Discrimination can be Appropriate
While ‘discrimination’ usually refers to unjust or prejudiced treatment, it also encompasses just and fair differentiation. Consequently, discrimination is not only appropriate but expected of an employer selecting the most suitable candidate for a work position. On the other hand, discrimination on the grounds of religious belief is not acceptable when a person is treated unequally because of their religious belief when in all the circumstances such discrimination is unreasonable. This distinction is clearly illustrated in the allegation that Andrew Thorburn was discriminated against because of his religious beliefs.
Thorburn is the chairman of The Church on the Hill, a church that does not support and has denounced some of the practices of people that the Essendon Football Club accepts, promotes, protects and seeks to normalise.
Essendon Football Club did a poor job of vetting applicants for the CEO position. It seems that the selection committee was so blinded by Thorburn’s impressive business credentials that they did not spot the clash of values between those held or represented by Thorburn and those espoused in the Club’s policies regarding equality. This clash was exposed and given prominence by the Victorian Premier, a Member of the Essendon Football Club and a practicing Catholic with views on equality at odds with those of the Archbishop of Melbourne.
After stepping down as CEO after only one day, Thorburn’s initial response was to distance himself from the extreme views attributed to the Church on the Hill by stating that his involvement with the Church was confined to business management and that he did not necessarily personally hold all the views expressed in the church. That this was the case seems to be consistent with his application to Essendon Football club, a club with a prominent policy regarding equality issues. As a prominent businessman, he appeared to be indicating that his focus is on corporate matters and he does not become overly involved in policies, such as those relating to gender and marriage equality.
Essendon Football Club insists that Thorburn was asked to choose between his leadership position at the Church and being CEO of the Club because of a publicly perceived conflict of values that had not been identified earlier. The club is adamant that Thorburn was not asked to choose between his religious beliefs and the Essendon position. Disclosed facts suggest that there is every reason to believe that except for his leadership position with an organisation that was publicly known to promote values at odds with those of the Essendon Football Club, Thornburn would have been hired by the Club and would have been free to exercise his religious beliefs within the usual guidelines of a work contract.
When some publicly criticised the anti-homosexuality, same-sex marriage and abortion stance of the Church on the Hill and some other religious organisations, and in turn, religious leaders alleged that what had happened was religious discrimination in the workplace, Thorburn appeared to change his tune, stating––
It had became clear to me that my personal Christian faith is not tolerated or permitted in the public square, at least by some and perhaps by many…[and that]
It is troubling that faith or association with a church, mosque, synagogue or temple could render a person immediately unsuited to holding a particular role.
The facts as disclosed do not support the link between being asked to step down and his ‘personal Christian faith.’ In any event, a person taking on a very public position should expect to be exposed to public scrutiny. Any views or beliefs held by Thorburn, be they religious or not, that appear at odds with those of the club are bound to become public – perhaps as they should.
With respect to the second statement – why stop at ‘church, mosque, synagogue or temple’? Views contrary to those of the Club, held by a secular applicant or promoted by a secular organisation with which she or he is associated or holds a leadership position are also undoubtedly directly relevant to the employment of such a person, especially in a leadership role.
On that basis, the discrimination that led to Thorburn being asked to step down as CEO is not illegal unjust discrimination against a person’s religious beliefs or their association with a religious organisation. Instead, Thornton was discriminated against when it emerged that in the public eye he was aligned with an organisation whose views on issues such as homosexuality, same-sex marriage and abortion were incompatible with those promoted by the Club. It was not that the organisation held such views that Thorburn was asked to step down. It was because of his association with views espoused by the Church on the Hill – views that are also promoted by some secular groups. The Club’s discrimination is against people and organisations holding or being associated with such views.
Ultimately, I wonder whether the aggrieved religious leaders have considered whether a person holding the position of CEO of an organisation that publicly accepts and supports those choosing a homosexual lifestyle would be a suitable candidate for appointment as chairman of a church that opposes same-sex marriage, abortion and sees homosexuality as contrary to God’s plan.
On the broader issue of protecting religious belief, it is worth noting that it has long ceased to be the case that the morality and values of most Australians are dictated by religion. While a sector of our religious population and institutions struggle with the loss of religion’s previously privileged position, the reality is that the fundamental beliefs and values of our society are reflected in our laws rather than in the exceptions made for religion. Perhaps, it’s time that we stopped distinguishing between religious and secular views and beliefs when determining which views to protect from discrimination.