backtop

Print E-mail del.icio.us 176 comment(s) - last by deadrats.. on Dec 27 at 5:51 PM
Company argues that it has the right to freedom of religion

Former Diskeeper employees Alex Godelman and Marc Le Shay filed suit against their ex-employer earlier this year (PDF), accusing the company of firing them for refusing to sit through thinly-veiled religious indoctrination and join Scientology. Earlier this month, Diskeeper filed its response and, in a move that observers called “unusual” and “inappropriate”, motioned to strike (PDF) sections of the pair’s arguments.

Godelman and Le Shay’s arguments accuse Diskeeper of violating the California Fair Employment and Housing Act and California Labor Law on multiple counts, as well as failing to uphold its legal obligation to maintain a discrimination-free environment.

Diskeeper’s response seeks to black out Godelman and Le Shay’s request that the company “forever refrain from … requiring any employee, as a condition of employment, to study, adopt and/or apply the [Scientology-authored] ‘Hubbard Management Technology’ and/or the related ‘Hubbard Study Technology’ in the workplace.” The unusual request is justified by the company’s First Amendment rights, of which it argues that injunctions prohibiting religious practice in the workplace are unconstitutional.

Motions to strike are “rarely filed,” explains Scott Pilutik of the blog Reality Based Community. “A party will sometimes move to strike language in a pleading which is scandalous and has no relevance to the complaint or relief requested.”

Most notable, says Pilutik, is that Diskeeper’s argument constitutes an “implicit admission” that both of the Hubbard programs are “religious in nature.”

“Why would they advance the argument that Diskeeper has a protected interest in providing religious training to employees?” argues Pilutik. “Diskeeper claims that it in no way concedes that Hubbard Management and Study Technology are religious, but to anyone familiar with both Scientology and Hubbard's supposedly secular ‘technologies,’ the two brands are basically indistinguishable, and indeed, the establishment of supposedly secular fronts was intended by Hubbard to be a recruiting tool.”

The pair’s original complaint chronicles the individual, brief periods of time that both Godelman and Le Shay were employed with Diskeeper, where – despite exhibiting stellar performance at both Diskeeper and their former employers – management continuously forced them to attend Scientology-themed company training seminars and ultimately adopt the religion. Godelman, who practices Judaism, had his employment suddenly terminated after half a year with the company in October 19, 2006, while Le Shay was forced to resign less than a month after joining.

The lawsuit goes on to describe a work environment saturated with Scientology influences: religious art adorns the walls, and all new employees receive a copy of L. Ron Hubbard’s The Way to Happiness – which includes advice on personal life, including sex. The company frequently mentioned or held a massive library of Scientology books offered for sale and loan, and management often used Scientology lexicon in day-to-day work. Ultimately, the lawsuit argues, Diskeeper employees were “constantly bombarded with Scientology imagery and ideology in the work environment,” whether they wanted it or not.

Furthermore, attempts by the pair to seek advice from other members of upper management almost always resulted in an order to conform – for their own good.

Slashdot notes that Diskeeper former CEO and current Chairman Craig Jensen is a “high level, publicly avowed” Scientologist who attributes Diskeeper’s success to Hubbard’s teachings.

A hearing for Diskeeper’s motion to strike will take place on January 27, 2009, and a tentative trial date is set for mid-June.

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
Private Enterprise
By DtTall on 12/22/08, Rating: 0
RE: Private Enterprise
By Brandon Hill (blog) on 12/22/2008 10:22:08 AM , Rating: 1
Hmmm, I see your point. Doesn't Chick-fil-a employ Christian-based teachings in the workplace? I know they're closed on Sunday due to the teachings of the Bible.


RE: Private Enterprise
By Fanon on 12/22/2008 10:48:50 AM , Rating: 4
I worked at Chick-Fil-A in high school. Since it is a franchise, I cannot speak for other stores and owners. But to answer your question based on my experience, no. I worked at two stores: one owner was a Christian and the other was not.


RE: Private Enterprise
By masher2 (blog) on 12/22/2008 10:59:58 AM , Rating: 1
Some stores are corporate-owned, others are franchises: thus the difference.

And to the OP, yes I agree. A private company should be able to set whatever standards they wish for employees. The Constitution restricts what government can and cannot do, not private individuals.


RE: Private Enterprise
By omnicronx on 12/22/2008 11:23:33 AM , Rating: 5
quote:
A private company should be able to set whatever standards they wish for employees. The Constitution restricts what government can and cannot do, not private individuals.
Note this is your personal opinion not, the law. It is illegal for a company of over 15 people to discriminate against a certain religion, nor can they force anyone to join a religion.

http://www.eeoc.gov/policy/docs/qanda_religion.htm...

Of course there are exceptions:

http://www.eeoc.gov/policy/docs/religion.html
quote:
Solely with respect to religion, Title VII also requires reasonable accommodation of employees’[3] sincerely held religious beliefs, observances, and practices when requested, unless accommodation would impose an undue hardship on business operations.[4] Undue hardship under Title VII is defined as “more than de minimis” cost or burden -- a substantially lower standard for employers to satisfy than the “undue hardship” defense under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), which is defined instead as “significant difficulty or expense.”[5]


RE: Private Enterprise
By masher2 (blog) on 12/22/2008 11:37:08 AM , Rating: 2
> "Note this is your personal opinion not, the law."

Oh, absolutely. In my opinion, the law itself is unconstitutional.

> "It is illegal for a company of over 15 people to discriminate against a certain religion"

I've always found it curious why small businesses are allowed to discriminate, but larger ones are not.


RE: Private Enterprise
By Yawgm0th on 12/22/2008 11:58:50 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Oh, absolutely. In my opinion, the law itself is unconstitutional.
Care to explain this? I'm not trying to start an argument; I'm actually curious what you find unconstitutional about it. Which clause of which amendment does it potentially violate?


RE: Private Enterprise
By DtTall on 12/22/2008 12:17:12 PM , Rating: 3
I believe that the argument against this is that the "Civil Rights Act" - while a great thing to advance equality - directly contradicts an companies right to have freedom of religion (which you may argue doesn't exist). In effect, the Civil Rights Act takes away the right for a private company to have a religion. As valuable as the restriction may be, it is argued that the restriction itself is unconstitutional.


RE: Private Enterprise
By masher2 (blog) on 12/22/2008 12:34:40 PM , Rating: 2
That's essentially the argument.

The First Amendment says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". A law preventing a company from showing religious materials to its employees is no different than a law preventing me from showing religious materials to my friends and neighbors.

As you can see, the First Amendment relates specifically and only to what Congress can do -- not what private entities are allowed to do.


RE: Private Enterprise
By Yawgm0th on 12/22/2008 3:14:38 PM , Rating: 2
I figured this might have been your point. Congress has passed a law prohibiting the free expression of a religion, in contradiction to the First Amendment. While I personally will agree with you in principle, legislation and numerous ruling would disagree with you in practice.

Nearly every amendment to the Constitution has been infringed upon some way or another by legislation and executive action. Every clause of the First Amendment has legal caveats. Speech, assembly, and press all have government-mandated limitations, as does the right to bear arms.

I will point out that the spirit of these amendments does live on for the most part despite modern interpretation (misinterpretation, perhaps) of them. I do think in a misguided effort to preserve the original Bill of Rights, we have not made further amendments that were clearly necessary. Instead, Congress just passes new laws regardless of contradictions or the court reinterprets the existing ones. I, for one, find their goals usually are agreeable, but the method is not -- especially in the case of judicial activism. They're doing the wrong thing for the right reasons. The ends don't justify the means. If it takes layers of judicial bureaucracy and years just to determine the "correct" interpretation of something that should be pretty clear, there are major systemic flaws.

I think we can agree that in modern times that law does not stick to the Constitution strictly enough. I don't agree with you on the law in question, however.

Going by the principle of literal and absolute interpretation of the Constitution, preventing corporations from pushing religion on their employees would not be unconstitutional. Here's the key:
quote:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof

Syntactically and lexically, this is not ambiguous. Congress cannot pass laws respecting or prohibiting the free expression of an establishment of religion. Congress can, however, make laws restricting religion in general, including ones which apply to corporations or other businesses. Diskeeper is not an establishment of religion, nor does the law prohibit the free expression of Scientology.

What should be the First Amendment clause is a different discussion entirely.


RE: Private Enterprise
By DFranch on 12/23/2008 1:03:29 PM , Rating: 2
I believe the 1st Amendment is meant to protect an individuals right to exercise the religion of their choice. Not to protect a business and allow them to force employees to join their religion (cult).


RE: Private Enterprise
By NullSubroutine on 12/25/2008 12:19:23 AM , Rating: 2
Exactly, only citizens have rights. Not companies, corporations, or the government. Only people.


RE: Private Enterprise
By Grast on 12/22/2008 12:43:46 PM , Rating: 2
The sticking point to your argument is the assumption that a company has rights. A company and/or business is a fictional entity used for the purpose of creating a revenue stream. A company/business is not a person/citizen. Therefore it does not have the same rights and privleges of a real person.

My only sticking point is the same as Masher's. Why are small businesses given a pass. The anwser is simple; Money or the lack their of.

Later...


RE: Private Enterprise
By masher2 (blog) on 12/22/2008 12:54:19 PM , Rating: 2
> " A company and/or business is a fictional entity used for the purpose of creating a revenue stream."

No, not quite. If the company isn't a corporation, then legally it equates to its owners, and its actions are their actions. A corporation, in contrast, is a fictional entity, endowed with certain rights that resemble those of individuals. The law in question here restricts all businesses, whether proprietorships, partnerships, or corporations.

In any case, you've missed the thesis entirely. The issue is not that the Constitution guarantees rights for businesses, but that it bars Congress from creating laws which restrict the free practice of religion.


RE: Private Enterprise
By nah on 12/22/2008 1:52:05 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
but that it bars Congress from creating laws which restrict the free practice of religion.


So--theoretically, if one were to establish a religion where public expressions of sexual desire were acceptable (and indeed necessary--if one were to work for such a firm which believed in that religion--a la Heinlein's Stranger in a Strange Land, e.g)--it would be OK for that particular firm's employees to have sex with each other because it was 'religious worship'


RE: Private Enterprise
By masher2 (blog) on 12/22/2008 3:38:58 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
theoretically, if one were to establish a religion where public expressions of sexual desire were acceptable...it would be OK for that particular firm's employees to have sex with each other because it was 'religious worship'
Why not? If you don't like the rules of employment, don't take the job. Or are you afraid that this would be such a popular option, adopted by so many firms, that abstainers would be unable to find employment elsewhere?


RE: Private Enterprise
By nah on 12/22/2008 7:32:18 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Why not? If you don't like the rules of employment, don't take the job.


Again--if its clearly mentioned, not if it's not specified in the contract that 'we shall bombard you with religious indoctrination until ye submit, or we are victorious '


RE: Private Enterprise
By King of All Cynics on 12/24/2008 4:34:24 PM , Rating: 2
Well, if you were hired to be a programmer, but you had to have sex with your manager to fit in with their cult and get a promotion, that would be considered... religious worship.

You don't like it, hit the road I guess.


RE: Private Enterprise
By deadrats on 12/27/2008 5:51:39 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I believe that the argument against this is that the "Civil Rights Act" - while a great thing to advance equality - directly contradicts an companies right to have freedom of religion (which you may argue doesn't exist). In effect, the Civil Rights Act takes away the right for a private company to have a religion. As valuable as the restriction may be, it is argued that the restriction itself is unconstitutional.


here's the problem, a company is not a living thing in and of itself, it is no more capable of espousing religous beliefs than a desk is. a company is composed of people, that are protected by the u.s. constitution, and they are the ones with the freedom of religion.

now i have no problem with a religious organization that has the requirement that any potential employee be of a given faith, i.e. a jewish organization only hiring jews, a catholic church only hiring catholics or a mosque only hiring muslims.

but a business, a company, a collection of individuals working together to sell a product, whether this company is public or private, is not a religious organization, it is ridiculous for them to have a requirement that an employee must be of a given religious faith, that in no way impacts the employees ability to do his/her job.

furthermore, even if we accept the mistaken notion that company in and of itself is also entitled to freedom of religion protections, that still does not mean that the company's freedom of religion does or should take priority over the individuals freedom of religion.

equal protection under the law means just that, we are all treated equally, if the company has the right to believe what it wants, then the employees should have the same right as well.


RE: Private Enterprise
By theapparition on 12/22/2008 11:42:23 AM , Rating: 2
Private companies can set whatever rules they wish for employees, as long as they don't violate the law . The EEOC will be all over this, as not only is it illegal to deny employment based on religion, it is similarly illegal to establish a hostile working enviroment by maintaining a religious theme that a reasonable person of another religion would be discriminated by.


RE: Private Enterprise
By DtTall on 12/22/2008 11:52:41 AM , Rating: 2
I believe that the argument against this is that the "Civil Rights Act" - while a great thing to advance equality - directly contradicts an companies right to have freedom of religion (which you will argue doesn't exist). In effect, the Civil Rights Act takes away the right for a private company to have a religion. As valuable as the restriction may be, it is argued that the restriction itself is unconstitutional.

A similar argument is what surrounds "Affirmative Action". In essence, when you cut through all the politics, you are discriminating - for good or bad - on the basis of race. With the Civil Rights Act in place, this would seem to break the law.


RE: Private Enterprise
By nah on 12/22/2008 1:45:35 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
A private company should be able to set whatever standards they wish for employees


A pretty broad view--where does the freedom of expression of companies stop,and that of employees start


RE: Private Enterprise
By masher2 (blog) on 12/22/2008 3:51:51 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
where does the freedom of expression of companies stop,and that of employees start
The same place as any contractual arrangement -- on the dotted line. Employment is a contract to exchange certain services for money. If you don't want to perform the services requested, then don't take the job. If you take the job then later decide you don't want to perform-- then quit.

What's wrong with freedom? It used to be a pretty good idea.


RE: Private Enterprise
By nah on 12/22/2008 7:28:53 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
What's wrong with freedom? It used to be a pretty good idea.


Nothing at all--except that I'm pretty sure that the company failed to mention that it was going to bombard its employees with religious indoctrination every chance they got


RE: Private Enterprise
By Dabruuzer on 12/23/2008 1:13:04 PM , Rating: 3
Exactly - and that's the problem here. Personally, I find it quite horrific that a company can do this to their employees.


RE: Private Enterprise
By MatthiasF on 12/22/08, Rating: 0
RE: Private Enterprise
By Bateluer on 12/22/2008 10:23:45 AM , Rating: 5
I do not believe that even a private company can fire employees over their religious beliefs. It'd be a violation of their rights to not be discriminated against by race,color, or creed.


RE: Private Enterprise
By Bender 123 on 12/22/2008 10:42:32 AM , Rating: 3
I agree, but the discrimination must be based on things not related to the job.

A Catholic school not hiring/firing a Jewish secretary is wrong.

A Catholic School not hiring/firing a Jewish teacher, whose job entails teaching the Catholic Religion, is OK.

I have worked for a Catholic Hospital system that hired anybody, but the benefits were based on Catholic teachings (because the Nuns are in charge). People called discrimination when they found out contraception, vasectomy and non medical necessary hysterectomy were specifically not covered by the health plan...but what do you expect...its run by nuns.

As for the above case...software design has nothing to do with religion and shame on the company for forcing people into their religion.


RE: Private Enterprise
By omnicronx on 12/22/2008 11:12:47 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
People called discrimination when they found out contraception, vasectomy and non medical necessary hysterectomy were specifically not covered by the health plan...but what do you expect...its run by nuns.
This is different, they have the right to choose which services they wish to provide. They cannot hire or fire someone based on religious beliefs. Of course there are exceptions, for example if the job in question requires a certain religious belief. (such as a priest)

In this case, firing someone after being hired is completely unacceptable.


RE: Private Enterprise
By masher2 (blog) on 12/22/2008 11:16:17 AM , Rating: 2
The company can claim that the management practices they taught do relate to software quality and are, of themselves, not religious.

For example, Jews don't eat pork or observe Christmas. If your employer forbids these, are they forcing you to practice Judaism, even if they don't mention any spiritual beliefs themselves?

My own opinion is that government has intruded too far into people's lives, and that lawsuits like this enrich only lawyers, to the detriment of us all. If Diskeeper wants to limit their pool of available employees so sharply, more power to them. It's a self-correcting problem that will likely result in their going out of business shortly anyway.


RE: Private Enterprise
By omnicronx on 12/22/08, Rating: 0
RE: Private Enterprise
By masher2 (blog) on 12/22/2008 11:40:15 AM , Rating: 3
> "...nobody can make you observe Christmas or eat pork"

Eh? Many companies have formal Christmas parties, celebrations, and activities. At times, employees are even required to participate.

As for being required to eat pork, what if you're an oil worker on location in the Gulf of Mexico, and the only food the company flies in for workers is pork?


RE: Private Enterprise
By Sunrise089 on 12/22/2008 11:58:51 AM , Rating: 2
I guess you could fish, eat oil, or fast :)


RE: Private Enterprise
By Yawgm0th on 12/22/2008 12:03:13 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
At times, employees are even required to participate.
Since the 1970s, is this still true? My understanding is that mandatory attendance of a Christmas party would be illegal unless it was for business purposes and one's job role was needed.

quote:
As for being required to eat pork, what if you're an oil worker on location in the Gulf of Mexico, and the only food the company flies in for workers is pork?
People will become very, very unhealthy relatively quickly. Everyone will quit their jobs and the company will go out of business because of high turnover. This analogy is too unrealistic to be useful.


RE: Private Enterprise
By masher2 (blog) on 12/22/2008 1:00:21 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
My understanding is that mandatory attendance of a Christmas party would be illegal
Incorrect. Companies can and do mandate attendance at Holiday parties:

http://www.laborlawtalk.com/showthread.php?t=18373...

quote:
People will become very, very unhealthy relatively quickly. Everyone will quit their jobs and the company will go out of business because of high turnover. This analogy is too unrealistic to be useful.
Now you're just being silly. I didn't suggest a company would feed its workers nothing but pork continuously for years on end. But the possibility of a company bringing its workers nothing but pork sandwiches for a day or two is very real.


RE: Private Enterprise
By Yawgm0th on 12/22/2008 3:37:51 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Now you're just being silly.
Ambiguous or poor communication on your part does not make me silly.
quote:
I didn't suggest a company would feed its workers nothing but pork continuously for years on end.
Yes, you did. You did not specify a time frame and as such, implied a long period of time. The fact that you were responding to "nobody can make you eat pork" also implies that it is the only food available ever, and as such one must eat it.
quote:
But the possibility of a company bringing its workers nothing but pork sandwiches for a day or two is very real.
People can go a day or two without eating. If eating pork or going hungry is an unacceptable choice, they can complain or quit. That's capitalism and freedom. The company doesn't own the worker, and the worker has no obligation to the company.

quote:
Incorrect. Companies can and do mandate attendance at Holiday parties:
Cutting my quote off made me incorrect. Straw man, much?
quote:
(If attendance is mandatory, non-e[x]empt employees must be paid, but there is nothing that prohibits them from making it mandatory.)

quote:
They can require employees who do not attend to work an extra day.

Of course this would be legal. If you are paid to go to a holiday party or must work the hours separately that does not constitute mandatory attendance of a holiday party. You are being paid to work at that holiday party, even if your work equates to merely being there.

Moreover, attending a holiday party is does not constitute practicing that religion. I personally have have had numerous paid "Christmas" lunches and parties over the last few years, and as a practicing Jew was quite pleased to attend. Free food, Christmas music (religious music =! prayer), and not actually working? Sounds good to me. There is no forced practice of religion at holiday parties. Even if there were, you can choose to work at a different time in lieu of attending the "party," according to the link you provided.


RE: Private Enterprise
By masher2 (blog) on 12/22/2008 4:17:01 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The fact that you were responding to "nobody can make you eat pork" also implies that it is the only food available ever, and as such one must eat it.
Err, people eat 3 times a day under normal circumstances. Bring nothing but pork sandwiches for one day and most people will consider themselves as being forced to eat or starve.

> "Cutting my quote off made me incorrect. Straw man, much?"

The portion I excluded was "...unless it was for business purposes and one's job role was needed". But in the example I cited, the mandatory attendance was *not* for business purposes.

Your statement was erroneous. Companies can and do mandate attendance at holiday parties. They may or may not allow extra work time in place of attendance.

> "Moreover, attending a holiday party is does not constitute practicing that religion"

Very true. And watching a management tape does not constitute practicing Scientology. See the connection?


RE: Private Enterprise
By Gzus666 on 12/22/2008 4:21:59 PM , Rating: 2
Your Link to the forum has the lady saying that they either go to the party or must work their normal day. That is called a choice where I am from, meaning it is no longer mandatory. Also they called it a holiday party, meaning it has no set doctrine to even follow. Also it is a friggin' forum!


RE: Private Enterprise
By masher2 (blog) on 12/22/2008 5:25:42 PM , Rating: 2
Did you not read the post below that, from the site adminstrator, explaining that many companies mandate Holiday party attendance. Are you disputing this? My own wife's company does as well.

Here's another link, this one from an HR manager:
quote:
Many workplaces will celebrate these holidays with social activities, typically luncheons or after-hours parties. Attendance at these parties often is mandatory...
http://www.allbusiness.com/human-resources/workfor...


RE: Private Enterprise
By Gzus666 on 12/22/2008 5:48:44 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Did you not read the post below that, from the site adminstrator, explaining that many companies mandate Holiday party attendance. Are you disputing this? My own wife's company does as well. Here's another link, this one from an HR manager:


Yet as I said, they have a choice in the scenario you showed. Also it was called a holiday party, doesn't specify what kind of holiday, just holiday.


RE: Private Enterprise
By Yawgm0th on 12/22/2008 5:10:57 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Err, people eat 3 times a day under normal circumstances. Bring nothing but pork sandwiches for one day and most people will consider themselves as being forced to eat or starve.
Starve =! going hungry. I don't see any room for argument. One can reasonably go for a day without food, usually two. It's neither here nor there, since they can still quit.
quote:

Your statement was erroneous. Companies can and do mandate attendance at holiday parties. They may or may not allow extra work time in place of attendance.
My statement began with "My understanding..." I am open to correction, despite my arguments. However, I've not heard or seen legal precedent yet that is in contradiction with my understanding of the law. Regardless, I will need to research this subject further on my own to know the specifics -- and because this conversation has made me curious.
quote:
But in the example I cited, the mandatory attendance was *not* for business purposes.
If one is paid, how is it not for business purposes?

quote:
Very true. And watching a management tape does not constitute practicing Scientology. See the connection?
That depends on the tape contents. A holiday party which had forced prayer on participants -- again, by my understanding of the law -- could be deemed illegal. Likewise, my understanding of Scientology that is that the practice of Scientology does require mandatory viewings of Scientology videos -- some humorously having Tom Cruise, I'll add for no reason. Since Scientologists do not worship a figure (even Hubbard is not a deity in their view) but this is an integral part of their religion, is this not analogous to prayer? I certainly don't see it as analogous to Christmas parties, which are have remarkably little to do with Christmas, Christ, or Christianity.

In any case, you should note that I have never claimed to be in favor of the plaintiffs in this lawsuit. I do not know the specifics of what they were required to do beyond what's stated in the article, which certainly doesn't have all the details. If what they were forced should be legally interpreted as religion and as such their dismissals violated US law, then I would hope for them to win.


RE: Private Enterprise
By masher2 (blog) on 12/22/2008 6:13:11 PM , Rating: 2
> " Likewise, my understanding of Scientology that is that the practice of Scientology does require mandatory viewings of Scientology videos "

An excellent example of the logical fallacy known as affirming the consequent. "If A then B" does not equate to "If B, then A. "

In more concrete terms, a Christian church may require members to wear suits. That does not mean that wearing suits is a Christian activity.

> "It's neither here nor there, since they can still quit...If one is paid, how is it not for business purposes?"

Your argument has slipped off the deep end here. The CIO at the heart of this article was paid to watch these instructional tapes, and he could have quit at any time. The insinuation that either of these cases somehow makes the analogy irrelevant is therefore specious.


RE: Private Enterprise
By Yawgm0th on 12/22/2008 8:10:11 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
An excellent example of the logical fallacy known as affirming the consequent. "If A then B" does not equate to "If B, then A. "

In more concrete terms, a Christian church may require members to wear suits. That does not mean that wearing suits is a Christian activity.
Nor do Kosher laws mean that refusing to eat pork is a Jewish activity -- to use your own analogy.

Regardless, you've misrepresented my view once again. My logic is not "Scientologists watch Scientology videos; ergo, watching Scientology videos is a religious act." Certainly, you could take it that way since I didn't comprehensively justify the conclusion that Scientology indoctrination videos are inherently religious. I had hoped you would take that for granted by your own logic.

Ironically, you have used the similar fallacy. Your premise relies on denying the antecedent. "If A implies B, then not B implies not A." By your logic: If an activity required by a religious institution is unique to that religious institution, it is religious. Ergo, if an activity carried out by that religious institution isn't unique to that religious institution, it is not religious.

By your logic, there is no such thing as a religious activity since any traditionally religious activity can potentially be non-religious.

This fallacious logic does not apply to this case, since unlike requiring suits, Scientology indoctrination by definition is unique to Scientology.

Regardless of whether it is unique to Scientology, Scientology indoctrination is inherently religious, as is any religious indoctrination by definition. They were forced to undergo Scientology indoctrination, as Scientologists and only Scientologists do as a dogmatic, absolute tenet of their religion.

Praying to Christ is a Christian activity as is a far more apt comparison. Wearing a suit, conversely, is a cultural requirement of the church's leaders, not a religious one.

One can certainly watch Scientology video for educational purposes or study Christian prayer or the Christian bible, but they are inherently religious activities.

quote:

Your argument has slipped off the deep end here. The CIO at the heart of this article was paid to watch these instructional tapes, and he could have quit at any time. The insinuation that either of these cases somehow makes the analogy irrelevant is therefore specious.

These tapes, according to the defendant, are religious indoctrination, not instructional videos. I do not know this for a fact but my understanding of our discussion is that this is implied. Certainly I'm not assuming this is true (though I highly suspect it is), and as such I do not have an "official" standpoint on this case.

If you want to simply make the point that they could quit at any time if they didn't want to watch the videos, that is valid but not pertinent to existing US employee protection law nor, as such, this conversation. What the law ought to be is a subject on which we would almost certainly be in more agreement.


RE: Private Enterprise
By Bender 123 on 12/22/2008 12:05:22 PM , Rating: 2
A clinic, I worked for several years, went like this...

Year 1: Christmas Party -People got offended by religious name
Year 2: Holiday Party -Somebody got offended because there was no holiday in their religion around that time of the year...
Year 3: Winter Party...Wiccan staff person offended because they celebrated the Winter solstice and it was offensive to her that we would steal this day and belittle its meaning.
Year 4: Annual party...

How far do we want to go? The party stayed the same, but we kept changing the name because of a grand total of six people out of a staff of over 300.


RE: Private Enterprise
By omnicronx on 12/22/2008 12:35:07 PM , Rating: 2
If only more people watched Seinfeld..

FESTIVOUS; FOR THE REST OF US PARTY!!!!

would have solved everything ;)


RE: Private Enterprise
By omnicronx on 12/22/2008 12:32:05 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Eh? Many companies have formal Christmas parties, celebrations, and activities. At times, employees are even required to participate.
Lets clear a few things up here, you can go to a work Christmas party without observing the holiday. Observing Christmas literally means you celebrate the holiday. In fact before WW2 many jews used to put up Christmas trees and would sing Christmas carols at school.

My grandma (who is orthodox) gives out food at a homeless shelter every christmas, they would say that 'serving/giving is not observing'
quote:
As for being required to eat pork, what if you're an oil worker on location in the Gulf of Mexico, and the only food the company flies in for workers is pork? What if I had diabetes
I think you are stretching a bit, there are many situations where someone can't eat a certain kind of food, and the employer would have to deal with it. What if I was was a Christian allergic to pork? Furthermore Nobody can survive on pork alone, so lets just debunk this one here, unless you are looking to get a case of scurvy or malnourishment, which would be illegal for the employer to do.


RE: Private Enterprise
By masher2 (blog) on 12/22/2008 1:30:47 PM , Rating: 1
> "you can go to a work Christmas party without observing the holiday. "

And you can watch a scientology tape without observing the religion. Being forced to attend a religious party vs. being forced to hear a religious text-- the difference, if any, is slight.

> "I think you are stretching a bit..."

I'm not stretching in the least, as any Orthodox Jew realizes. The problem of acquiring kosher food in certain workplaces is very real.


RE: Private Enterprise
By omnicronx on 12/22/2008 2:14:45 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
And you can watch a scientology tape without observing the religion. Being forced to attend a religious party vs. being forced to hear a religious text-- the difference, if any, is slight.
I would tend to agree, but this was not the case here. They attempted to force them to convert religions, not merely attend events on their workplaces time.
quote:
I'm not stretching in the least, as any Orthodox Jew realizes. The problem of acquiring kosher food in certain workplaces is very real.
The situation you named falls under the category of disrupting the business. I don't think your example is very good either, I can go as far as saying nobody can force an oil rig to have a church onboard either, so in this case what would a Christian do if he can't go to church? Is the owner of the oil rig at fault? Or is the worker at fault for putting himself in that position. 9 times out of 10, my bet is the law would side with the oil rig.


RE: Private Enterprise
By masher2 (blog) on 12/22/2008 3:21:06 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I would tend to agree, but this was not the case here. They attempted to force them to convert religions, not merely attend events on their workplaces time.
It's my understanding that Diskeeper disputes that they attempted to force anyone to join Scientology, or that they did anything but require them to watch materials which are, in their opinion, both necessary for work and nonreligious in nature.


RE: Private Enterprise
By Yawgm0th on 12/22/2008 5:18:04 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
And you can watch a scientology tape without observing the religion. Being forced to attend a religious party vs. being forced to hear a religious text-- the difference, if any, is slight.
As I stated elsewhere, I disagree. A holiday party, be it a plain "holiday" party or a Christmas, Hanukkah, Festivus, party, is rarely, if ever, religious in nature. There is usually some sharing of the culture and traditions of the religion or its followers, but almost never of religious practices.

For argument's sake, one could have a "religious party," as you put it, which actually involves practicing the religion. That would, however, be very different from a holiday party, and being fired over not attending would be grounds for suit, as I would understand it.


RE: Private Enterprise
By croc on 12/22/2008 6:33:11 PM , Rating: 2
> "...nobody can make you observe Christmas or eat pork"

Eh? Many companies have formal Christmas parties, celebrations, and activities. At times, employees are even required to participate.

As for being required to eat pork, what if you're an oil worker on location in the Gulf of Mexico, and the only food the company flies in for workers is pork?

Any oil rig that only supplied one type of food would not produce much oil that day... The workers would 'down tools' until proper food was brought out


RE: Private Enterprise
By Gzus666 on 12/22/2008 8:24:20 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Eh? Many companies have formal Christmas parties, celebrations, and activities. At times, employees are even required to participate.


My father's company decided at one point they were going to stop paying overtime. In my state, that is illegal, but they still did it. They ended up with a lawsuit and had to pay everyone back pay overtime. Just cause someone does something and gets away with it, doesn't mean it is legal.


RE: Private Enterprise
By Yawgm0th on 12/22/2008 12:13:35 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
The company can claim that the management practices they taught do relate to software quality and are, of themselves, not religious.

The company can claim that, but if the specifics of the situation prove otherwise they will lose. If they can't reasonably convince the judge that the teachings were completely pertinent to their product, they will not get far with this claim.
quote:
For example, Jews don't eat pork or observe Christmas. If your employer forbids these, are they forcing you to practice Judaism, even if they don't mention any spiritual beliefs themselves?
This example is inherently flawed. Those rules prohibit workers and from eating pork and practicing religion in the workplace. It's logically fallacious from the start. You could replace "Judaism" with Islam in this example, since Muslims also do not eat pork or celebrate Christmas. The tenets of Judaism are far more complicated that merely following Kosher laws, and in fact celebrating Christmas is not a contradiction to Judaism so long as you do not engage in worship of Christ (and to claim that that is what is done on Christmas would be stunningly inaccurate).


RE: Private Enterprise
By PAPutzback on 12/22/2008 10:24:41 AM , Rating: 2
This is about the dumbest thing I have heard. So an Italian restaurant should be able to hire Italians only. A company owned by a white man should be able to hire whites only. Take your racist crap somewhere else DtTall.


RE: Private Enterprise
By kattanna on 12/22/2008 10:31:44 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
So an Italian restaurant should be able to hire Italians only


funnily enough.. when ever i go to Asian restaurants.. SURPRISE!! its being run by Asians..

though we all know its Hispanics who rule/work in the kitchens


RE: Private Enterprise
By Meinolf on 12/22/2008 10:34:23 AM , Rating: 2
I agree with you. I don't think anyone has the right to force any religion on anyone privately held companies or not. Scientology is the one of dumbest religions out there but I would not force my religion on anyone.


RE: Private Enterprise
By Yawgm0th on 12/22/2008 11:46:51 AM , Rating: 2
Whoa! First, he say religion, not race. There is a big difference.

More importantly, he was clearly bringing it up as a point of discussion, not saying he agreed with the position or disagreed. It is certainly a valid discussion and a relatively innocent post. Your straw man and ad hominem attacks are uncalled for.


RE: Private Enterprise
By CSMR on 12/22/2008 10:28:49 AM , Rating: 2
I think so too. I am not pro scientology but if you want to support/discriminate against particular religious beliefs you should do so by other means than corporate law. Leave corporate law to promoting economic goals, and leave religious/racial/social/etc issues to direct government policy or personal freedom.


RE: Private Enterprise
By Inkjammer on 12/22/2008 10:29:30 AM , Rating: 2
Yeah, but if you work for the Catholic church you work for the religion. Directly. Promoting Catholicism is their mission statement, so I'm sure that in their defense they could argue Judaism could be a conflict of interest. Would it hold up in court? Probably not, no. But there is an expectation that people working for a religion be of certain faith.

Now, if Diskeeper distributed Dianetics with their software...


RE: Private Enterprise
By bighairycamel on 12/22/2008 10:58:12 AM , Rating: 2
That's a terrible analogy. Religious "businesses" (A catholic church in your example) have tax implications in which they are recognized differently by the government. Even though Diskeeper is a private company, they are at the very least an incorporated company, in which they have to obligate to, and meet, all applicable labor laws.

The irony here, is that Diskeeper claims that this lawsuit would infringe on their right to freedom of religion, yet they FIRED people for conscientiously objecting to the Hubbard lessons because of their own religious beliefs. Hypocrites.


RE: Private Enterprise
By marvdmartian on 12/22/2008 11:09:40 AM , Rating: 2
The problem with this whole argument is that this company argues that the lawsuit violates the COMPANY'S first amendment rights. Um, I'm not a constitutional law scholar or anything, but exactly how does a COMPANY have a religious right?? The individuals within the company have the rights, not the company itself.

The constitution was written to guarantee rights to people, not corporations. Here's what I pulled (quickly) from Wikipedia, to help explain this point:

quote:
The Bill of Rights limits the powers of the federal government of the United States, protecting the rights of all citizens, residents and visitors on United States territory.


And here's what the Bill of Rights says about freedom of religion (this company's basis for their argument):

quote:
Freedom of religion is the freedom of an individual or community, in public or private, to manifest religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship, and observance. It is generally recognized to also include the freedom to change religion or not to follow any religion.


Therefore, in my mind, what this says is that these individuals have the right to NOT believe in or practise Scientology, and the subsequent civil rights laws brought into practise in the 60's guarantee that they cannot be fired for doing so.

This company's argument is flawed, imho, and their challenge should be thrown out. I hope these guys get a huge settlement out of this!


RE: Private Enterprise
By masher2 (blog) on 12/22/2008 11:20:08 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
And here's what the Bill of Rights says about freedom of religion..
Err, no-- that's what some Wikipedia editor says about freedom of religion.

This is what the Bill of Rights says:
quote:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
In no way does it say that a private company cannot require its employees to take classes which may (or may not) bear pseudo-religious overtones.


RE: Private Enterprise
By clovell on 12/23/2008 12:07:38 PM , Rating: 2
I see your point here, Michael. But, when the rubber hits the road, the government is in the cumbersome position of both not legislating religion, while also protecting an individual's right to religious freedom (within the bounds of the law).

So, in these types of situations, where black and white blend nicely into one another, maybe it's best to allow a jury to decide. While American law has many shortcomings, one of the greatest aspects it holds is that it is often self-correcting. This will run its course.


RE: Private Enterprise
By Yawgm0th on 12/22/2008 12:19:30 PM , Rating: 2
You are right on one count and wrong on another. A corporate entity is not entitled to constitution rights applied to individuals. However corporations consist of individuals, so to a limited degree the Bill of Rights can be used to protect their actions, depending on the specifics.

Reading the Wikipedia article has given you a dangerously inaccurate idea of what the constitution says about religion. See Masher's post -- the government simply cannot require an individual to celebrate or not celebrate Scientology. The Constitution does not prevent an employer from doing this. Other laws, however, do.


RE: Private Enterprise
By japlha on 12/22/2008 11:16:30 AM , Rating: 2
I'm leaning to agree with you. Isn't discrimination part of a "free" society? We should be able to choose how we want to operate our own business.
Diskeeper could have just disguised company policy but not stating that it was scientology. In a tacit way the company is promoting the Scientology beliefs.
Now people saying they won't recommend the product? Why?
If the product works who cares if it's made by a bunch of Hubbardites?


RE: Private Enterprise
By BillyAZ1983 on 12/22/2008 1:51:54 PM , Rating: 2
As you like to point out, yes we are in a "free society" and yes, that does come with the potential of discrimination of another based on anything from religion or race. But with that also comes the added benefit of being able to make a responsible,reasonable, and informed decision based on the information presented to you.

I am all for religious freedom but when a religion believes, and I am paraphrasing here, that everyone sucks and has mental issues because someone else's soul has taken over my body, causing all my mental instability, and the only way to rid myself of this is take church "perscribed" therapy which costs me hundreds of thousands of dollars over my lifetime, No I don't see that as being practical nor something that would be appropriate for the workplace. Scientologists are the least accepting group of people I have ever dealt with in my life.

If you have not looked into them before, the internet is a wonderful thing. Trust me when I tell you, you will be absolutely appaled at the things theey pull if you say something they don't like. Putting people outside your home saying you are religious bigot and handing out fliers stating as much to all your neighbors is very appropriate and is something I see all other churches do if I tell them they're "idiots".

I know my opinion of them seems very biased, but I promise you its not. Its something I've spent many hours on and I can honestly say I've made a responsible and logical choice when it comes to not supporting anything that involves scientology including the purchase of any products or materials that may even remotely contribute to that group of radicals.


RE: Private Enterprise
By ZmaxDP on 12/22/2008 12:39:42 PM , Rating: 1
I'm actually with you on this one to an extent. I think the government is here to protect individual's rights, but as far as I'm aware there is no right to employment at a given company. The government has a duty to protect people from discrimination in society at large, but not a private company specifically.

That being said, if it were allowed it would need to be disclosed to potential employees prior to being hired, and it would need to be publicly disclosed on any promotional or sales related information. (Somewhere on their box it would need to say it was a Scientology-only workplace). I think this disclosure would sink any company doing something society at large found displeasing while still keeping the government out of private business.

I'm not sure it would work, but theoretically it fits into my whole minimal government influence shtick. That whole applying theory to reality bit really messes things up though. There might be just enough scientologists to keep the company going, and all of a sudden you are creating a focus for discrimination in the society and there could be some issues with retribution and public dissent, effectively reverse discrimination. It's a vicious cycle once it starts going...

Interesting debate topic at the least though!


RE: Private Enterprise
By Spectator on 12/22/2008 2:28:52 PM , Rating: 2
I like that Reverse stuff Here in the UK we use that also.

Specifically to this case; we would be more subtle. and just have our head hunters get them a job with someone else(avoid pension/severance; as they leave on thier own). then new company fire thier ass 1 month later.

Its simple business/greed logic. both companies work out the deal. And the person ends up shafted its all good. :(


Simple formula
By isorfir on 12/22/2008 10:09:33 AM , Rating: 5
Religion + workplace = fail




RE: Simple formula
By arazok on 12/22/2008 10:15:20 AM , Rating: 5
Religion based on blatantly absurd storyline + crazy people = success


RE: Simple formula
By isorfir on 12/22/2008 10:28:04 AM , Rating: 5
Wait, isn't that every religion?


RE: Simple formula
By nayy on 12/22/08, Rating: -1
RE: Simple formula
By PhoenixKnight on 12/22/2008 11:18:16 AM , Rating: 5
What's so crazy about worshipping a carpenter that lived 2000 years ago?


RE: Simple formula
By JasonMick (blog) on 12/22/2008 11:23:52 AM , Rating: 2
Or a flying glob of pasta?


RE: Simple formula
By Bender 123 on 12/22/2008 11:47:37 AM , Rating: 5
Its not the worship of a spaghetti monster or a carpenter, its about the lessons and teaching...

Be good to one another, protect life, be a decent human being and avoid giving in to the vices that can destroy your life.

I have never met a Mormon i didnt think was a nice/decent person and I think the base of that religion is a screwed up as they come, but I cant argue with the results. I dont care if it was a half pony/half monkey monster that teaches these lessons. The lesson is worth while to know and live by...


RE: Simple formula
By Gzus666 on 12/22/08, Rating: 0
RE: Simple formula
By Bender 123 on 12/22/2008 12:12:34 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
It is all an act, I think "be yourself" is the proper adage here. People aren't going to love everyone and hold hands in unison because that isn't how any animal is.


That is precisely what most religion tries to overcome (despite some bad examples)...The goal is to be something more than animals. We have abilities to improve ourselves and move forward by ignoring our animal instincts and try to do things better.

Dont confuse the teachings of religion with the bastardization that flawed humans teach terrorists, pedophile priests, fear mongerors stealing money, etc, are not religious people, just people using peoples desire to better against them, like any other con artist...

Or if it suits us we can all beat down the weaker people, kill folks for revenge, shun those different than us...


RE: Simple formula
By Gzus666 on 12/22/2008 12:27:35 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
That is precisely what most religion tries to overcome (despite some bad examples)...The goal is to be something more than animals. We have abilities to improve ourselves and move forward by ignoring our animal instincts and try to do things better.


Clearly this is not the case. It is a simple formula, you swoop in promising hope and then eventually turn it into a control mechanism. It has happened with every religion we have ever seen.

quote:
Dont confuse the teachings of religion with the bastardization that flawed humans teach terrorists, pedophile priests, fear mongerors stealing money, etc, are not religious people, just people using peoples desire to better against them, like any other con artist...


I'm not, it is the goal of all religion for control over people, not to better them. No matter how cleverly hidden, it is always there.

quote:
Or if it suits us we can all beat down the weaker people, kill folks for revenge, shun those different than us...


Happens all the time, just on a global scale, so we call it by a different name. It is still the same thing and I don't fault anyone for doing it. Society, not religion, is there to try to stop this from happening in communities. If everyone robbed, killed and stole from people in their community, there would be no one to take care of their needs in the end and no one even left to rob or kill. It isn't religion, it is just common sense. Self preservation is the ultimate instinct in every living thing.

As for the shunning, religion is the ultimate example of it. They love to shun those different than them, that is indoctrinated in them. They are not morally superior, they have just convinced you they are.

Empowering the religious by saying they are the ultimate equilibrium of morals is a bad thing to do. You give them the power to judge everyone at that point and slip them into what they see as right.


RE: Simple formula
By AMDJunkie on 12/22/2008 1:28:19 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
it is the goal of all religion for control over people, not to better them.
Most people define so called "betterment" as control in the first place. 12-step programs give you "control" over a problem, one learns to "control" their impulses to act more acceptably in society. A person who shows restraint is often seen as wise, a person who does not is rash. So control can very well be seen as an improving force.
quote:
Happens all the time, just on a global scale, so we call it by a different name. It is still the same thing and I don't fault anyone for doing it. Society, not religion, is there to try to stop this from happening in communities.
That supposes that societies do not carry with them the prejudices of the religions they were founded/surrounded by. An atheist might see say, eating domestic animals we know as pets, wrong for no reason other than it displeases him or her; or it simply "seems" to be wrong. Likewise, atheist populations are still not free from prejudices against foreigners (Europe comes to mind) simply because they have no god or religion to tell them that a people are unclean or inferior. They may have fewer of them, or less justification for such behavior, but they are not free of them.

So yes, religions are not the "ultimate equilibrium of morals," but they simply are an interpretation of what good behavior is, and I argue that is all any person, group, or society can provide. They will all consider something wrong, regardless of whether they are religious or not, that another group of people, religious or not, may accept.


RE: Simple formula
By Gzus666 on 12/22/2008 2:14:29 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Most people define so called "betterment" as control in the first place. 12-step programs give you "control" over a problem, one learns to "control" their impulses to act more acceptably in society. A person who shows restraint is often seen as wise, a person who does not is rash. So control can very well be seen as an improving force.


Self control and controlling others are two different things entirely. If you think someone else controlling you is OK, then I have no argument. I assume you as most everyone hate other people controlling you so you should see the folly in religion.

An interpretation of good behavior can be made without an imaginary force. That is the point of society in general is to make acceptable guidelines to benefit everyone. To think that people require to be lied to and talked to like children is rather insulting to the average person.

Religion is a crutch of the masses. There is a point where you have to get off the crutch and rehabilitate. Learn to do things on your own without the crutch.

This stated, I am fine with people having the right to practice it, but that does not mean it is above scrutiny.


RE: Simple formula
By Bender 123 on 12/22/2008 3:17:13 PM , Rating: 3
I like debating reasoned people!

Religion in its purest sense is a crutch, i will give you that, but it is the traditional carrot and stick that any parent has used with their children.

Teaching a better way to treat yourself and others is nothing without a reward/punishment, and thus, it is a crutch which many people depend on to help them tell right from wrong, good from evil, etc.

Heaven and hell are motivators for people to do good that tells them the cost of stealing/killing is greater than the income or revenge you get. No different than my daughters get chocolate milk before bed if they are good or sent to bed early if they are bad. Whatever helps people be more than animals is fine by me.

My problem is when people abuse the faith of the masses for personal gain. Boil away the Vatican/corrupt imams/Jewish leadership/others i may have missed, and religion is nothing more than guidelines on how to be a good person.


RE: Simple formula