I am writing today to announce the closure of the Michigan Messenger. After four years of operation in Michigan, the board of the American Independent News Network, has decided to shift publication of its news into a single site, The American Independent at Americanindependent.com. This is part of a shift in strategy, towards new forms [...]
An abstinence-only presentation provided to numerous school districts in Calhoun and Eaton Counties in October of this year provided false and misleading information to students about HIV, experts allege.
Two county registers of deeds filed a class action lawsuit Monday on behalf of Michigan’s 83 counties alleging that the Mortgage Electronic Registration Services owes millions of dollars in property title transfer taxes.
Despite evidence of the impact of mercury on children and public health, Michigan Attorney General Bill Schuette last month joined with 24 other state attorneys general in filing a lawsuit to scuttle new EPA regulations that would reduce mercury emissions from power plants.
Liberty Counsel, the Christian legal group founded by Jerry Falwell, has filed an EEOC complaint on behalf of a woman who refused to answer the phones at her job by saying “Happy Holidays” because it was against her religion to contribute to the secularization of Christmas. She ended up being fired for insubordination:
In late November, all company employees were told to answer the phones by saying, “Happy Holidays from Counts Oakes Resort Properties. How may I assist you?” Thomas objected to her supervisor and offered to say either “Merry Christmas” or to continue greeting callers the same way they are greeted throughout the year. She explained that her religious beliefs prevented her from contributing to the secularization of Christmas, and asked for an accommodation of her beliefs. On December 10, when the company president, Andy Phillips, came to see her, she politely reiterated her concern. Phillips then fired her for “insubordination” because she refused to say “Happy Holidays.”
This could be an interesting case to watch. Federal law requires that businesses make “reasonable accommodation” for the religious beliefs of their employees unless doing so would constitute and “undue burden” on the business. The exact parameters of this standard have been left to the courts to interpret on a case-by-case basis, with predictably unpredictable results.
There are two key questions here: is saying “Merry Christmas” rather than holidays really a key tenet of Christianity? The answer is probably no. In fact, she appears to be making more of a political statement than a religious one (though that’s not an easy line to draw). There is no rational reason why saying “Happy Holidays” should offend the plaintiff’s religion, nor can she point to any doctrinal statements by any religious organization supporting that contention. That may make her case difficult to win.
On the other hand, there is a second question: is there any undue burden on the company from accommodating her wishes? Again, the answer is probably no. There would be no harm from allowing the woman to continue answering the phones as she had all years. It’s not as though saying “Happy Holidays” brings in more customers. That could help her case.
But the case also raises questions about the very issue of such laws requiring accommodation: Why should businesses be forced to accommodate only religious beliefs? Are religious beliefs intrinsically more valuable than non-religious ones? Does a sincerely held position based on reason rather than faith deserve any less protection?
Do you know where to vote on Election Day? Do you know what to bring with you? Get comprehensive voter information for your state here.
Sign up for our email newsletter