Religious Harassment Guidelines in the Workplace
On October 1, 1993, the EEOC which is a US government body which interprets federal laws in regards to what type of conduct is allowed in the workplace. At the time, the EEOC added a new harassment guideline, and that was on the subject of religious expression in the workplace. In 1994, American Atheists a special interest group who believes in limiting free speech, jump all over this new guideline with it's endorsement and demanded it should be included in the Senate hearings.
This guideline has opened the door even more to punish and prohibit those who openly express their religious or Christian views in the workplace, invite their co-worker to church, conversations about religion in general, praying while at work, singing hymns at work, hosting a bible study during break hours, and more. In 1994, both Houses of Congress voted to condemn such a law. The EEOC received 100,000 comments, most were opposed to the new guidelines. Groups like the Southern Baptist Convention, the American Jewish Congress, and the Traditional Values Coalition all spoke at the hearings in opposition. Finally on June 16, 1994, the Senate voted to withdraw the new provision of "religious harassment" and stated that any guidelines pertaining to this type of conduct must agree with First Amendment rights. But years before and years later in the court system, these types of guidelines have affected or has tried to affect freedom of speech.
Here are a couple of examples...
Vanessa McCauley who had worked for Southwest Airlines for twelve years came to an end because she read her Bible while at work and professed her faith. In the State of California Department of Education, Mr Turner got into trouble for keeping religious pamphlets in his work cubicle and discussing religion with his fellow co-workers.
In 1993, Meltebeke v. Bureau of Labor & Industries was a very interesting case. An owner of a company who was deeply convicted of his religious beliefs. He would often times witness or invite his employees to church. He hired a new employee who he had shared his religious beliefs with, and invited him to come to his church. At times would even reprove him for his sinful ways. The new employee was later let go due to performing his job at such a poor rate. The ex-employee turned around and took the owner of the company to court for "religious harassment." Meltbebeke was found guilty at first, but an Appellant court reversed the ruling, stating that it restricted free exercise of his religious rights, and there is nothing in the Oregon state constitution that prohibits "religious advancement" of one's beliefs in the workplace or removing religion from the workplace. The court went on to say, Meltebeke was not motivated by animus.
Christians must be aware of these things, and fight for their rights to express Christianity...
Comments or Questions