Judge To Employer: Do You Believe Gays/Lesbians Are Repulsive & Doomed To Eternal Damnation?

[romantico]

Posted: 7/9/07 at 11:54am

I found this article interesting.


BY ADAM LISBERG
DAILY NEWS STAFF WRITER
Thursday, July 5th 2007, 4:00 AM

A Queens business owner has been ordered to testify whether he believes gays and lesbians are repulsive and doomed to eternal damnation - although he says those views are constitutionally protected religious beliefs. The court ruling came in a suit filed by John Fairchild, 58, who claims he was fired from his job a day after telling his boss that his daughter is a lesbian and he is gay.

Fairchild claims that Ted Doudak, president of Riva Jewelry Manufacturing in Long Island City, regularly quoted the Bible at work while saying gays and lesbians are repulsive. Doudak declined to comment; his lawyer, Todd Krakower, denies the allegations. Fairchild's lawyer, William Kaiser, sought to quiz Doudak about his religious beliefs before trial, asking if Doudak "believes that 'homosexuality is a sin against God' ... believes that 'gays and lesbians are doomed to eternal damnation' ... regards homosexuals as 'repulsive.'"

Krakower said that being forced to answer those questions would violate Doudak's First Amendment rights, and Fairchild would try to use Doudak's beliefs as proof he intended to illegally discriminate. Manhattan Supreme Court Justice Carol Edmead last month ordered Doudak to answer, saying no one can use their right to religious freedom "as a cloak for acts of discrimination or as a justification of practices." Fairchild couldn't be reached for comment.

"A lot of discrimination against homosexuals has a religious motivation," Kaiser told the Daily News. "People who hold those views have to know they can't act on them with regard to employment." Krakower said Doudak may appeal the ruling, which he fears could set a dangerous precedent. "You're attacking perceived religious affiliation in an attempt to make a claim," Krakower said. "He's trying to prove a case through religious affiliation, and that's improper."

In the meantime, Riva has five job openings posted on its Web site, with the phrase "Riva is an Equal Opportunity Employer."

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/2007/07/05/2007-07-05_judge_wants_to_know_if_bizman_repulsed_b.html

[spiderdj82]

Posted: 7/9/07 at 12:08pm

I wonder . . if the employee would have said, "Hey boss. I just wanted to let you know that I am a Satan worshiper." OR "Hey boss. I just wanted to let you know that I am cheating on my wife with this hot girl" would he have still gotten fired? If he believes that being gay is a damnation against God, then he should also believe the other two mentioned above is the same. But, more than likely he would have just shrugged it off.

Stupid people. Makes me want to bitch slap them all the way to commonsenseville!

[romantico]

Posted: 7/9/07 at 12:15pm

Thank You! However, This is very tricky. You would think this all would have come up earlier. Is the employer right or wrong? I mean, is he within his rights?

[spiderdj82]

Posted: 7/9/07 at 12:20pm

If he ownes his own business . . . I *think* he is within his rights to hire/fire anyone he wants to for any reason. Now, I can more thank likely be wrong about that.

If he is working for a corporation, I dont *think* he can fire someone due to their sexuality. Again, I could be wrong.

[romantico]

Posted: 7/9/07 at 12:26pm

I found this.

"Implied religious freedom cannot be used to shield someone from punishment for violations of the law, nor sheild them from civil actions when the exercise of religious freedom violates the rights of others. While there is no religious right to discriminate and violate public laws, anyone may religiously discriminate in private."

In other words, his right to religious freedom begins and ends with him. The moment that the exercise of religious freedom violates the law and/or the rights of others, it is no longer the exercise of religious freedom but an exercise in religious persecution. Very complicated!!!

[Jilani]

Posted: 7/9/07 at 12:49pm

I'm not sure it's that complicated - it seems like the way it should logically work, doesn't it? Otherwise, you could use personal religious beliefs as carte blanche to violate all sorts of laws.

If he ownes his own business . . . I *think* he is within his rights to hire/fire anyone he wants to for any reason. Now, I can more thank likely be wrong about that.

Owning your own business doesn't exempt you from existing antidiscrimination laws.

If he is working for a corporation, I dont *think* he can fire someone due to their sexuality. Again, I could be wrong.

You are correct, for New York and a number of other states, but sadly, in a majority of states in the country, you can absolutely be fired for your sexual orientation.

[romantico]

Posted: 7/9/07 at 12:53pm

I was kind of thinking the same thing.

[papalovesmambo]

Posted: 7/9/07 at 1:03pm

if the employer can prove a legitimate non-sexual reason for terminating the employee, then he should win regardless of what he may think. if his beliefs were such a problem then the employee should have filed a grievance with the eeoc for sexual harassment. if the employer cannot prove that the firing was for non-sexual reasons, he should lose and face the consequences.

i'm rather leery of the whole, let's find out what he thinks manner of determining the case. it's getting a bit close to thought police for me.

i don't see why they could possibly need to determine his religious views here. either he has a legitimate reason for terminating him or he doesn't. if he doesn't, the fired guy should win the case.

Updated On: 7/9/07 at 01:03 PM

[Unknown User]

Posted: 7/9/07 at 1:43pm

There are some states that forbid descrimination by sexual orientation and some do not. As papa points out it all comes down to the termination. However, there are some states that conisder employment to be 'At will' and basically you can be fired at any time for any (or no) reason.

[Chita1933]

Posted: 7/9/07 at 1:57pm

actually being gay doesn't even come close, as far as "sinning" is concerned, to taking the lord's name in vain and adultery. Oh and he better be observing that ol' sabbath.

[papalovesmambo]

Posted: 7/9/07 at 1:58pm

it's queens.
there's laws in this damn town 'bout dat sh*t

[PalJoey]

Posted: 7/9/07 at 2:03pm

Papa--comment on the situation with "Jewish" in place of "homosexual" as edited below:

===

A Queens business owner has been ordered to testify whether he believes Jews are repulsive and doomed to eternal damnation - although he says those views are constitutionally protected religious beliefs. The court ruling came in a suit filed by John Fairchild, 58, who claims he was fired from his job a day after telling his boss that he and his family are Jewish.

Fairchild claims that Ted Doudak, president of Riva Jewelry Manufacturing in Long Island City, regularly quoted the Bible at work while saying Jews are repulsive. Doudak declined to comment; his lawyer, Todd Krakower, denies the allegations. Fairchild's lawyer, William Kaiser, sought to quiz Doudak about his religious beliefs before trial, asking if Doudak "believes that 'the Jewish people have turned their backs on Jesus and are sinners in the eyes of God' ... believes that 'Jews are doomed to eternal damnation' ... regards Jewish people as 'faithless.'"

Krakower said that being forced to answer those questions would violate Doudak's First Amendment rights, and Fairchild would try to use Doudak's beliefs as proof he intended to illegally discriminate. Manhattan Supreme Court Justice Carol Edmead last month ordered Doudak to answer, saying no one can use their right to religious freedom "as a cloak for acts of discrimination or as a justification of practices." Fairchild couldn't be reached for comment.

"A lot of discrimination against Jews has a religious motivation," Kaiser told the Daily News. "People who hold those views have to know they can't act on them with regard to employment." Krakower said Doudak may appeal the ruling, which he fears could set a dangerous precedent. "You're attacking perceived religious affiliation in an attempt to make a claim," Krakower said. "He's trying to prove a case through religious affiliation, and that's improper."

In the meantime, Riva has five job openings posted on its Web site, with the phrase "Riva is an Equal Opportunity Employer."

[Jilani]

Posted: 7/9/07 at 2:03pm

Unless there is an employment contract, the employee is an "at-will" employee, which means he can be fired for no reason at all, not just for an affirmative, "legitimate" reason. However, under antidiscrimination laws, he cannot be fired for an "illegitimate" reason (i.e., discrimination on the basis of certain characteristics).

That doesn't mean I disagree with your concerns about the "thought police." This is what makes antidiscrimination cases so incredibly difficult to litigate and win on behalf of the plaintiff.

if his beliefs were such a problem then the employee should have filed a grievance with the eeoc for sexual harassment.

The U.S. Supreme Court has established that Title VII (which is the statute under which sexual harassment claims are brought) does not encompass discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, so filing a complaint with the EEOC would not have been an option for this employee.

[PalJoey]

Posted: 7/9/07 at 2:06pm

Whenever you dehumanize an ENTIRE GROUP or class of people, you are engaging in bigotry.

If you claim your religious beliefs ENTITLE you to dehumanize that group, you are simply quoting scripture to do the devil's work.

[Chita1933]

Posted: 7/9/07 at 2:07pm

BWW-isms

eta: what did I tell you mejust.

Updated On: 7/9/07 at 02:07 PM

[papalovesmambo]

Posted: 7/9/07 at 2:18pm

same, thing to me, pj. if the employer had a legitimate reason for firing the employee they should prove it. nys had myriad anti-discrimination laws on the books. if they can't prove they had a reason for firing the person other than that they were gay and/or jewish or plaid skinned or whatever, then they are wrong and should pay whatever the court or the state or the jury determines is appropriate.

[PalJoey]

Posted: 7/9/07 at 2:27pm

The reason I object to things like the Tridentine Mass and outlawing gay marriage is that they encourage this sort of thing by institutionally dehumanizing groups of people.