested that Allstate shared my Christian beliefs or my views on same-sex marriage."

Three days later, on Feb. 3, Barber, who had worked for Allstate for five years, says he got a call informing him he was fired "for writing the article," he said. Now, with the help of the Christian Law Association and David Gibbs III, who represented Terri Schiavo's family in the final weeks of her life, Barber is challenging Allstate in federal court.

According to an investigation by the state of Illinois' Department of Employment Security related to Barber's claim for unemployment benefits, an organization – likely a "gay"-rights group – complained to Allstate about the column. But how did the group connect Barber to the insurance company? It turns out one site that posted the column, MensNewsDaily.com, added to the bio line on the article the fact that Barber worked for Allstate.

Barber says he did not include that fact in the original column submission but that the site "disclosed that without my knowledge or consent." According to Barber, he is somewhat well-known in the boxing field in Chicago, and Allstate would sometimes tout the fact that he worked for the company.

Date: Fri, 31 Dec 2004 20:21:08 -0800 (PST)
From: "Eric Scheie"

Subject: Re:
To: "J. Matt Barber"

Dear Mr. Barber,

Interesting piece, and I have a couple of thoughts:

1. Whether or not a person is "born that way"
(homosexual) or any other way is irrelevant to
considerations of personal freedom or privacy.

2. I think you're misusing the word "sodomy." More
here:

http://www.classicalvalues.com/archives/000344.html

You make a good point about bigotry. I for one don't
think opposing same sex marriage is bigotry, although
I think advocating the imprisonment of adult human
beings for private consensual conduct is.

Perhaps you can shed some light on a question which
has long perplexed me: why would anyone would concern
himself about what others do with their genitalia
(barring mutual interest of something like that) any
more than he'd concern himself with their consumption
of tobacco, drugs, alcohol, or fatty foods?

I'll worry about myself, but I think life is too short
to be worried about what other people do unless they
come to me for advice.

Thanks!

Eric Scheie

There is just as much right to hold antigay views as there is to hold racist views or anti-Semitic views. Whether one bases one's claims on the Bible is irrelevant. If the Boy Scouts have the right to refuse to accept homosexual members, then wouldn't a gay group have just as much right to refuse anti-homosexual members? Does a Jew hater who thinks Hitler was right have a right to work for a Jew? If he claimed justification for his views under the Koran, why would that make any difference?

This man has a right to say anything he wants, but I fail to see how the First Amendment (which forbids the government from stopping him) creates any particular duty for Allstate, any more than it would require me to allow comments I disagreed with on this blog. Whether it is wise of Allstate to invite scrutiny from Mr. Barber's supporters (who may well decide to boycott Allstate for disagreeing with him), well, that's a business decision for Allstate. I suppose they could fire all Democrats if they wanted.

The thornier issue is of course whether this constitutes religious discrimination. If it could be shown that Barber was terminated for the status of being a Christian, then it would. But as I've said before, religion does not confer any special protection to opinions or actions just because they are said to be grounded in religion. An opinion said to result from religious conviction is no more protected than the same opinion uttered in the absence of religious conviction. I don't see how Allstate can be said to have "violated" this man's religion, as it's not as if they made him work on Sundays, or eat pork. That other people in the company are doing things that violate what he considers God's commands in no way forces him to do anything, or prevents him from doing anything.

But here's how Barber's lawyer, David Gibbs III (who WND says "represented Terri Schiavo's family in the final weeks of her life"), sees things:

"To have Fortune 100 companies like Allstate firing people for expressing their sincerely held religious beliefs and even their personal viewpoints on their own time demonstrates just how out of kilter things have gotten," Gibbs told WND.

"Allstate aggressively pushes and promotes the homosexual agenda in the name of tolerance, but the minute someone speaks up with what would be considered the traditional moral-values viewpoint, the tolerance disappears and it results in a termination."

Gibbs rhetorically asked if Allstate would take the same action against someone who put forth a pro-homosexual viewpoint.

"The answer is absolutely not," he said. "The tolerance is only running one way."

Such discriminatory action violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Gibbs contends.

Said Gibbs: "The law was intended to make sure people of faith didn't have to leave their religion or viewpoints at the workplace stairs."

Gibbs compared the situation to that of racial discrimination.

"Just like Allstate can't go in and say, 'We've discovered your ethnicity and we're going to fire you,' I don't believe Allstate should be able to go in and say, 'We've discovered your anti-homosexuality viewpoint and we're going to fire you.'"

The complaint claims Barber was "terminated from his employment and discriminated against by Defendants, with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions or privileges of employment because he expressed during non-work hours his sincerely held religious beliefs."

"I don't believe the Boy Scouts should be able to go in and say, 'We've discovered your pro-homosexuality viewpoint and we're going to fire you.'"

But I'm not sure fairness is the goal here.

More likely, it's publicity.

I guess I haven't solved the question of what the rule should be. If an employer has no right to fire on the grounds of homosexuality, should the same employer have the right to fire on the grounds of opposition to homosexuality? I think it depends on whether the employee was fired for a state of mind or for stating what was in his mind. It is one thing to be gay, and another to express the opinion that heterosexuals would be better off gay. The same rule should apply to Christians, Muslims, heterosexuals, and I don't think the First Amendment offers much assistance. Nor does hiding behind it.

I'm not sure what the rule should be, but to return to the "sodomy" issue, I think that if an employer disagreed with my biblical assessment and fired me for discussing it, I should have just as much right to fire employees who disagreed with me.

As a Pagan Christian/Christian Pagan, I see religious freedom (and religious discrimination) as a two edged sword.