essay about religion discrimination

Numbers, Facts and Trends Shaping Your World

Read our research on:

Full Topic List

Regions & Countries

• Publications
• Our Methods
• Short Reads
• Tools & Resources

Read Our Research On:

Religion in India: Tolerance and Segregation

• 1. Religious freedom, discrimination and communal relations

Table of Contents

• The dimensions of Hindu nationalism in India
• India’s Muslims express pride in being Indian while identifying communal tensions, desiring segregation
• Muslims, Hindus diverge over legacy of Partition
• Religious conversion in India
• Religion very important across India’s religious groups
• Near-universal belief in God, but wide variation in how God is perceived
• Across India’s religious groups, widespread sharing of beliefs, practices, values
• Religious identity in India: Hindus divided on whether belief in God is required to be a Hindu, but most say eating beef is disqualifying
• Sikhs are proud to be Punjabi and Indian
• 2. Diversity and pluralism
• 3. Religious segregation
• 4. Attitudes about caste
• 5. Religious identity
• 6. Nationalism and politics
• 7. Religious practices
• 8. Religion, family and children
• 9. Religious clothing and personal appearance
• 10. Religion and food
• 11. Religious beliefs
• 12. Beliefs about God
• Acknowledgments
• Appendix A: Methodology
• Appendix B: Index of religious segregation

Indians generally see high levels of religious freedom in their country. Overwhelming majorities of people in each major religious group, as well as in the overall public, say they are “very free” to practice their religion. Smaller shares, though still majorities within each religious community, say people of other religions also are very free to practice their religion. Relatively few Indians – including members of religious minority communities – perceive religious discrimination as widespread.

At the same time, perceptions of discrimination vary a great deal by region. For example, Muslims in the Central region of the country are generally less likely than Muslims elsewhere to say there is a lot of religious discrimination in India. And Muslims in the North and Northeast are much more likely than Muslims in other regions to report that they, personally, have experienced recent discrimination.

Indians also widely consider communal violence to be an issue of national concern (along with other problems, such as unemployment and corruption). Most people across different religious backgrounds, education levels and age groups say communal violence is a very big problem in India.

The partition of the Indian subcontinent in 1947 remains a subject of disagreement. Overall, the survey finds mixed views on whether the establishment of Hindu-majority India and Muslim-majority Pakistan alleviated communal tensions or stoked them. On balance, Muslims tend to see Partition as a “bad thing” for Hindu-Muslim relations, while Hindus lean slightly toward viewing it as a “good thing.”

Most Indians say they and others are very free to practice their religion

The vast majority of Indians say they are very free today to practice their religion (91%), and all of India’s major religious groups share this sentiment: Roughly nine-in-ten Buddhists (93%), Hindus (91%), Muslims (89%) and Christians (89%) say they are very free to practice their religion, as do 85% of Jains and 82% of Sikhs.

Broadly speaking, Indians are more likely to view themselves as having a high degree of religious freedom than to say that people of other religions are very free to practice their faiths. Still, 79% of the overall public – and about two-thirds or more of the members of each of the country’s major religious communities – say that people belonging to other religions are very free to practice their faiths in India today.

Generally, these attitudes do not vary substantially among Indians of different ages, educational backgrounds or geographic regions. Indians in the Northeast are somewhat less likely than those elsewhere to see widespread religious freedom for people of other faiths – yet even in the Northeast, a solid majority (60%) say there is a high level of religious freedom for other religious communities in India.

Most people do not see evidence of widespread religious discrimination in India

Most people in India do not see a lot of religious discrimination against any of the country’s six major religious groups. In general, Hindus, Muslims and Christians are slightly more likely to say there is a lot of discrimination against their own religious community than to say there is a lot of discrimination against people of other faiths. Still, no more than about one-quarter of the followers of any of the country’s major faiths say they face widespread discrimination.

Generally, Indians’ opinions about religious discrimination do not vary substantially by gender, age or educational background. For example, among college graduates, 19% say there is a lot of discrimination against Hindus, compared with 21% among adults with less education.

Within religious groups as well, people of different ages, as well as both men and women, tend to have similar opinions on religious discrimination.

However, there are large regional variations in perceptions of religious discrimination. For example, among Muslims who live in the Central part of the country, just one-in-ten say there is widespread discrimination against Muslims in India, compared with about one-third of those who live in the North (35%) and Northeast (31%). (For more information on measures of religious discrimination in the Northeast, see “ In Northeast India, people perceive more religious discrimination ” below.)

Among Muslims, perceptions of discrimination against their community can vary somewhat based on their level of religious observance. For instance, about a quarter of Muslims across the country who pray daily say there is a lot of discrimination against Muslims (26%), compared with 19% of Muslims nationwide who pray less often. This difference by observance is pronounced in the North, where 39% of Muslims who pray every day say there is a lot of discrimination against Muslims in India, roughly twice the share among those in the same region who pray less often (20%).

Most Indians report no recent discrimination based on their religion

The survey also asked respondents about their personal experiences with discrimination. In all, 17% of Indians report facing recent discrimination based on their religion. Roughly one-in-five Muslims (21%) and 17% of Hindus say that in the last 12 months they themselves have faced discrimination because of their religion, as do 18% of Sikhs. By contrast, Christians are less likely to say they have felt discriminated against because of their religion (10%), and similar shares of Buddhists and Jains (13% each) fall into this category.

Nationally, men and women and people belonging to different age groups do not differ significantly from each other in their experiences with religious discrimination. People who have a college degree, however, are somewhat less likely than those with less formal schooling to say they have experienced religious discrimination in the past year.

Within religious groups, experiences with discrimination vary based on region of residence and other factors. Among Muslims, for instance, 40% of those living in Northern India and 36% in the Northeast say they have faced recent religious discrimination, compared with no more than one-in-five in the Southern, Central, Eastern and Western regions.

Experiences with religious discrimination also are more common among Muslims who are more religious and those who report recent financial hardship (that is, they have not been able to afford food, housing or medical care for themselves or their families in the last year).

Muslims who have a favorable view of the Indian National Congress party (INC) are more likely than Muslims with an unfavorable view of the party to say they have experienced religious discrimination (26% vs. 15%). Among Northern Muslims, those who have a favorable view of the INC are much more likely than those who don’t approve of the INC to say they have experienced discrimination (45% vs. 23%). (Muslims in the country, and especially Muslims in the North, tend to say they voted for the Congress party in the 2019 election. See Chapter 6 .)

Hindus with less education and those who have recently experienced poverty also are more likely to say they have experienced religious discrimination.

In Northeast India, people perceive more religious discrimination

Less than 5% of India’s population lives in the eight isolated states of the country’s Northeastern region. This region broadly lags behind the country in economic development indicators. And this small segment of the population has a linguistic and religious makeup that differs drastically from the rest of the country.

According to the 2011 census of India, Hindus are still the majority religious group (58%), but they are less prevalent in the Northeast than elsewhere (81% nationally). The smaller proportion of Hindus there is offset by the highest shares of Christians (16% vs. 2% nationally) and Muslims (22% vs. 13% nationally) in any region. And based on the survey, the region also has a higher share of Scheduled Tribes than any other region in the country (25% vs. 9% nationally), and half of Scheduled Tribe members in the Northeast are Christians.

Indians in the Northeast are more likely than those elsewhere to perceive high levels of religious discrimination. For example, roughly four-in-ten in the region say there is a lot of discrimination against Muslims in India, about twice the share of North Indians who say the same thing (41% vs. 22%).

Much of the Northeast’s perception of high religious discrimination is driven by Hindus in the region. A slim majority of Northeastern Hindus (55%) say there is widespread discrimination against Hindus in India, while almost as many (53%) say Muslims face a lot of discrimination. Substantial shares of Hindus in the Northeast say other religious communities also face such mistreatment.

The region’s other religious communities are less likely to say there is religious discrimination in India. For example, while 44% of Northeastern Hindus say Christians face a lot of discrimination, only one-in-five Christians in the Northeast perceive this level of discrimination against their own group. By contrast, at the national level, Christians are more likely than Hindus to see a lot of discrimination against Christians (18% vs. 10%).

People in the Northeast also are more likely to report experiencing religious discrimination. While 17% of individuals nationally say they personally have felt religious discrimination in the last 12 months, one-third of those surveyed in the Northeast say they have had such an experience. Northeastern Hindus, in particular, are much more likely than Hindus elsewhere to report recent religious discrimination (37% vs. 17% nationally).

Most Indians see communal violence as a very big problem in the country

Most Indians (65%) say communal violence – a term broadly used to describe violence between religious groups – is a “very big problem” in their country (the term was not defined for respondents). This includes identical shares of Hindus and Muslims (65% each) who say this.

But even larger majorities identify several other national problems. Unemployment tops the list of national concerns, with 84% of Indians saying this is a very big problem. And roughly three-quarters of Indian adults see corruption (76%), crime (76%) and violence against women (75%) as very big national issues. (The survey was designed and mostly conducted before the World Health Organization declared the COVID-19 outbreak a pandemic.)

Indians across nearly every religious group, caste category and region consistently rank unemployment as the top national concern. Buddhists, who overwhelmingly belong to disadvantaged castes, widely rank unemployment as a major concern (86%), while just a slim majority see communal violence as a very big problem (56%).

Sikhs are more likely than other major religious groups in India to say communal violence is a major issue (78%). This concern is especially pronounced among college-educated Sikhs (87%).

Among Hindus, those who are more religious are more likely to see communal violence as a major issue: Fully 67% of Hindus who say religion is very important in their lives consider communal violence a major issue, compared with 58% among those who say religion is less important to them.

Indians in different regions of the country also differ in their concern about communal violence: Three-quarters of Indians in the Northeast say communal violence is a very big problem, compared with 59% in the West. Concerns about communal violence are widespread in the national capital of Delhi, where 78% of people say this is a major issue. During fieldwork for this study, major protests broke out in New Delhi (and elsewhere) following the BJP-led government’s passing of a new bill, which creates an expedited path to citizenship for immigrants from some neighboring countries – but not Muslims.

Indians divided on the legacy of Partition for Hindu-Muslim relations

The end of Britain’s colonial rule in India, in 1947, was accompanied by the separation of Hindu-majority India from Muslim-majority Pakistan and massive migration in both directions. Nearly three-quarters of a century later, Indians are divided over the legacy of Partition.

About four-in-ten (41%) say the partition of India and Pakistan was a good thing for Hindu-Muslim relations, while a similar share (39%) say it was a bad thing. The rest of the population (20%) does not provide a clear answer, saying Partition was neither a good thing nor a bad thing, that it depends, or that they don’t know or cannot answer the question. There are no clear patterns by age, gender, education or party preference on opinions on this question.

Among Muslims, the predominant view is that Partition was a bad thing (48%) for Hindu-Muslim relations. Fewer see it as a good thing (30%). Hindus are more likely than Muslims to say Partition was a good thing for Hindu-Muslim relations (43%) and less likely to say it was a bad thing (37%).

Of the country’s six major religious groups, Sikhs have the most negative view of the role Partition played in Hindu-Muslim relations: Nearly two-thirds (66%) say it was a bad thing.

Most Indian Sikhs live in Punjab, along the border with Pakistan. The broader Northern region (especially Punjab) was strongly impacted by the partition of the subcontinent, and Northern Indians as a whole lean toward the position that Partition was a bad thing for Hindu-Muslim relations (48%) rather than a good thing (39%).

The South is the furthest region from the borders affected by Partition, and Southern Indians are about twice as likely to say that Partition was good as to say that it was bad for Hindu-Muslim relations (50% vs. 26%).

Attitudes toward Partition also vary considerably by region within specific religious groups. Among Muslims in the North and West, most say Partition was a bad thing for Hindu-Muslim relations (55% of Muslims in both regions). In the Eastern and Central parts of the country as well, Muslim public opinion leans toward the view that Partition was a bad thing for communal relations. By contrast, Muslims in the South and Northeast tend to see Partition as good for Hindu-Muslim relations.

Among Hindus, meanwhile, those in the North are closely divided on the issue, with 44% saying Partition was a good thing and 42% saying it was a bad thing. But in the West and South, Hindus tend to see Partition as a good thing for communal relations.

Poorer Hindus – that is, those who say they have been unable to afford basic necessities like food, housing and medical care in the last year – tend to say Partition was a good thing. But opinions are more divided among Hindus who have not recently experienced poverty (39% say it was a good thing, while 40% say it was a bad thing). Muslims who have not experienced recent financial hardship, however, are especially likely to see Partition as a bad thing: Roughly half (51%) say Partition was a bad thing for Hindu-Muslim relations, while only about a quarter (24%) see it as a good thing.

Sign up for our weekly newsletter

Fresh data delivery Saturday mornings

Sign up for The Briefing

Weekly updates on the world of news & information

• Beliefs & Practices
• Christianity
• International Political Values
• International Religious Freedom & Restrictions
• Interreligious Relations
• Other Religions
• Pew-Templeton Global Religious Futures Project
• Religious Characteristics of Demographic Groups
• Religious Identity & Affiliation
• Religiously Unaffiliated
• Size & Demographic Characteristics of Religious Groups

How common is religious fasting in the United States?

8 facts about atheists, spirituality among americans, how people in south and southeast asia view religious diversity and pluralism, religion among asian americans, most popular, report materials.

• Questionnaire
• இந்தியாவில் மதம்: சகிப்புத்தன்மையும், தனிமைப்படுத்துதலும்
• भारत में धर्म: सहिष्णुता और अलगाव
• ভারতে ধর্ম: সহনশীলতা এবং পৃথকীকরণ
• भारतातील धर्म : सहिष्णुता आणि विलग्नता
• Related: Religious Composition of India
• How Pew Research Center Conducted Its India Survey
• Questionnaire: Show Cards
• India Survey Dataset

1615 L St. NW, Suite 800 Washington, DC 20036 USA (+1) 202-419-4300 | Main (+1) 202-857-8562 | Fax (+1) 202-419-4372 |  Media Inquiries

Research Topics

• Age & Generations
• Coronavirus (COVID-19)
• Economy & Work
• Family & Relationships
• Gender & LGBTQ
• Immigration & Migration
• International Affairs
• Internet & Technology
• Methodological Research
• News Habits & Media
• Non-U.S. Governments
• Other Topics
• Politics & Policy
• Race & Ethnicity
• Email Newsletters

ABOUT PEW RESEARCH CENTER  Pew Research Center is a nonpartisan fact tank that informs the public about the issues, attitudes and trends shaping the world. It conducts public opinion polling, demographic research, media content analysis and other empirical social science research. Pew Research Center does not take policy positions. It is a subsidiary of  The Pew Charitable Trusts .

Copyright 2024 Pew Research Center

This website uses cookies.

By clicking the "Accept" button or continuing to browse our site, you agree to first-party and session-only cookies being stored on your device to enhance site navigation and analyze site performance and traffic. For more information on our use of cookies, please see our Privacy Policy .

• Journal of Economic Literature

Religion and Discrimination: A Review Essay of Persecution and Toleration: The Long Road to Religious Freedom

• Article Information

Additional Materials

• Author Disclosure Statement(s) (43.26 KB)

JEL Classification

• Z12 Cultural Economics: Religion

Department of Religious Studies

• Major Requirements
• Minor Requirements
• Registering
• Graduation Requirements
• Scholarships & Financial Support
• Career Paths
• Undergraduate Research & Mentoring Opportunities
• Doctoral Dissertations
• Affiliated Faculty
• Adjunct Faculty
• In Memoriam
• David Hall's Research Presentation
• Monthly Newsletter Archive

Religion, Race, and Racism: A (Very) Brief Introduction

• Religion, Race, and Racism: Resources
• Violence Against Asian Americans - Religious Studies Department Statement
• Tell Abu Shusha Excavation in Israel
• Religyinz: Mapping Religious Pittsburgh
• Footprints: Jewish Books in Time and Place
• Prospective Students

June 1, 2020

Over the last few weeks, we have seen a spate of racist incidents across the country. These include, but are not limited to, the vigilante lynching of Ahmaud Arbery in Georgia, the killing of George Floyd by police in Minnesota, and the killing of Breonna Taylor by police while she lay asleep in her home in Kentucky. Peaceful protests have been met with police brutality including tear-gassing, cruelly preventing protestors from breathing while protesting a man choked to death. We have seen otherwise peaceful protests led by African-American communities co-opted and exploited by white men committing violence, whether they be white supremacists, anarchists, or other agents-provocateurs. At every turn, we have been reminded of white privilege and of the weaponization of racism, most dramatically perhaps in Amy Cooper’s false 911 call in New York City. These events have taken place against the backdrop of disproportionate number of deaths of Black, Brown, and Indigenous people from Coronavirus due to decades of institutionalized racism.

As educators in religion, we are mindful of the ways in which religion has a long, complicated, and interconnected relationship with the legacy of racism. Religions, religious institutions, and the academic study of religion have been (and continue to be) utilized to uphold white supremacy and justify racism and ethnic discrimination. Religion is neither practiced nor studied in a vacuum. Rather, it is always informed by social contexts and social conditions. Hence, religion often functions as a mirror of society’s broader assumptions and attempts to divide and discriminate, whether that be based on race, ethnicity, class, social status, nationality, religion, (dis)ability, gender, or sexuality.

The continued oppression and marginalization of African-Americans is preceded by centuries of religious speculation about the human status of Black and Indigenous people by European colonialists and theologians. The concept of a hierarchy of human races was developed throughout the long sixteenth century by white Christian Europeans who then used it to justify the enslavement of Africans and their colonialist endeavors against the indigenous peoples of the Americas. This concept was preceded by (among many events) the papal bull Dum Diversas (1452), which granted divine authority to Spain and Portugal to capture Africans and subject them to lifetime servitude; by the forced conversion or expulsion of Jews and Muslims in Spain and Portugal; by Columbus’s declaration that the inhabitants of Hispaniola were a “people without religion” and subsequent enslavement and torture of the Taino people (1493); and by the Valldolid trial (1552), which debated whether people of color were barbarians that could be “civilized” by Christian conversion, or worse, people without souls irreparably damned. White supremacy was used to justify enslavement by many of the most powerful Christian leaders in America, including Rev. Cotton Mather, Rev. Jonathan Edwards, Rev. George Whitfield, Bishop John Carroll, and Rev. Robert Lewis Dabney, not to mention 12 of America’s Presidents who owned slaves and had varying levels of commitment to Christianity. Racist assumptions were read back into sacred texts, most prominently in the so-called “curse of Ham,” and they led to the development of the “slave Bible,” a version of the text enslavers gave to slaves (when they were allowed to read) that redacted references to liberty and freedom from slavery. Religious institutions like Princeton University and Georgetown University materially benefited from the exploitation of Black bodies. Almost every major denomination had rules about whether Black people could be in religious buildings and policed efforts by Black people to have freedom of religious assembly. White supremacy was preached from the pulpit by the tens of thousands of clergymen that were members of the KKK. Denominations such as the Southern Baptist Church, the Methodist Episcopal Church, South, and the Southern Presbyterian Church owe their existence to support for slavery. White mobs scheduled lynchings on Sunday afternoons so the entire town could attend as a form of entertainment, and did so on the lawns of Black churches as a form of intimidation and domestic terrorism. Throughout the twentieth century, religious leaders were at the forefront of supporting Jim Crow, segregation, and anti-miscegenation laws. And white supremacist assumptions undergird the religio-political mythologies of the Doctrine of Discovery, the “City on a Hill,” Manifest Destiny, and American Exceptionalism.

At the same time, religion and spirituality have long been utilized as a rich resource for hope and subversive resistance by those who find themselves under the boot of Empire. Abolitionists, Civil Rights activists, and defenders of Black liberation under threat of racism—from Richard Allen to David Walker to Nat Turner to Sojourner Truth to Harriet Tubman to Frederick Douglass to Ida B. Wells to Rosa Parks to Martin Luther King Jr. to Malcolm X to James Cone to Nelson Mandela to Desmond Tutu to Alice Walker to Cornel West to Delores Williams—have both appealed to and creatively innovated their religious traditions in order to advocate for justice and to highlight the unique aspects of the Black experience. 

As educators in Religious Studies, our goal is to develop students into culturally literate citizens and compassionate professionals. Through the study of the ways that diverse individuals and groups have found purpose and value, we offer an academic opportunity for students to engage with life’s most pressing questions. As such, it is our collective responsibility to amplify voices that have historically been excluded within the academic community, to educate students about the ways in which the history and practice of religion has been intertwined with the legacy of racism, and to be advocates and resources to our students who are particularly affected by these recent events and are daily marginalized by both individual and institutionalized acts of racism.

We see you.

We are listening.

We are committed to learning how to be better advocates of anti-racism.

It is not difficult to make a statement condemning racism and white supremacy; in fact, even our position to do so reveals a social capital that has long been accrued through various kinds of white privilege. It is much harder to proactively commit to solidarity with the marginalized, to unlearn the ways in which white supremacy has been habituated into our embodied ways of being in the world, and to decolonize the institutions and social structures that perpetuate whiteness as the assumed norm.

There is a lot of work to be done. 

While we are in no position to replace religious communities and pastoral resources, we know that religious thinkers and scholars of religion have offered many resources for thinking about race, racism, and related issues. An evolving bibliography and resource list is available on our department website.  

- Dr. Brock Bahler, Department of Religious Studies

Home — Essay Samples — Religion — Religious Tolerance — Religious Discrimination: A Challenge to Freedom and Equality

Religious Discrimination: a Challenge to Freedom and Equality

• Categories: Religious Liberty Religious Tolerance

About this sample

Words: 676 |

Published: Sep 16, 2023

Words: 676 | Page: 1 | 4 min read

Table of contents

Understanding religious discrimination, the global scope of religious discrimination, the consequences of religious discrimination, combating religious discrimination.

• Harassment: Verbal, physical, or psychological abuse targeted at individuals based on their religious beliefs.
• Exclusion: Denying individuals access to education, employment, public services, or social activities due to their religious affiliation.
• Stereotyping: Perpetuating negative stereotypes or misconceptions about particular religious groups, leading to bias and discrimination.
• Hate Crimes: Committing acts of violence or vandalism against religious institutions, individuals, or communities because of their faith.
• Religious Persecution: Religious minorities, such as the Rohingya Muslims in Myanmar or the Uighur Muslims in China, face severe persecution and human rights abuses.
• Religious Hate Crimes: Hate crimes against religious groups, like the attack on a synagogue in Pittsburgh, USA, or the Christchurch mosque shootings in New Zealand, highlight the global reach of religious discrimination.
• Legal Discrimination: Laws that discriminate against specific religious groups or restrict religious freedom are still in place in some countries, limiting the rights and opportunities of religious minorities.
• Human Rights Violations: Discrimination infringes upon the basic human rights and dignity of individuals, leading to a cycle of inequality and injustice.
• Social Tensions: Discrimination fosters social tensions, divisions, and conflicts between religious communities, hindering peaceful coexistence.
• Economic Disparities: Exclusion from employment and educational opportunities can result in economic disparities for religious minorities, perpetuating cycles of poverty.
• Radicalization: In some cases, discrimination can lead to radicalization and extremism, as individuals feel marginalized and turn to extremist ideologies.
• Legal Protections: Enacting and enforcing laws that prohibit religious discrimination and hate crimes, while also promoting religious freedom.
• Educational Initiatives: Implementing educational programs that promote tolerance, diversity, and interfaith dialogue from an early age.
• Community Engagement: Encouraging religious leaders and communities to engage in dialogue, build understanding, and foster cooperation between religious groups.
• International Cooperation: Promoting international collaboration to address religious discrimination on a global scale and provide support to affected communities.

Cite this Essay

Let us write you an essay from scratch

• 450+ experts on 30 subjects ready to help
• Custom essay delivered in as few as 3 hours

Get high-quality help

Verified writer

• Expert in: Religion

+ 120 experts online

By clicking “Check Writers’ Offers”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy . We’ll occasionally send you promo and account related email

No need to pay just yet!

Related Essays

4 pages / 1606 words

4 pages / 1865 words

2 pages / 1008 words

5 pages / 2400 words

Remember! This is just a sample.

You can get your custom paper by one of our expert writers.

121 writers online

Still can’t find what you need?

Browse our vast selection of original essay samples, each expertly formatted and styled

Related Essays on Religious Tolerance

The right to freedom of religion is a fundamental human right that plays a pivotal role in shaping personal and societal values. In this essay, we will delve into the significance of this right and how it can be harnessed to [...]

Religious freedom is a fundamental principle that has been advocated for centuries. Nevertheless, it has not always been honored and protected. Today, many people are still denied the right to practice their religion freely, [...]

Religion and morality are two deeply intertwined aspects of human existence that have shaped societies, cultures, and individuals for millennia. The connection between these two concepts has been a subject of philosophical, [...]

Among the numerous religions that have emerged throughout history, Christianity and Sumerian religion stand out as two influential and ancient belief systems. While these two religions come from vastly different time periods and [...]

The importance of religion is a topic of this essay. It is often overlooked in discussions among people who hold different beliefs. Some people tend to question the beliefs of those who practice religion, without [...]

Should religion be taught in public schools? How will parents take this? In my opinion, its best that religion doesn’t enter public schools because of the controversy and media outrage that can stir up. Starting with one point [...]

Related Topics

By clicking “Send”, you agree to our Terms of service and Privacy statement . We will occasionally send you account related emails.

Where do you want us to send this sample?

By clicking “Continue”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy.

Be careful. This essay is not unique

This essay was donated by a student and is likely to have been used and submitted before

Download this Sample

Free samples may contain mistakes and not unique parts

Sorry, we could not paraphrase this essay. Our professional writers can rewrite it and get you a unique paper.

Please check your inbox.

We can write you a custom essay that will follow your exact instructions and meet the deadlines. Let's fix your grades together!

Get Your Personalized Essay in 3 Hours or Less!

We use cookies to personalyze your web-site experience. By continuing we’ll assume you board with our cookie policy .

• Instructions Followed To The Letter
• Deadlines Met At Every Stage
• Unique And Plagiarism Free

Religious Discrimination in the Workplace Essay

The general ethical issue and why it is important to me personally.

The general ethical issue that I am looking at is whether it is ethical to discriminate against people in the workplace. Workplace religious discrimination occurs when a person is treated in a prejudicial way on the basis of his or her religion. When this occurs, the behavior of the individual is influenced in such a way that they feel like they do not belong to the group. This topic sparked a personal interest for me because I have a close friend who was victimized at work because of his religion. I grew up in a local town upcountry, where every inhabitant viewed the other as “family.” Brotherhood was well embraced in my community, despite the fact that the population was made up of both Christians and Muslims, almost in equal numbers. Like any other kid, I had a best friend, Galgallo Hassan. He was a Muslim, and I was a staunch Christian. Whenever he spent the night at our place, he would say the grace with us, and whenever I was in their place, I would follow through as Hassan’s parents prayed.

As fate would have it, we found ourselves in the same high school and university in the capital city. He, however, graduated before me and got employed at a financial institution in the city. Hassan later realized that he was the only Muslim in the organization, although that never bothered him until he started noticing that no one wanted to be seen hanging around with him. Whenever there were group activities or brainstorming sessions, his opinions never counted. He would also be alone during the team-building activities because others always avoided associating with him. Things go from bad to worse when the organization decided to train the employees at Hassan’s employment status for a possible management position at new branches. My friend was not considered for the training. Needless to say, he felt humiliated. He resigned and is in the process of suing the organization.

Religious discrimination at the workplace creates a natural resentment towards the leader of the group or even the whole group at large. Consequently, the opportunities and benefits enjoyed by the group are not enjoyed by the individual. It is necessary for the organization’s management to make decisions that are rational and logical so as to ensure that some members of a group do not feel excluded just because they do not belong to the religion of the majority.

The Underlying Ethical Questions Involved That I Intend To Answer

Should the religion of a person be an issue in his or her place of work? Many organizations all over the world have made it so difficult for Muslims, in particular, to enjoy equal rights. Why is it that many organizations give unfavorable treatment to employees and, in some cases, applicants just because their religion is the minority? The law should protect and uphold the rights and freedom of people from all religions, and not just those who belong to the traditional majority religion. Still, on religious discrimination, why do people always find it strange and, in some cases, try to stop marriages involving people in different religions? People who associate with a particular religion always consider those of their own religious group as the most suitable partners. Whereas everyone is right in deciding to join whatever religion they wish, it is not right to discriminate against people of another religion.

Factual Information That Is Crucial To Answering the Ethical Questions

The law in many, if not all, countries forbids all aspects of religious discrimination in work situations. The United States law, for instance, forbids religious discrimination in work settings, whether during hiring or firing. It is also unlawful to discriminate in payments, assignment of tasks and responsibilities, and while offering benefits and training. It is unlawful to discriminate or harass people because they follow a different religion from yours. Religious harassment includes making an offensive remark directed to the religious practice of a person, hostility, among others (Gregory 78). A hostile working environment may involve one in which a person is ridiculed, demoted, or fired without a satisfactory explanation. The law, however, does not cover minor acts such as teasing and isolating people. It should be noted that when the not-so-serious harassment is done frequently, a hostile environment is borne (Weller, 122). A person can be harassed by his or her own supervisor, a fellow employee, an employer, or even a client.

Title VII of the law prohibits religious discrimination in the aspect of job segregation. This covers acts such as the assignment of a worker to a task that does not link him or her to a customer due to an actual or anticipated preference of the client or customer. The law also prohibits employers from failing to accommodate the religious practices of a worker, as long as doing so would not create a burden in enforcing the policies of the organization. In this respect, the law requires an employer to reasonably adjust the policy so as to allow an employee to carry out his or her religious practice. Reasonable adjustments would include establishing a flexible working schedule that would accommodate someone’s worship hours and a suitable shift swap that is flexible to someone’s religious practice (Cotter, 68).

Accommodating an employee’s religious practices and beliefs include their grooming and dress codes. For instance, Jews’ dress code includes a yarmulke, Muslims wear head coverings, Rastafarians wear dreadlocks, while Sikh does not shave their hair and beards. The employees are also expected to observe their religion’s prohibitions on various dress codes such as mini skirts and trousers. In addition, they should notify their respective employers of their desired religious accommodations. Not every employer knows the details of the practices and beliefs of all religions. Where more information is required, an interactive process should be organized by both parties to reach an agreement. In the event that accommodating an employee’s request would create an undue hardship to the organization, the employer is entitled to turn it down. Undue hardship can include a compromise in the safety of the workplace, uneconomical accommodation, job inefficiency, an infringement of other workers’ rights, or overworking others. Finally, the law allows a worker to decide whether or not to participate in any activity linked to religion in the workplace. For instance, it would be wrong to force an employee to join a bible study activity.

How Arguments Based On Ethical Theory and Empirical Evidence Led Me to Adopt a Position on Religious Discrimination

Many employees are being forced to deal with a situation that forces them to compromise on their religious beliefs and practices so as to fit in an organization. For instance, many Muslim women are forced to do away with their head coverings so that they can keep their jobs. In addition, a good number of employers also face a situation where accommodating the religious practices of employees in the organization may conflict with the organization’s effective operation. For instance, employees may decide to start a bible study association and use an open office or a conference room during working hours. An employer might find it difficult to have to put up with that. Many employers fail to understand what their duties are in situations that involve religious beliefs and practices. On the other hand, the political environment has influenced people to be more vocal about their religion more than ever before. When the Democrats and Republicans proclaim their respective religious beliefs so strongly, the population that does not confess to either feels excluded (Vickers, 155). This creates a kind of a fight for recognition and acceptance all the way to the workplaces.

According to Kantian ethics, an action is justified if it is done in accordance with a principle that is morally acceptable the society. This should be regardless of a person’s spirituality. Usually, employers are so savvy about what constitutes their rights. They know the kind of situations that require them to advance accommodation. This always gives them an upper hand above their employees because many workers do not know their rights in detail. Therefore, they may compromise on their religious expectations while fearing to lose their jobs. Many employers tend to take advantage of such “opportunities” to enforce their policies. There is also the possibility that a good number of employers do not know that they are required to accommodate the religious beliefs and practices of their workers.

Why my position is more persuasive than opposing views that are based on different evidence or ethical theories

In recent years, there has been an increase in the adoption of the religious fundamentalism theory. It makes people loyal to their religions and intolerant of others (Ravitch, 45). Mill’s utilitarian theory, for instance, argues that as long as action leads to the promotion of the desired consequence, everyone should tolerate it. With religious numbers rising massively in the world, more and more people are becoming less tolerant of fellow humans. Since 9/11, the media has focused its attention on inter-religion conflicts and created the impression that it is difficult for different religions to co-exist.

Today, more than ever, people are more willing to tag their faith into their workplaces and avoid those who do not share in their faith. According to Neil Addison, people have adopted the notion that we are living in tough times, which requires that in some instances, you just have to give up on your religion to survive the moment (Addison, 203). This kind of thought presents some religions as a threat. It also encourages people to compromise on what they know is against their religion’s beliefs. The good news is that the law exists, which protects against intergroup conflicts. Since 1997, religion-related court cases have more than doubled in the United States. This reflects why the failure to accommodate religious diversity has negatively affected people.

The Practical Application of My Position

Religious diversity should be embraced in the workplace. The employers need to develop a working environment that embraces all represented religions. If the financial institution where my friend, Hassan, was working would have accommodated his religious practice and belief, he would still be a happy, effective employee. They would have also trained him just like the others, and maybe he would be a manager at the institution’s branch office. People of other religions would have joined the organization, and that would have created a racially diversified organization.

Works Cited

Addison, Neil. Religious Discrimination and Hatred Law . New York: Routledge-Cavendish, 2007. Print.

Cotter, Anne-Marrie. Heaven Forbid: An International Legal Analysis of Racial Discrimination . Burlington: Ashton Publishing Company, 2009. Print.

Gregory, Raymond. Encountering Religion in the Workplace: The Legal Rights and Responsibilities of Employers and Workers . New York: Oxford University, Print.

Ravitch, Frank. School Prayer and Discrimination:The civil Rights of Religious Minorities and Dissenters . New York: Northeastern University Press, 1999. Print.

Vickers, Lucy. Religious freedom, religious discrimination and the workplace . Michigan: Hart Publishers, 2008. Print.

Weller, Paul. Time for a change: reconfiguring religion, state and society . New York: T&T Clark International, 2005. Print.

• Chicago (A-D)
• Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2021, February 10). Religious Discrimination in the Workplace. https://ivypanda.com/essays/religious-discrimination-in-the-workplace/

"Religious Discrimination in the Workplace." IvyPanda , 10 Feb. 2021, ivypanda.com/essays/religious-discrimination-in-the-workplace/.

IvyPanda . (2021) 'Religious Discrimination in the Workplace'. 10 February.

IvyPanda . 2021. "Religious Discrimination in the Workplace." February 10, 2021. https://ivypanda.com/essays/religious-discrimination-in-the-workplace/.

1. IvyPanda . "Religious Discrimination in the Workplace." February 10, 2021. https://ivypanda.com/essays/religious-discrimination-in-the-workplace/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "Religious Discrimination in the Workplace." February 10, 2021. https://ivypanda.com/essays/religious-discrimination-in-the-workplace/.

• “Where Are You Going, Where Have You Been?” by Oates and “The Kite Runner” by Hosseini
• The Kite Runner by Khaled Hosseini
• Why Immigration Is a Problem
• Collective Bargaining and Unfair Practices
• Intergenerational Conflict at the Workplace
• Aspects of Labor Relationships in the USA
• Black, Minority and Ethnic People in Workplaces
• Performance and Satisfaction in the UK

Using Religion to Discriminate

The ACLU works in courts, legislatures, and communities to defend and preserve the individual rights and liberties that the Constitution and the laws of the United States guarantee everyone in this country.

If you’ve been discriminated against based on sexual orientation, gender identity, or HIV status, the ACLU wants to hear about it.

ACLU COMMENT TO HHS ON 1557 RIN 0945-AA17

Fourth Circuit Upholds Dismissal of Gay Teacher from North Carolina Catholic School

California Civil Rights Department v. Cathy's Creations d/b/a Tastries

Comment on Biden Administration Partial Repeal of Unlawful Trump Rule Allowing Refusals of Health Care

Explore more, what we're focused on.

Religion-Based Discrimination Against LGBTQ People

Religion-based discrimination against women, what's at stake.

With increasing frequency, we see institutions and individuals claiming a right to discriminate based on religious objections. In every case, businesses, universities, social services agencies, and others argue they do not have to comply with laws prohibiting discrimination. The claims arise in many contexts, including:

• Hobby Lobby and other for-profit businesses refusing to provide insurance coverage for contraception for their employees;
• A for-profit company objecting to providing its workers insurance coverage for drugs that prevent HIV;
• Teachers and students asserting a right to misgender students;
• Religiously affiliated schools seeking to deny LGBTQ people employment;
• Institutions claiming they are entitled to government funding and contracts even as they insist on discriminating; and
• Retail stores continuing to refuse to provide services to same-sex couples seeking items for their weddings or wedding receptions.
• While the situations may differ, one thing remains the same: Religion is being used as an excuse to discriminate against and harm others.

Instances of institutions and individuals claiming a right to discriminate in the name of religion are not new. In the 1960s, we saw objections to laws ending segregation in restaurants because of sincerely held beliefs that God wanted the races to be separate. We later saw religiously affiliated schools argue for segregation and at least one religiously affiliated university claim that the Constitution protected its right to refuse admission or continued enrollment to students who engaged in interracial dating. In the 1970s, we saw religiously affiliated schools claim a right to pay women less than men on the theory that men are heads of households. In those cases, the courts rejected the claims. We recognized that prohibiting discrimination was not about violating religious liberty; it was about ensuring fairness. It is no different today now that laws prohibiting discrimination expressly protect more of us, including LGBTQ people and disabled people, who call this country home.

Religious freedom in America means that we all have a right to our religious beliefs. However, this does not give us the right to use our religion to discriminate against and impose those beliefs on others who do not share them.

Through litigation, advocacy, and public education, the ACLU works to defend religious liberty and ensure that no one is discriminated against or denied services because of someone else’s religious beliefs.

Essay on Religious Discrimination

Our country has made leaps and bounds towards the abolishment of discrimination. Ever since the outlaw of segregation in public educational facilities, thanks to Brown v. Board of Education, America has since made significant efforts to stop discrimination in its tracks. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was the final push we had to make in order to desegregate and terminate the majority of discrimination across our country. However, since we have evolved into more modern times, we are being faced with different sectors of discrimination.

It wasn’t until the late 1990’s and early 2000’s that mass amounts of people began to openly express themselves as a member of the LGBTQ community. And as this prideful community grows, society as a whole is beginning to accept the ideals of these genuine people. Nevertheless, with this acceptance comes anger from those who disagree with the open lifestyles of the LGBTQ community. Such people are a handful of conservatives, our very own president, and religious persons. The question now is can one legally discriminate against members of the LGBTQ community due to religious or moral beliefs? This controversial topic is more relevant today than it has ever been, and the fact that we have to even ask this question is beyond belief. Discrimination should never be tolerated, even under religious grounds.

In 2012, Jack Phillips and his masterpiece cakeshop refused to make a wedding cake for a same-sex couple on the basis of his religious beliefs. The couple, David Mullins and Charlie Craig felt no need to stay quiet. When the news hit media, the Colorado cake shop became a “symbol of discrimination for many in the LGBTQ community…” (Calfas, 2018, para. 3). The situation was recognized by many and eventually escalated to the U.S. Supreme Court.

The case was significantly controversial. Phillips and his team argued that making a wedding cake for a same-sex wedding would technically involve him in the event which was “religiously” immoral to him. They asked, If vegan bakeries do not have to sell non-vegan products based on their religious beliefs, why should he have to sell a cake to a gay couple if his religion goes against it? Philips and his team made use of the First Amendment. Not only does he have freedom of religion but the First Amendment also grants him the freedom of self-expression, and to Phillips, that means expressing himself through the art of his cakes.

To be realistic, a vegan bakery does not offer non-vegans products, however, Phillips cakeshop does offer wedding cakes, just not to homosexuals. Craig said, “If Phillips didn’t want to sell wedding cakes to gay couples, he shouldn’t sell wedding cakes at all.” (Calfas, 2018, para. 9). Phillips claim of “self-expression” should and does not “exempt business owners from public accommodation laws, which requires them to serve equally.” (Corvino, 2017) Unfortunately, the U.S. Supreme Court Justices ruled 7-2 in favor of Phillips. This was a huge lose for the LGBTQ community and those who are fighting with them. What many people don’t realize is that this court ruling has started a wave of discrimination across our country based on religious grounds, and it is frightening.

Due to this Supreme Court ruling, religious persons are now more confident than ever. They see this as their chance to ask, “Well if they don’t have to provide service to gays, why should we?” And adoption agencies are being the first ones to ask. The House Appropriations Committee passed an amendment that, if implemented, would allow adoption agencies and child welfare services to refuse gay couples based on their religious or moral beliefs despite the needs of the child (Diaz, 2018, para. 1). This implementation would be called Child Welfare Provider Inclusion Act.

The Child Welfare Provider Inclusion Act would cause a great deal of damage if implemented. Not only would the needs of children be overlooked, but our tax dollars would be used for discriminatory purposes. “The act would require the U.S. Department of Health and Human services to withhold 15% of the federal funds a state receives to administer child welfare programs if it fails to comply the provisions of the Child Welfare Provider Inclusion Act” (Human Rights Campaign, 2017, para 2). More importantly, by taking adoption rights away from the LGBTQ community, we are denying a child’s right to be a part of a happy, safe, loving family and home. As of today, there are hundreds of thousands eligible children waiting to be fostered or adopted. Same-sex couples are six times more likely to foster and four times more likely to adopt than a heterosexual couple (Diaz, 2018, para. 6). With that being said, it’s easy to imagine the significant amount of kids that will lose their opportunity if this act was implemented.

The discrimiation doesn’t stop at the LGBTQ community. Women have become a target of this discriminatory behavior as well. President Donald Trump, and his administration, have drafted a rule that could allow religious employers to deny covering their employees birth control in their health insurance plans (Cooney, 2017, para. 1). This rule specifically targets a mandate in the Affordable Care Act which requires employers to provide cost free birth control to their employees. So far this mandate has benefitted over 50 million women across the United States. If we were put under new regulations, hundreds of thousands of women could lose their benefits of no cost contraceptives (Pear, 2017, para. 8). This would indefinitely strip away our rights as women to provide ourselves with the contraceptives needed not only for safe sex, but also for medical conditions such as irregular periods, acne, endometriosis, etc.

In the end religious freedom is a fundamental right. However, to say it is an absolute right is incorrect. “It cannot be used as a shield to permit discrimination against LGBTQ Americans” (Pear, 2017, para. 18). This being the same shield employers and businesses tried to use a half century ago to discriminate against African-Americans based on their religious or moral beliefs, in which this case the Federal Courts denied (Pear, 2017, para. 18). If it was denied then, it can and must be denied now. Our citizens have basic rights that are now being infringed upon because we are permitting the excuse of “religious freedom” and “self expression.” As a country we are taking a giant step back by allowing such behavior to continue.

So when does the excuse of “religious freedom” end? Are we just going to allow bakeries and/or all businesses for that matter deny service to our LGBTQ community? How long is our country willing to let a child’s needs go unattended? And how soon will our rights as women be striped from us at the hands of our own government? I wish I could tell you.  

Hindu community in Nevada alleges discrimination over temple construction restrictions

• A Hindu temple set to be built on a 5-acre land at Lisbon Street and Berlin Avenue was initially approved by the city’s planning commission in 2022. Founders of the American Hindu Association (AHA) had bought the land for about $450,000 in 2021.
• The plan, however, was met with opposition from community residents and then-Councilwoman Michelle Romero, who is now mayor.
• The AHA says the city of Henderson updated its rural code ordinance in 2023, prohibiting religious facilities in certain areas and consequently prompting accusations of religious discrimination .
• Residents opposed to the temple appealed the city’s decision, claiming it would ruin the rural preservation area. However, the City Council voted 4-1 to deny their appeal and granted the AHA a conditional use permit, which would expire one year later. 
• Before the permit was set to expire, the city changed its ordinance to impose prevent “large, intensive uses,” such as airports, police stations, fire stations, cemeteries and shooting ranges. Schools and religious facilities, meanwhile, are not allowed on certain streets. 
• The city claims that the change was not targeted at any groups. Romero, who voted for the residents’ appeal, cited concerns about preserving the neighborhood’s character.
• Romero added that “while the Hindu temple use is no longer allowed in that area, their Conditional Use Permit, which was approved, would have allowed them to build had they met the conditions before its expiration.”
• AHA co-founder Baba Anal, however, disputes this claim, asserting that the city denied their request for an extension despite nearly completing the necessary paperwork. Anal also criticized the city for imposing “unnecessary obstacles” on the temple project.
• The AHA has reached out to the Department of Justice, alleging violations of civil and religious rights. The city, for its part, maintains the ordinance change was not targeted at any specific use and encourages collaboration for alternate locations.
• If the DOJ does not rule in their favor, the AHA plans to sue the city in federal court.

Largest modern Hindu temple outside India opens in US

Indian American reps seek DOJ update on anti-Hindu crimes

Indian government denies involvement in plot to kill Sikh activist in US

• Happening Now
• San Francisco
• Los Angeles
• Orange County
• About NextShark
• AAPI Resources

Subscribe to NextShark's Newsletter

MyNewsLA.com

Breaking news for Los Angeles, Orange and Riverside counties

Teacher, School District Settle Her Religious Discrimination Suit

Share this:

• Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on X (Opens in new window)

Attorneys for a former Jurupa Unified School District teacher who sued the district for firing her over what she argued were religious grounds because she questioned a policy not to tell parents about children’s gender identity choices announced Tuesday that a settlement had been reached.

“What happened to me can happen to anybody, and I want the next teacher to know that it is worth it to take a stand for what is right,” former physical educator instructor Jessica Tapia said. “Across the country, we are seeing teachers’ freedom of speech and religious liberty violated through policies that require them to forsake their morals. I want teachers to be confident in the fact that the best thing we can do for students is educate in truth, not deception.”

Her attorneys, from Murrieta-based Advocates for Faith & Freedom, said Tapia and JUSD agreed Monday to settle her claims with a $360,000 payout, ending the ongoing federal civil rights litigation.

A district spokeswoman said the JUSD Board of Trustees voted in favor of the settlement agreement without admitting “any fault or wrongdoing.”

“The decision to settle this case was made in conjunction with the district’s self-insurance administrators and in the best interest of the students, such that the district would be able to dedicate all of its resources and efforts to its student population, regardless of their protected class,” according to a statement released to City News Service.

Tapia had filed her civil action based on Title 7 of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which prohibits religious viewpoint discrimination. After her dismissal in February 2023, the district said that it “takes seriously the obligation to accommodate its employee’s religious beliefs. Simultaneously, the district is obligated to comply with all local, state and federal laws, including … laws that protect students’ rights to privacy.”

Tapia said in March 2023 that her dismissal was rooted in an interaction with administrators during which she and colleagues were instructed “to withhold information from parents” whenever they encountered a student who had begun identifying as a different gender.

“I said, `Are you asking me to lie?’ And they said, `Yes, it’s for students’ privacy,”’ the former Jurupa Valley High School teacher said. “It was just so bizarre to me, because you’re talking about minors. The decision-making portal of their brain is not fully developed. They need their parents at this time for everything.”

Tapia said she specifically ran afoul a district policy linked to Assembly Bill 1266, which was signed into law in 2014. The bill focused on “pupil rights,” expanding on Section 221.5 of the California Education Code regarding students’ participation in courses.

The thrust of AB 1266 was that a “pupil shall be permitted to participate in sex-segregated school programs and activities, including athletic competitions, and use facilities consistent with his or her gender identity, irrespective of the gender listed on the pupil’s records.”

There were no provisions written into the bill prohibiting educators from talking with parents about students’ gender choices. However, legal guidelines in a companion measure cited the California Public Records Act, Article 1, Section 1 of the state constitution and the federal Family Educational & Privacy Rights Act in establishing limits on what educators are permitted to disclose.

“This settlement serves as a reminder that religious freedom is protected, no matter your career,” Advocates for Faith & Freedom counsel Julianne Fleischer said. “If the district’s actions were legal, no teacher of faith would be qualified to serve as a public school teacher. Jessica’s story is one of faithful courage. She fought back to ensure her school district was held accountable and that no other teacher has to succumb to this type of discrimination.”

Tapia and Advocates for Faith & Freedom are launching a national campaign, “Teachers Don’t Lie,” to spotlight constitutional protections in the classroom.

Assemblyman Bill Essayli, R-Norco, took up Tapia’s cause last year, introducing AB 1314, which sought to clarify the necessity of parental rights in school districts’ policies statewide. It was tabled by the Committee on Education in January.

Essayli said there were already provisions in the education code asserting a “parent’s right to know” everything in connection to the welfare of his or her child, and AB 1314 would have reaffirmed that.

Earlier this month, the assemblyman noted that even though his legislative effort had run aground, the courtroom battles being waged by teachers had netted success, pointing to a case in U.S. District Court in San Diego.

During a hearing in late April on a federal civil rights lawsuit prompted by the dismissal of two Escondido Union School District teachers, state attorney Emmanuelle Soichet told Judge Roger Benitez that arguments indicating California Attorney General Rob Bonta might threaten legal action against the district for failure to enforce student gender identity privacy guidelines were misplaced.

“To answer your question about who has enforcement power over those guidelines — those are non-enforceable guidelines, so there’s no one in the state who’s actually going to enforce those guidelines,” Soichet told the court.

The prosecutor added that the privacy provision inferred from earlier legislation should not be interpreted as a “mandate of state law,” and it was an “incorrect assumption” to believe otherwise.

Essayli said that was a green light for “every California school district to immediately repeal any secrecy policies that were implemented as a result of the unenforceable guidelines illegally issued by the Department of Education.”

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

Former Teacher, School District Settle Her Religious Discrimination Suit

A ttorneys for a former Jurupa Unified School District teacher who sued the district for firing her over what she argued were religious grounds because she questioned a policy on withholding details from parents regarding children’s gender identity choices announced Tuesday that a settlement had been reached.

“What happened to me can happen to anybody, and I want the next teacher to know that it is worth it to take a stand for what is right,” former physical educator instructor Jessica Tapia said. “Across the country, we are seeing teachers’ freedom of speech and religious liberty violated through policies that require them to forsake their morals. I want teachers to be confident in the fact that the best thing we can do for students is educate in truth, not deception.”

Her attorneys, from Murrieta-based Advocates for Faith & Freedom, said Tapia and JUSD agreed to settle her claims for $360,000, ending the ongoing federal civil rights litigation.

JUSD did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Tapia had filed her civil action based on Title 7 of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which prohibits religious viewpoint discrimination.

After Tapia’s dismissal in February 2023, the school district released a statement, denying “allegations raised by Ms. Tapia.”

“The district takes seriously its obligation to accommodate its employees’ religious beliefs. Simultaneously, the district is obligated to comply with all local, state and federal laws, including … laws that protect students’ rights to privacy.”

Tapia said in March 2023 that her dismissal was rooted in an interaction with administrators during which she and colleagues were instructed “to withhold information from parents” whenever they encountered a student who had begun identifying as a different gender.

“I said, `Are you asking me to lie?’ And they said, `Yes, it’s for students’ privacy,”’ the former Jurupa Valley High School teacher said. “It was just so bizarre to me, because you’re talking about minors. The decision-making portal of their brain is not fully developed. They need their parents at this time for everything.”

Tapia said she specifically ran afoul a district policy linked to Assembly Bill 1266, which was signed into law in 2014. The bill focused on “pupil rights,” expanding on Section 221.5 of the California Education Code regarding students’ participation in courses.

The thrust of AB 1266 was that a “pupil shall be permitted to participate in sex-segregated school programs and activities, including athletic competitions, and use facilities consistent with his or her gender identity, irrespective of the gender listed on the pupil’s records.”

There were no explicit provisions written into the bill prohibiting educators from talking with parents about students’ gender choices. However, legal guidelines in a companion measure cited the California Public Records Act, Article 1, Section 1 of the state constitution and the federal Family Educational & Privacy Rights Act in establishing limits on what educators are permitted to disclose.

“This settlement serves as a reminder that religious freedom is protected, no matter your career,” Advocates for Faith & Freedom counsel Julianne Fleischer said. “If the district’s actions were legal, no teacher of faith would be qualified to serve as a public school teacher. Jessica’s story is one of faithful courage. She fought back to ensure her school district was held accountable and that no other teacher has to succumb to this type of discrimination.”

Tapia and Advocates for Faith & Freedom are launching a national campaign, “Teachers Don’t Lie,” to spotlight constitutional protections in the classroom.

Assemblyman Bill Essayli, R-Norco, took up Tapia’s cause last year, introducing AB 1314, which sought to clarify the necessity of parental rights in school districts’ policies statewide. It was tabled by the Committee on Education in January.

Essayli said there were already provisions in the California Education Code asserting a “parent’s right to know” everything in connection to the welfare of his or her child, and AB 1314 would have reaffirmed that.

Earlier this month, the assemblyman noted that even though his legislative effort had run aground, the courtroom battles being waged by teachers had netted success, pointing to a case in U.S. District Court in San Diego.

During a hearing in late April on a federal civil rights lawsuit prompted by the dismissal of two Escondido Union School District teachers, state attorney Emmanuelle Soichet told Judge Roger Benitez that arguments indicating California Attorney General Rob Bonta might threaten legal action against the district for failure to enforce student gender identity privacy guidelines were misplaced.

“To answer your question about who has enforcement power over those guidelines — those are non-enforceable guidelines, so there’s no one in the state who’s actually going to enforce those guidelines,” Soichet told the court.

The prosecutor added that the privacy provision inferred from earlier legislation should not be interpreted as a “mandate of state law,” and it was an “incorrect assumption” to believe otherwise.

Essayli said that served as a green light for “every California school district to immediately repeal any secrecy policies that were implemented as a result of the unenforceable guidelines illegally issued by the Department of Education.”

• Election 2024
• Entertainment
• Newsletters
• Photography
• Personal Finance
• AP Investigations
• AP Buyline Personal Finance
• AP Buyline Shopping
• Press Releases
• Israel-Hamas War
• Russia-Ukraine War
• Global elections
• Asia Pacific
• Latin America
• Middle East
• Election Results
• Delegate Tracker
• AP & Elections
• Auto Racing
• 2024 Paris Olympic Games
• Movie reviews
• Book reviews
• Personal finance
• Financial Markets
• Business Highlights
• Financial wellness
• Artificial Intelligence
• Social Media

Court rules North Carolina Catholic school could fire gay teacher who announced his wedding online

• Copy Link copied

RALEIGH, N.C. (AP) — A Catholic school in North Carolina had the right to fire a gay teacher who announced his marriage on social media a decade ago, a federal appeals court ruled Wednesday, reversing a judge’s earlier decision.

A panel of the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond, Virginia, reversed a 2021 ruling that Charlotte Catholic High School and the Roman Catholic Diocese of Charlotte had violated Lonnie Billard’s federal employment protections against sex discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. The school said Billard wasn’t invited back as a substitute teacher because of his “advocacy in favor of a position that is opposed to what the church teaches about marriage,” a court document said.

U.S. District Judge Max Cogburn determined Billard — a full-time teacher for a decade until 2012 — was a lay employee for the limited purpose of teaching secular classes. Cogburn said a trial would still have to be held to determine appropriate relief for him. A 2020 ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court declared Title VII also protected workers who were fired for being gay or transgender.

But Circuit Judge Pamela Harris, writing Wednesday’s prevailing opinion, said that Billard fell under a “ministerial exception” to Title VII that courts have derived from the First Amendment that protects religious institutions in how they treat employees “who perform tasks so central to their religious missions — even if the tasks themselves do not advertise their religious nature.”

That included Billard — who primarily taught English as a substitute and who previously drama when working full-time — because Charlotte Catholic expected instructors to integrate faith throughout the curriculum, Harris wrote. And the school’s apparent expectation that Billard be ready to instruct religion as needed speaks to his role in the school’s religious mission, she added.

“The record makes clear that (Charlotte Catholic) considered it “vital” to its religious mission that its teachers bring a Catholic perspective to bear on Shakespeare as well as on the Bible,” wrote Harris, who was nominated to the bench by then-President Barack Obama. “Our court has recognized before that seemingly secular tasks like the teaching of English and drama may be so imbued with religious significance that they implicate the ministerial exception.”

Billard, who sued in 2017, began working at the school in 2001. He met his now-husband in 2000, and announced their decision to get married shortly after same-sex marriage was made legal in North Carolina in 2014.

In a news release, the American Civil Liberties Union and a Charlotte law firm that helped Billard file his lawsuit lamented Wednesday’s reversal as “a heartbreaking decision for our client who wanted nothing more than the freedom to perform his duties as an educator without hiding who he is or who he loves.”

The decision threatens to encroach on the rights of LGBTQ+ workers “by widening the loopholes employers may use to fire people like Mr. Billard for openly discriminatory reasons,” the joint statement read.

An attorney for a group that defended the Charlotte diocese praised the decision as “a victory for people of all faiths who cherish the freedom to pass on their faith to the next generation.” The diocese operates 20 schools across western North Carolina.

“The Supreme Court has been crystal clear on this issue: Catholic schools have the freedom to choose teachers who fully support Catholic teaching,” said Luke Goodrich with The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty. Attorneys general from nearly 20 liberal-leaning states as well as lawyers from Christian denominations and schools and other organizations filed briefs in the case.

Circuit Judge Paul Niemeyer, an appointee of former President George H.W. Bush, joined Harris’ opinion. Circuit Judge Robert King, a nominee of former President Bill Clinton, wrote a separate opinion, saying he agreed with the reversal while also questioning the use of the ministerial exemption. Rather, he wrote, that Charlotte Catholic fell under a separate exemption in Title VII for religious education institutions dismissing an employee.