March 2004 – “You’re fired!” 

Those aren’t words that any employee hopes to hear from an employer. But what happens if you are a Christian employee, and get fired while simply doing what you believe a Christian should be doing?

That is precisely what happened to Rich Peterson, a Christian who had worked at Hewlett-Packard in Boise, Idaho, for 21 years. He was fired for taking public exception to his company’s promotion of homosexuality.

Like many companies, Hewlett-Packard has adopted a “diversity” program which includes “sexual orientation” as one of the protected categories. In promoting the program, the company placed posters throughout the workplace proclaiming “Diversity is Our Strength.” Each poster depicted a photograph of an employee, with a caption stating variously, “Black,” “Blonde,” “Old,” “Hispanic” or “Gay.” One of these posters was placed just outside Peterson’s cubicle.

Peterson believed he had a duty to expose the sinfulness of the homosexual lifestyle. So, in response to the diversity posters, he posted some Scriptures inside his work cubicle which made clear the Bible’s teaching. Among the Bible verses he posted was Leviticus 20:13: “If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be put upon them.”

Peterson’s supervisor removed the passages after concluding that they could be offensive to some employees and because they were in violation of the company’s harassment policy.

Over a period of several days, Peterson met with Hewlett-Packard managers, during which they attempted to explain their respective positions to each other. During these meetings, Hewlett-Packard supervisors acknowledged the sincerity of Peterson’s beliefs and insisted that he need not change them. Peterson was also allowed to park his car in the company lot, even though it had affixed to it a bumper sticker stating, “Sodomy is Not a Family Value.” But they insisted that he could not post the Scriptures in his work station.

Peterson stood firm. He told the managers that he would not put up the Bible passages again only if Hewlett-Packard would remove the pro-homosexual posters. If the diversity posters promoting homosexuality were not removed, Peterson said, he would once again post the Scripture passages. Peterson was given time off with pay to reconsider his position.

However, the long-time employee concluded that his conscience would not permit him to compromise on the issue, and he was fired. In response, he sued Hewlett-Packard, claiming that the company had discriminated against him on the basis of his religious beliefs. Peterson lost his case in court, and the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld that ruling.

Protection of religious freedoms
There’s no doubt that the workplace is becoming a veritable battleground between competing philosophies and agendas, as people promoting everything from feminism to homosexual rights are taking to the courts to address every perceived slight.

Christians are among those caught in the middle of these legal wranglings – and even causing some of them. They may be employees who are experiencing discrimination in the workplace, or business owners who are being sued for violating the rights of non-Christian employees.

What religious rights does a Christian have if he is working for a private company, or what is a Christian employer expected by law to do with employees of different faiths?

 What is ironic in these court battles is that the law that shields Christian employees of private businesses from religious discrimination is the same law that is used as a sword against Christian business owners.

That law – the same one that Peterson used to sue Hewlett-Packard – is Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Title VII’s central provisions make it unlawful for a private employer to discriminate against an employee – in things like hiring, promotions or termination – because of his religion, as well as on the basis of race, color, sex and national origin. (The law is tailored to exempt religious corporations, associations, educational institutions, or societies.)

Another provision was added in 1972 to illuminate the meaning of religious discrimination under the statute. It provides that “[the] term ‘religion’ includes all aspects of religious observance and practice, as well as belief, unless an employer demonstrates that he is unable to reasonably accommodate to an employee’s or prospective employee’s religious observance or practice without undue hardship on the conduct of the employer’s business.”

The protections for religious employees under Title VII are broad. For example, Christians can expect that they will not be fired or denied a promotion simply because of their faith; that they will be allowed to wear a cross or other religious garb; and to the extent that other employees are allowed to talk about non-work-related subject matter, so are they. In other words, they cannot be singled out for different treatment.

Bible as hate speech?
However, according to Stephen M. Crampton, chief counsel for the AFA Center for Law & Policy (CLP), these Title VII protections might be in danger. He believes the reasoning of the 9th Circuit Court in the Peterson v. Hewlett-Packard case opens the door for the suppression of Christian opinion in the workplace.

“In the appellate court decision, the 9th Circuit found the Bible verses in violation of the company’s harassment policy, which prohibited any comments or conduct that failed ‘to respect the dignity and feelings’ of other employees,” Crampton said. “The new rule in the workplace seems to be: The Bible is out; ‘diversity’ is in.”

The 9th Circuit said that the Leviticus quote was “highly controversial,” and in general found Peterson’s Scriptural postings to be “demeaning and degrading.” It concluded that Peterson’s goals were entirely destructive, attempting “to generate a hostile and intolerant work environment.” The court also openly questioned the sincerity of Peterson’s beliefs, commenting that “we seriously doubt that the doctrines to which Peterson professes allegiance compel any employee to engage in either expressive or physical activity designed to hurt or harass one’s fellow employees.”

“This overt hostility toward the Bible by a federal appeals court is alarming. In effect, the federal court has declared the Bible hate literature,” Crampton said. “In the context of diversity programs and homosexual rights, it is apparently unacceptable conduct even to cite or read certain passages from the Bible. The ramifications from this ruling are enormous.”

Crampton noted that, although case law is still developing in this area, the general rule seems to be that in a conflict between religious rights and homosexual rights, the homosexuals win. “Tolerance trumps religion. So here, even though Mr. Peterson was offended by the pro-homosexual diversity posters – which incidentally did not include a picture of a Christian – it was the potential offense to a homosexual employee that carried the day,” he said.

Of special concern to Crampton was the 9th Circuit’s reasoning about Title VII’s religious protection. The court summarized it this way: “An employer need not accommodate an employee’s religious beliefs if doing so would result in discrimination against his co-workers.” 

“The court assumed it was discrimination for the Christian to quote the Bible, but found no similar offense in silencing the Christian and forcing him to say only good things about homosexuals,” Crampton said. 

Theoretically, he argued, if a company has in place a pro-homosexual policy like Hewlett-Packard’s, Christians would be unable to address it at any time while on company property. “The high tide of tolerance drowns all contrary constitutional rights,” Crampton said, adding, “This does not bode well for the future of Christian employees.”

Obeying those in authority
Of course, Christians are first obliged to live according to Scripture – even before resolving questions about Title VII or any other man-made law. Biblically speaking, if a Christian employee believes a company’s policy is wrong in God’s eyes, does he have a right to deliberately break such a policy?

In Rich Peterson’s case, he obviously believed he was right in doing what he did. However, in the opinion of Brian Fahling, senior trial attorney and senior policy advisor for the CLP, Peterson may have erred as a Christian – although not necessarily as a citizen.

“Rich Peterson ran afoul of the biblical principle of authority. He took his liberty in Christ and his belief in Scripture to mean that he had the duty to disregard, indeed to contravene, the orders of those in authority over him,” Fahling said. “He was wrong, and he would have been wrong, biblically speaking, even if Title VII had given him the right to behave as he did.”

Fahling insisted that Peterson – like all of us – was a man under authority. He held a job subject to the rules and regulations of his employer; whether he liked those rules and regulations was irrelevant as long as he chose to remain in Hewlett-Packard’s employ.

“Hewlett-Packard’s policy celebrating ‘diversity’ and the ‘gay’ lifestyle was clearly unbiblical. What did he expect from unbelievers in a post-modern world?” Fahling said.  

The biblical principle of authority is emphasized throughout Scripture and sets forth our obligations and duties to those in authority over us. Children are to obey their parents (Col. 3:20); wives must submit to their husbands (I Pet. 3:1); citizens are to obey the civil magistrates (Rom. 13:1-4); and servants (employees) are to obey their masters (employers, I Pet. 2:18-21). 

Fahling said that there are a few Scriptural exceptions to the rule that Christians must obey those in authority. He cited, for example, the Book of Acts, when the apostles were commanded to no longer preach or teach in the name of Jesus. They replied, “We must obey God rather than men” (Acts 5:29).

“Like the apostles, we must consider whether we have been ordered by our employers to do what God has forbidden, or forbidden to do what God has commanded,” Fahling said. “And if an employee like Rich Peterson believes his conscience will be violated in obeying Hewlett-Packard’s command, he should resign rather than disobey.” 

Fahling also noted that the views of Christian employees and Christian employers about such issues are often – predictably – split based on what benefits them personally. On the one hand, Christian employees who have been discriminated against think the employer should be forced to accommodate their religious beliefs; and on the other hand, Christian employers are equally persuaded that they should be permitted to operate their businesses on their terms, not on those of their employees.

“What if a Muslim insisted on posting a passage from the Koran on property owned by a Christian employer?” Fahling asked. “Most Christians would be up in arms about that. So we must be careful to be consistent.”

Fahling said believers should carefully consider the costs in trying to force an employer to accommodate their religious beliefs. “The mere fact that we possess a right under secular law does not require that we assert it,” he said. “We sometimes forget that forbearance and humility present a powerful witness for Christ, and, on the other hand, asserting personal rights against a private employer rarely advances the cause of Christ.”

Government’s expanded power
However, Fahling thinks the entire idea of using Title VII to sue private businesses should be a moot point – because, to begin with, Title VII is an abuse of federal power.

“The Constitution only restricts the government from abrogating an individual's religious rights,” he said. “The government was never supposed to be able to tell Christian employers, for example, how to express their religious beliefs or practices.”

When Congress passed Title VII, he said, it gave individuals the power to use the government – through the courts – to set aside First Amendment religious rights. For example, if a Christian employee is denied a promotion to a certain position by a Muslim employer, who only hires Muslims for those positions, the Christian can sue the employer under Title VII for religious discrimination. If he proves his case, the Christian will have succeeded in forcing the Muslim to promote Christians and other non-Muslims. Similarly, the Christian employer who hires only Christians to work in his clothing store can expect to meet with the same fate as the Muslim employer if he refuses to hire an otherwise qualified applicant who is a Muslim.

“In both cases the employer is compelled by law to act contrary to his private judgment and wishes, and perhaps, contrary to his religious conviction,” Fahling said. “In either of these hypothetical cases, the employees have succeeded in abridging the constitutional rights of the employers – to freely exercise their religious beliefs – using the government’s powers, by asserting their statutory right under Title VII.

“These employees could not have done this without the aid of Congress, which authorized Title VII – yet the First Amendment expressly forbids Congress from trampling on the expression of religious beliefs. In effect, Congress has determined that the statutory rights of employees trump the constitutional rights of employers,” he said.

Christians may be gaining short-term benefits while sacrificing in the long-term. “What happens when the government decides that religious organizations should no longer be exempt from Title VII – in effect requiring Christian ministries to hire, say, Muslims or Hindus?” Fahling asked. “Because we agreed, in principle, with Title VII, we may someday find ourselves on the losing end.

“When Christians use the ‘sword’ of government power to fight the spiritual battles in an often hostile cultural environment,” he said, “they’d better understand that the sword might cut both ways.”