Should the Building Engineer Belong to the Religious Organization - Case Study Example

CASE STUDY Case Study: Should the Building Engineer Belong to the Religious Organization? Word Count: 500 (2 pages Are you surprised at the outcome of this case? Why? ?2. As a church employer in your religion, what reason would you give for requiring that the building engineer be of the same religion? ?3. Are you able to draw a bright line between excessive interference with church business and the government wanting to ensure employment protection for all? Explain. (500 words) The outcome of the case study, the reasons for requiring a church employee to be of the same religion and the separation of church and state are all issues which will be addressed here.

There was quite a bit of surprise at the outcome of this case. According to “Corporation of Presiding Bishop v. Amos, 483 U.S. 327 (1987)” (2011), “Appellee Mayson, who had been employed at a [building] associated with [the LDS Church], was discharged because he failed to qualify for a certificate that he was a member of the Church and eligible to attend its temples…[which violated the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964]” (pgh. 1). The outcome of the case, which basically allowed Mr.

Mayson to be discriminated against by the LDS, was shocking in many ways. First of all, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (also known as the LDS Church) is a church that would not be thought to be discriminatory as they consider themselves a Christian group which follows the example of Jesus. On the other hand, the Latter-Day Saints reserve the right to hire whoever they want to hire for their particular position, and since this church is a religious (and therefore, private) organization, it can choose to hire and fire anyone it pleases.

There could be a numerous variety of reasons why the LDS Church would have preferred a building engineer who shared the same faith. Perhaps he came into contact with parishioners of the church on a regular basis and it was assumed that if he were Mormon, he would encourage the spirit of kinsmanship through being a fellow Mormon. However, any kind of breaking of the law, whether it be Section 2 of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, or any other similar law that were to prove he were discriminated against.

This may have made someone like Mr. Mayson. However, this firing of Mr. Mayson because he was not a church member could have interfered with the boundaries of church and state. Living in a secular society, perhaps the LDS wanted everyone who set foot in their buildings to at least believe in their creeds in order to pacify this necessity for having order in their ranks. To conclude, this is basically a clear, open-and-shut case about the separation of church and state. The LDS Church essentially has the right to hire and fire anyone they want, since this is a nonprofit organization that does not take government funding.

Therefore, it is absurd that the church was sued for violating federal discrimination laws. It only makes sense that the Church—as a private organization—should be able to hire who they want to work in their group. Since the federal government most certainly does not want to get involved in the separation of church and state, it is for this reason that the case won for the defendant. Truly, the separation of church and state is the wave of the future. REFERENCES Corporation of presiding bishop v.

Amos, 483 U.S. 327 (1987). (2011). Available: .