Phil Robertson and Religion in the Workplace

The relationship between an employee and his company is often extraordinarily complicated. In theory, it should be simple: The employee wants money, and the company wants a job done. But when the company is dissatisfied and wants to either terminate or discipline its employee, things quickly get complicated.
At first, it might seem that the company should be able to fire an employee whenever it wants, for whatever reason it wants. After all, it is a mutually agreed upon contract, and if one party no longer agrees to it, why should it continue? Furthermore, the employee is a representative of the company, and if the company does not want its brand associated with some sort of behavior, even if it has nothing to do with the job being done, why should the company have to continue the relationship?
Unfortunately, this black and white logic does not hold up for long. What if a company changes ownership and the new owner doesn’t want anyone of a certain race or religion representing his company? Very few would say that it should be legal for the new owner to fire all of his employees who happen to have a certain skin color. Or what if an employer is sexually harassing one of his employees, threatening to fire her if she says anything. Doesn’t the employee have a right to not be treated in such a vile manner?
The answers to these questions are fairly clear. But after acknowledging that there are situations where it is appropriate to make it illegal for an employer to fire an employee, the lines quickly become blurred. If an employee is accomplishing a job perfectly well but espouses a religious belief that is in direct contradiction of the views of the company, is it right for the employer to fire that employee? Does a company have any business espousing views at all? What if its the views of an individual employer, but not the company at large? Should be an employee have the right to divorce his personal and professional self?
These are all questions that have been raised by A&E’s temporary suspension of Phil Robertson, the star of their most watched show “Duck Dynasty”. Robertson gave an interview with GQ in which he made rather graphic comments about why he found homosexuality unnatural, also paraphrasing a few Bible verses while defending his views. A&E stated that they were “extremely disappointed” with his comments and that they had, as a network, “always been strong supporters and champions of the LGBT community.”
Fascinatingly (albeit somewhat unsurprisingly) both liberals and conservatives responded to this incident with stances that are philosophically inconsistent with their general positions. Many liberals, who tend to favor increased employee rights, have stated that A&E was simply protecting their brand from views that they find harmful. And many conservatives, who tend to favor increased employer rights, have stated that Robertson’s first amendment rights have been violated, and that the network is in the wrong, highlighted by former Presidential candidate Mike Huckabee’s creation of a Facebook event calling for the boycott of A&E until Robertson is reinstated. Of course, both sides’ responses are almost certainly genuine. But if A&E had disciplined an employee for saying that his religious beliefs state that people should be able to love whoever they want, it is not unreasonable to assume that the sides’ responses would have been reversed.
Rather than focus on the apparent hypocrisy of both sides for their sudden reversal in views, we ought to take advantage of this unique conversation by having a genuine political dialogue about what elements of the employer-employee relationship the government should and shouldn’t interfere with, especially since this specific incident raises all kinds of new questions about how religion and politics in the workplace should be handled in the 21st century.
In the past, a fairly convenient line has been for employers to allow their employees to say and believe whatever they want when they are not working, but to expect them to maintain a certain degree of political correctness while on company time. But Phil Robertson is a reality TV star. His job is effectively to be himself while cameras are rolling. When does he start and stop being an employee of A&E? Was GQ interviewing the star of Duck Dynasty, or were they interviewing the duck hunter himself? The line between Phil Robertson the TV character and Phil Robertson the man is blurry at best.
Being a reality TV star is obviously an extreme example, but as our society becomes more and more modernized, we are all much more public figures than we used to be. What if someone with their workplace listed on their Facebook profile posts a religiously oriented status? Is that status now a reflection of the company? Does it matter what the employee’s privacy settings are, or if the status could be construed as offensive?
Ideally, we would be able to have an emotionless conversation about these religious rights in an abstract sense and then blindly apply our conclusions to all cases. That would allow us to avoid both the hypocrisy of double standards and a very messy conversation which seems unlikely to lead to a productive answer. But this being the real world, at some point we will all have to acknowledge the true reason Robertson’s comments have both the right and the left as riled up as they are: the war between the religious right and the vast majority of corporate entities on the issue of homosexuality.
What constitutes an “offensive” opinion on homosexuality, and to what extent does the first amendment give people the right to not be fired when they express “offensive” things? Virtually everyone would say that it’s appropriate to fire someone for using racial slurs, but can comments like Robertson’s really be considered as offensive as the “n-word”? Robertson has also said that all people, regardless of sexual orientation, should be treated with love and respect, which certainly doesn’t sound like a homophobic belief. But Robertson also did not merely say that homosexual behavior was immoral, but that the attraction in and of itself was unnatural. This certainly seems to be a relatively close-minded view; if anything, one would think the fact that Robertson cannot imagine being sexually attracted to a man might lead to him understanding that sexual attraction is not a choice. But is it really fair to say that someone is a bigot when they still advocate for everyone to treat everyone else as an equal? And even if Robertson is a bigot, he’s at worst a bigot who is extraordinarily good at making A&E money. Is A&E within its own rights to care whether or not someone who is so extraordinary at his job is bigoted? Can’t someone have offensive views and still be a great employee? And don’t individuals like Robertson have just as much of a right to be offended by sexual behavior they disagree with as others have the right to be offended by their offense? If so, how can liberals in good conscience support both firing Robertson and passing ENDA, which would make it illegal for employers to discriminate based on sexual orientation, and presumably by extension, the belief that a homosexual lifestyle is moral?
None of these complicated legal and social questions have a clear and immediate answer. It is extraordinarily important for all of us to remember that everyone involved in these conversations is a human being, with genuine, well-intentioned, and nuanced views. But that does not make these conversations any less important. As our private lives continue to become more and more publicized, these types of firings will only become more and more common. And ultimately two questions will likely stand above the rest: Do employees have a first amendment right to not be fired for publicly expressing their beliefs on homosexuality, and should there be a double standard for those in favor of homosexual behavior and those opposing it? It seems unlikely that society will ever come to an agreement on this issue, but eventually our courts and legislatures may. But if these past few days have taught us anything, it is this: If these issues do come up in legal battles, our discourse could get very ugly, very quickly.