@mazo - re:Covenant
but if you know going into the deal displaying their messages* are part of the deal, how is that any different?
*I'm not familiar with them or their requirements, just making a general statement...
Originally Posted by atlcomedy
(Just so we're all clear on it, all Covenant trucks have the slogan "It's not a choice, it's a child." painted on them.)
The problem I have with this argument is that it skirts the law. Under the Civil Rights Act you can't discriminate against employees based on religion. Covenant argues that the message is political and not religious so they get away with it.
But let's be serious here. The company calls itself a "faith-based" enterprise. It was founded by an evangelical preacher. It holds prayer meetings and bible studies for its employees on company grounds. You have to drive around with a pro-life message painted on the truck.
While all this doesn't expressly say "we only hire conservative Christians", it clearly send a message about what kind of people should be applying for a job. If that's not discrimination on the basis of religion then I don't know how much closer you can get.
Corporations - especially public ones like Covenant - enjoy the legal protections and tax advantages that society grants then. In exchange they have to live inside the rules society sets for them. That's all I ask of a company regardless of who owns it or what it does. Covenant, in my book, steps outside the lines and then lies through its teeth about the pro-life message not being religious orientated.
By forcing their employees to display this message and be associated with it - along with the company's other messages and practices - they are practicing de facto religious discrimination. That's where I have the problem. It's a legal issue for me, not a religious one.
Chick-fil-A does some of the same stuff but they make it absolutely clear that employees of all faiths are welcome and they've backed that up with their actions. They've apologized to and compensated people who experienced discrimination and fired the managers who were responsible for it. CFA may have it's viewpoint, but they exercise it with appropriate discretion and always stay inside the law. For that I give them total respect. Covenant, on the other hand, doesn't get anything from me. They're just blatantly avoiding their legal responsibilities AFAIC.
Cheers,
Mazo.
opco m:
