Falwell: Workplace Religious Beliefs Deemed Invalid

FALWELL CONFIDENTIAL
Insider weekly newsletter to The Moral Majority Coalition and
The Liberty Alliance http://www.moralmajority.com <http://www.moralmajority.com/>

From: Jerry Falwell <http://www.falwell.com/>
Date: June 9, 2006

Workplace Religious Beliefs Deemed Invalid

A businessman in Arlington, Va., is facing a thorny challenge after he made a workplace decision based on his Christian beliefs. The problem: the man’s action has angered a homosexual activist who is making an issue of his decision.

In fact, this week, a suit was filed in Arlington (Va.) Circuit Court on behalf of businessman Tim Bono and his Bono Film and Video, Inc.

Here’s what brought about the need for the suit: a lesbian activist named Lilli M. Vincenz asked Mr. Bono to duplicate two documentaries titled, “Gay and Proud” and “Second Largest Minority.” When Mr. Bono informed Ms. Vincenz that his company does not duplicate material that is obscene, that might embarrass employees or that runs counter to his Christian and ethical values, Ms. Vincenz took offense. She quickly filed a complaint with the Arlington County Human Rights Commission under the county’s nondiscrimination ordinance, which includes “sexual orientation.”

She found a sympathetic panel.

In April, the commission directed Mr. Bono to “provide the requested duplication service at the complainant’s expense or in the alternative to assist the complainant in locating a suitable facility where this service can be provided at the Bono Film and Video’s expense.”

Apparently one’s religious views must be confined to the home and at church, because the commission essentially said that Mr. Bono’s religious beliefs — in his own place of business — were infringing on the rights of an individual.

The lawsuit, filed by Liberty Counsel on behalf of Mr. Bono, challenges the authority of the commission to order him to provide a service that counters his sincerely-held beliefs.

The suit alleges violations of Mr. Bono’s freedom of speech, free exercise of religion and sections 12 and 16 of the Virginia Constitution. Further, Liberty Counsel says the state’s “Dillon’s Rule” prohibits local governments from passing or enforcing nondiscrimination laws that are not authorized by the state. (The state does not list “sexual orientation” as a protected civil right or class.)

Erik Stanley, chief counsel of Liberty Counsel, stated: “As a newspaper is not required to run every proposed ad, so a duplicator or printer is not obligated to reproduce every proposed copy. Mr. Bono does not have to reproduce a customer’s hate speech, obscenity or pornography, nor may a customer hijack Mr. Bono’s business and force him to promote a homosexual agenda. Since the state of Virginia does not recognize ‘sexual orientation’ as a civil right, neither.”

I see this as a very important case.

Should Mr. Bono lose his right to decide what takes place in his own business, I wonder where this could end. Could Christian schools lose the right to determine that only Christians may serve as teachers and staff members? Could Christian churches be compelled to hire homosexuals as Sunday school teachers even though homosexuality is proscribed in the Bible? Could religious schools that make use of federal education dollars be penalized if they do not hire homosexual staff members?

I’m sure critics will say these are ludicrous propositions, but I see them as legitimate concerns. Our nation has become so politically correct and obsessed with “diversity” and “multiculturalism” that the core values that defined America for decades have now become offensive to many. When one considers how the Ten Commandments, our nation’s motto and the Pledge of Allegiance have come under attack, it is not farfetched to foresee America’s pulpits becoming the next target of secularist forces.

and what does the pledge of allegiance have to do with it, beyond the fact that it is christian idolatry?

Msongs
www.msongs.com
batik & digital art
put your pics on shirts!

indicated by: "Could Christian schools lose the right to determine that only Christians may serve as teachers and staff members? Could Christian churches be compelled to hire homosexuals as Sunday school teachers even though homosexuality is proscribed in the Bible? Could religious schools that make use of federal education dollars be penalized if they do not hire homosexual staff members?"

The suit is against a public business. While I sympathise with Mr. Bono's delicate sensibilities, this is not porn and it is not illegal and he is in the business of duplicating legal items. He is not a critic nor is he the world's moral arbiter. Either he needs to point clients to alternative companies or he needs to bite the bullet and realize the world is not going to change to suit him and he needs to open his business to all comers.

Now churches and their attached schools are a little different. Their business IS in being moral arbiters, and they don't pretend to serve all comers equally. They retain a degree of privacy a public business does not and aren't required to abandon doctrine that conflicts with public access laws, although one hopes they will grow up eventually and do so.

We desperately need to draw a line on where the JOB and one's PRIVATE life reside. Anyone who can't do his job needs to get out of that business. That applies to Mr. Bono as it does to pharmacists who find it morally reprehensible to fill legal prescriptions.

essential service.

because it's a PUBLIC service and Mr. Bono was not asked to break any laws, just provide the service he advertises.

Whether or not it's essential has nothing to do with it, really.

It boils down to "DO YOUR JOB!" Churches have the job of being moral arbiters and busybodies. Film duplication services do not.

He just has to copy it!!

Honestly, I don't see the moral conflict here. Certainly he doesn't approve but that doesn't give him any right to force his beliefs on everyone else either!

And just because the video depicts a gay lifestyle, does not necessarily mean it is obscene.

Those would be intolerance, bigotry, suspicion, and predjudice, huh Jerry?

if I were the gay person, I'd stake the damned claim that Bono is discriminating against MY religious beliefs in his business, and I'd start urging other businesses to discriminate against HIM. These christo-fascists like to pretend that they are protecting religious "liberty" - when the only religion they demand be recognized is their own interpretations. Did he have a sign posted for the public that he subscribes to a particularly restrictive "religious" tenet in which he cannot serve certain customers? I'll bet NOT. . .

Instead, he's trying to PRETEND that his beliefs are the NORM. And since he chooses his ethical and religious beliefs on a daily basis, he can't prove consistency in the practice of his business, which is supposed to be open to the public. It's not a private club - it's not a designated house of worship.

Jerry Falwell is not the nation's official minister, nor the official spokesmodel for christianity.

What if the business refuses to serve blacks based on a sincere religious belief against race mixing? What if it refuses to serve Jews or Muslims based on a sincere belief those religions are wrong? The 1st Amendment is agnostic on which religious beliefs are correct and which ones are incorrect. Thus if the 1st Amendment trumps anti discriminations laws, it must trump all such laws equally.

Your other examples are not on point in that both places would have a mission that requires them to either hire only Christian teachers or promote their own beliefs in SS classes.

possibly as a set-up from the git-go. All Bono would have had to do, to refuse to copy the film and remain on perfectly solid legal ground, is decline to reproduce copyrighted material. End of story. It was only his assertion of his alleged first Amendment rights that tossed it into the courts.