HuffPost Editorial - Nebraska: Fire Assistant Football Coach Ron Brown

[knapplc]

How can anyone ask for a person to be fired for discrimination when said person is expressing his personal religious beliefs. Is it not discrimination to single out a person to be fired based solely on his/her religious beliefs.

 

To answer your second question first, yes, it can be discriminatory to fire someone solely because of their religious beliefs. However, the caveat to that is that, while you have freedom to hold whatever religious views you want, you ALSO have freedom from religion if you choose.

 

For example: You cannot fire a person because they are a Pastafarian. But at the same time, that Pastafarian cannot proselytize their belief in such a way that it creates a hostile working environment. You CAN be fired due to your religion if the exercise of that religion creates harassment for others. Being religious (or atheist, or agnostic) is not a shield from discipline/termination based upon that religion.

[Ziggy]

How can anyone ask for a person to be fired for discrimination when said person is expressing his personal religious beliefs. Is it not discrimination to single out a person to be fired based solely on his/her religious beliefs.

 

To answer your second question first, yes, it can be discriminatory to fire someone solely because of their religious beliefs. However, the caveat to that is that, while you have freedom to hold whatever religious views you want, you ALSO have freedom from religion if you choose.

 

For example: You cannot fire a person because they are a Pastafarian. But at the same time, that Pastafarian cannot proselytize their belief in such a way that it creates a hostile working environment. You CAN be fired due to your religion if the exercise of that religion creates harassment for others. Being religious (or atheist, or agnostic) is not a shield from discipline/termination based upon that religion.

 

You have the freedom to choose not to believe in a religion yes, you do not have the freedom to fire someone because they express their religious beliefs around you. Unless the government is forcing a specific religion on you, or someone else is forcing you to believe in a particular religion then that is against your rights covered under the 1st amendment. But the first amendment makes it pretty difficult to fire someone based on their religious beliefs/expressions. I am not sure how your example is tied in with Coach Brown or the situation in which this is a discussion, where is Coach Brown creating a hostile environment. Where is Coach Brown harassing people in his work environment with his proselytism. Making your example to this discussion void of contextual meaning.

[MLB 51]

If it creates hostile environment you do.

[It'sNotAFakeID]

How can anyone ask for a person to be fired for discrimination when said person is expressing his personal religious beliefs. Is it not discrimination to single out a person to be fired based solely on his/her religious beliefs.

 

To answer your second question first, yes, it can be discriminatory to fire someone solely because of their religious beliefs. However, the caveat to that is that, while you have freedom to hold whatever religious views you want, you ALSO have freedom from religion if you choose.

 

For example: You cannot fire a person because they are a Pastafarian. But at the same time, that Pastafarian cannot proselytize their belief in such a way that it creates a hostile working environment. You CAN be fired due to your religion if the exercise of that religion creates harassment for others. Being religious (or atheist, or agnostic) is not a shield from discipline/termination based upon that religion.

 

You have the freedom to choose not to believe in a religion yes, you do not have the freedom to fire someone because they express their religious beliefs around you. Unless the government is forcing a specific religion on you, or someone else is forcing you to believe in a particular religion then that is against your rights covered under the 1st amendment. But the first amendment makes it pretty difficult to fire someone based on their religious beliefs/expressions. I am not sure how your example is tied in with Coach Brown or the situation in which this is a discussion, where is Coach Brown creating a hostile environment. Where is Coach Brown harassing people in his work environment with his proselytism. Making your example to this discussion void of contextual meaning.

 

Maybe you didn't understand the words that came out of knapp's typewriter (erm...I mean knapp's computer), so I'll give it a whirl.

 

Freedom of religion guarantees that you have the right to believe and practice your religion whenever and (for the most part) wherever. But that same freedom also gives you a freedom from religion. If we are to truly declare to be a free nation, we can't force people to practice a religion. And here's the most important part of what I'm trying to tell you: However, like any other rights, you have a right to use your right as long as it doesn't infringe upon the rights of another person. You have the freedom to practice your religious beliefs and express your religious beliefs so long as you don't interfere with the person who is non-religious

 

As for Coach Brown, I don't necessarily think he should be fired. Quite honestly, I don't think that it is a big deal and I don't hear a lot of fuss elsewhere. Did he make a mistake by stating his address as being affiliated to the University? Yeah. Did he try to say that he meant for his comments to be his own? Yeah. So really, what is the big deal?

[Ziggy]

Is that not exactly what my first two sentences say? I am not how I do not understand. Yes we all have the right to believe or not to believe, but what I am trying to illustrate is how Coach Brown never infringed on someones beliefs or non beliefs. I was also just pointing out how difficult it is to fire a person based solely on their religious beliefs and expressions. Where Knapp's comment is irrelevent is his inability to connect Coach Browns comments to any evidence that he created a hostile environment.

[It'sNotAFakeID]

So here is where I am not certain of my understanding so if someone else knows feel free to correct me:

 

Being outwardly against homosexuality creates a hostile work environment to anyone who is homosexual. If Coach Brown knows of people who are homosexual, and if he has tried to tell them that they are wrong in being homosexual, then that creates a hostile work environment and then Brown's religious views are interfering with the rights of a person to be homosexual.

 

Now I personally don't think Coach Brown is doing that, so he shouldn't be canned for just saying he's against homosexuality. A lot of people are against homosexuality, and a lot of those people have more authority than Coach Brown will ever have.

[knapplc]

Is that not exactly what my first two sentences say? I am not how I do not understand. Yes we all have the right to believe or not to believe, but what I am trying to illustrate is how Coach Brown never infringed on someones beliefs or non beliefs. I was also just pointing out how difficult it is to fire a person based solely on their religious beliefs and expressions. Where Knapp's comment is irrelevent is his inability to connect Coach Browns comments to any evidence that he created a hostile environment.

 

I don't need to connect Coach Brown's comment to a hostile environment for three reasons: 1) I wasn't suggesting or insinuating that Coach Brown did any such thing, 2) I did not suggest that Coach Brown should be fired, and 3) you didn't specifically tie Coach Brown's testimony to his potential termination in your original question, so I presumed you were speaking hypothetically and not specifically about Coach Brown's termination based on his testimony.

 

UNL could terminate his employment if they determine that Coach Brown's statements create a sufficiently hostile environment for UNL's LGBT population, even though his statements weren't made on campus. Coach Brown put himself in a position of exposure by stating his address as 1 Memorial Stadium, a huge no-no on many different levels. UNL does not adhere to the beliefs Coach Brown espoused in his statement - in fact, their public stance is quite the opposite.

 

Freedom of religion is one thing. Using your religion as a bludgeon to attack those who think/feel/live differently than your religious views dictate is NOT protected under law. Doing so will get you canned, and it's perfectly legal.

[knapplc]

So here is where I am not certain of my understanding so if someone else knows feel free to correct me:

 

Being outwardly against homosexuality creates a hostile work environment to anyone who is homosexual. If Coach Brown knows of people who are homosexual, and if he has tried to tell them that they are wrong in being homosexual, then that creates a hostile work environment and then Brown's religious views are interfering with the rights of a person to be homosexual.

 

Now I personally don't think Coach Brown is doing that, so he shouldn't be canned for just saying he's against homosexuality. A lot of people are against homosexuality, and a lot of those people have more authority than Coach Brown will ever have.

 

I'm not sure what you're asking here. Being outwardly against homosexuality does not inherently create a hostile work environment (or a hostile education environment, in the case of students or student-athletes). It depends greatly on how you demonstrate your belief. Simple conversations where one person says they're against something almost never rise to the level of a hostile work environment. Continually repeating that dislike over and over and over could, as could stating a desire to see harm inflicted on gays (or whatever group you're talking about). The list of things that could create a hostile work/education environment is pretty long.

 

The initial burden of proof lies with the accuser. If someone alleges there was a hostile work/education environment created by statements, they have to show that the action/statement occurred and that there was offense given, typically intentionally. The employer (or school) will attempt to show that reasonable person in that situation would not have felt harassed (yes, that's a HUGE gray area), and/or that there were remedies available that weren't taken by the accuser, and/or that the accuser themselves have participated in similar speech/actions.... there are lots of affirmative defenses. From there the accuser has to show that the employer's defense is a pretext, a cover for intentional discrimination, or a cover for criminal negligence - looking the other way/not knowing when they should have known - that kind of thing.

 

The waters are always murky in these situations.

[johnnyrodgers20]

So here is where I am not certain of my understanding so if someone else knows feel free to correct me:

 

Being outwardly against homosexuality creates a hostile work environment to anyone who is homosexual. If Coach Brown knows of people who are homosexual, and if he has tried to tell them that they are wrong in being homosexual, then that creates a hostile work environment and then Brown's religious views are interfering with the rights of a person to be homosexual.

 

Now I personally don't think Coach Brown is doing that, so he shouldn't be canned for just saying he's against homosexuality. A lot of people are against homosexuality, and a lot of those people have more authority than Coach Brown will ever have.

 

 

If you are going to use that logic then let me ask you a question, are you creating a hostile work environment if you are outwardly in support of homosexuals? Are you interferring with a person right to believe what he/she wants because you are making him/her uncomfortable with your beliefs? So shouldn't you be canned by saying you are in favor of homosexuals?

[knapplc]

If you are going to use that logic then let me ask you a question, are you creating a hostile work environment if you are outwardly in support of homosexuals? Are you interferring with a person right to believe what he/she wants because you are making him/her uncomfortable with your beliefs? So shouldn't you be canned by saying you are in favor of homosexuals?

 

How does it create a hostile work environment to support the right of homosexuals to be treated equally?

[johnnyrodgers20]

If you are going to use that logic then let me ask you a question, are you creating a hostile work environment if you are outwardly in support of homosexuals? Are you interferring with a person right to believe what he/she wants because you are making him/her uncomfortable with your beliefs? So shouldn't you be canned by saying you are in favor of homosexuals?

 

How does it create a hostile work environment to support the right of homosexuals to be treated equally?

 

 

I was just pointing out that if you are feeling uncomfortable and that is the only requirement there are many grey areas. I agree you need to produce more but using his guidelines anyone making another employee uncomfortable has a case for a dismissal.

[knapplc]

If you are going to use that logic then let me ask you a question, are you creating a hostile work environment if you are outwardly in support of homosexuals? Are you interferring with a person right to believe what he/she wants because you are making him/her uncomfortable with your beliefs? So shouldn't you be canned by saying you are in favor of homosexuals?

 

How does it create a hostile work environment to support the right of homosexuals to be treated equally?

 

 

I was just pointing out that if you are feeling uncomfortable and that is the only requirement there are many grey areas. I agree you need to produce more but using his guidelines anyone making another employee uncomfortable has a case for a dismissal.

 

 

 

You're saying we should prosecute the shopkeeper because he protested against the man who robbed his store. You're asking why isn't the opposite of the law fair. Simple answer - it's not fair because society has decided that certain things are illegal, and this is one of them.

 

Robbing a store is not a protected activity. Impinging on the rights of gays is not a protected activity - and soon it will be a federally prosecuted action, in my opinion.

[johnnyrodgers20]

If you are going to use that logic then let me ask you a question, are you creating a hostile work environment if you are outwardly in support of homosexuals? Are you interferring with a person right to believe what he/she wants because you are making him/her uncomfortable with your beliefs? So shouldn't you be canned by saying you are in favor of homosexuals?

 

How does it create a hostile work environment to support the right of homosexuals to be treated equally?

 

 

I was just pointing out that if you are feeling uncomfortable and that is the only requirement there are many grey areas. I agree you need to produce more but using his guidelines anyone making another employee uncomfortable has a case for a dismissal.

 

 

 

You're saying we should prosecute the shopkeeper because he protested against the man who robbed his store. You're asking why isn't the opposite of the law fair. Simple answer - it's not fair because society has decided that certain things are illegal, and this is one of them.

 

Robbing a store is not a protected activity. Impinging on the rights of gays is not a protected activity - and soon it will be a federally prosecuted action, in my opinion.

 

 

I don't think you get it. I am saying if someone is making you feel uncomfortable that isn't enough in my mind to fire someone. The point you are making is way out of context, that is like the person who always brings up the Nazi's to make their point. I am sure that will be next in your analogy. It is protected activity to think as you like, this is not the USSR. I am not saying it is right to think that way about homosexuals but when we become the thought police it is really getting scary in this nation.

[knapplc]

I don't think you get it. I am saying if someone is making you feel uncomfortable that isn't enough in my mind to fire someone. The point you are making is way out of context, that is like the person who always brings up the Nazi's to make their point. I am sure that will be next in your analogy. It is protected activity to think as you like, this is not the USSR. I am not saying it is right to think that way about homosexuals but when we become the thought police it is really getting scary in this nation.

 

Your opinion is that creating a hostile work environment is not enough to fire someone. Decades of case law disagree with you, but *I* am the one who doesn't get it.

 

OK.

[johnnyrodgers20]

I don't think you get it. I am saying if someone is making you feel uncomfortable that isn't enough in my mind to fire someone. The point you are making is way out of context, that is like the person who always brings up the Nazi's to make their point. I am sure that will be next in your analogy. It is protected activity to think as you like, this is not the USSR. I am not saying it is right to think that way about homosexuals but when we become the thought police it is really getting scary in this nation.

 

Your opinion is that creating a hostile work environment is not enough to fire someone. Decades of case law disagree with you, but *I* am the one who doesn't get it.

 

OK.

 

You are assuming now that Ron Brown and his beliefs are a hostile work environment. Simply believing in something is now a case for being fired in your opinion? Sieg Heil