I’m a huge, huge defender of religious freedom. I believe in religious freedom for every faith, not just my own; I believe that the First Amendment Free Exercise clause grants broad freedoms that can be limited only in extreme cases (child sacrifice comes to mind). I blog about that regularly.
But that doesn’t mean that every single claim of “religious discrimination” is that: religious discrimination. Case in point: Kimberly Bloom v. Aldi, outlined below.
First, here is a lady with skewed “Christian” views. She isn’t part of a local church, which doesn’t disqualify her from having free exercise rights, but it does qualify her from considering her beliefs to be labeled “Christian”, at least in a Biblical sense of the term. This lady is engaging in selective reading of Scripture, holding to hallowing the “Sabbath” (which is not, by the way, Sunday), but having no sense of the importance of a local church. Talk about straining at a gnat while choking down a camel! That might not be germane to the discussion ultimately, but it bears being said. There, I said it.
Second, Aldi made a sincere attempt to accommodate her beliefs. Her argument that she could not switch with co-workers, on the basis of her beliefs, strains credulity and skews Christian faith. If her faith would compel her not to work on Sunday, that’s fair enough, I suppose, but to ask others to fill for her, others who might not be professing Christians, might have no problem with working Sundays, simply makes no sense. Further, if Aldi is erring by being open on Sundays, would she not be more consistent to leave her job and find a more suitable employer?
Religious freedom ought to be broad, but this doesn’t ring true. Unless someone can convince me otherwise, it says here that Aldi ought to prevail.