Protecting Religious Freedom Is “Good for Business,” Says Adventist Leader
From ANN, January 24, 2016: A Seventh-day Adventist religious liberty leader is urging corporate employers to respect their employees’ religious beliefs—not just because it’s the right thing to do, but also because it contributes to a profitable bottom line. Attorney Dwayne Leslie, associate director of the Public Affairs and Religious Liberty department of the Adventist world denomination, was a panelist at a Washington, D.C., event January 12 which explored the relationship between on-the-job religious freedom, workplace productivity and a healthy economic environment.
“Sometimes employers assume that accommodating their workers’ religious needs makes for a less efficient workplace,” Leslie said. “And it’s true that it scheduling around an employee’s Sabbath or making exceptions for religiously required clothing sometimes takes negotiation and effort.”
“But time and again, we see that protecting these fundamental freedoms ultimately results in a stronger, more diverse, more stable, and more productive corporate workforce,” Leslie stated.
The event, “Religious Freedom and Business: A Way Forward,” was held at the Newseum in downtown Washington, D.C., and was organized by the Religious Freedom and Business Foundation (RFBF). Brian Grim, president of the RFBF, told the gathering of business, political and religious leaders that “the freedom to be who you are, wherever you are, is one of the great sources of innovation”—a reality, he said, that was especially true within the corporate sector.
According the Leslie, recent high-profile court rulings in the United States, such as last year’s Abercrombie & Fitch discrimination case involving a woman wearing an Islamic head covering, have fueled the idea that business interests and religious freedom are usually in competition.
“It’s important, going forward, that we focus on ways of improving and increasing communication between workers and their employers—communication is always the best place to start,” Leslie said. “In most cases, accommodating an employee’s religious belief isn’t an onerous process. Yet its something that pays huge dividends for everyone involved—it’s good for workers, good for businesses, good for our country, and it’s good for the cause of human rights and religious freedom.
“I believe we can do more to help corporate America to see that religious freedom in the workplace is an area where principle and pragmatism converge,” he added.
The January 12 event showcased a newly developed “Corporate Pledge,” which offers corporations guidance on protecting their workers’ religious freedom rights. Find out more about this pledge and the Religious Freedom and Business Foundation at https://religiousfreedomandbusiness.org.
Adventist News Network (ANN) is the official news service of the denomination’s world headquarters in Washington, DC. Featured image credit: ANN/Maria Bryk/Newseum.
Does religious liberty extend to employees like Kim Davis who refused to issue legal marriage licenses to same sex couples because she did not agree/approve with same sex marriage although legal in Kentucky?
Does it extend to pharmacists who are against contraceptives or the “morning after pill” because their personal religious beliefs object to their use? How does one differentiate between the freedom Of and freedom FROM religion with two contradictory positions?
Kim Davis crossed the line when she tried to declare “I will not do it, to it cannot be done here .” She went from seeking a religious right to giving a mandate.
What is your perspective on religious liberty in the workplace? a) that of the employer who owns or manages a business largely out of a desire to be able to tell other people what to do (and when)? or b) that of an employee who thinks that religious liberty means you should get paid whether or not you do what you are told to do (and when)? or c) that of an employee who is disgusted that other employees preferences are honored because they have a “religious” basis while your own preferences (to have Saturday off, for example) are ignored because they lack a “religious” basis?
When someone finally told me the answer, I wondered why I hadn’t thought of it before.
Before Johnny Been (pronounced Bean) was divorced, he worked for a company in California that combined self-scheduling with “shift differentials”. Each employee created his own work schedule. Whenever the company wanted more employees to work a given time of day or day of the week (or holiday) than there were volunteers to work those times, the company gradually raised the “shift differential” (the amount of extra pay for that shift or day) until there were enough employees willing to schedule themselves for those shifts or days. Before Mr. Been moved to Utah to be near his son, most of the employees who worked holidays were paid double time. There were very few holidays when not enough employees scheduled themselves. On those few days per year, the company shut down.
First there was the definition of religious liberty: Freedom from coercion with regard to religious beliefs, religious practices and religious prohibitions.
Then there was the definition: Freedom to worship as we please.
Or this one: Freedom to use the government to impose religious beliefs, religious practices or religious prohibitions on the general population.
Now there is a new definition: Freedom for Mr. A to circumvent laws about discrimination by claiming that his religious convictions require him to discriminate against Mr. B because Mr. A thinks Mr. B’s activities or lifestyle is sinful.
In a way similar to how conservatives actions in the past have come back to bite us, this new definition of “religious liberty” will too. Mark my words.
The alternative is to work diligently to use and urge others to use the first definition above. At every opportunity, when someone uses the phrase, “religious liberty”, ask him to tell you which of the above definitions he intends by that phrase. Or, if it is a politician, ask your friends, family members and co-workers what they think the politician means by “religious liberty”.
I’ve been doing this ever since the mid-eighties when I first realized there was more than one definition. I seem to be practically alone in doing so however. I now believe the majority even of SdAs in the United States have no idea what “religious liberty” meant 50 or 60 years ago.