If said dude had the bible quotation about there being two genders, will that change the statement from being political to being religion, and prevent him from getting fired?

I don't think so.

I just want to point out. This was first a religious belief prior to it being a political view.

Therefore, it is an assumption to say the individual is conveying a political view. It very well may be a religious view that is being challenged in the political arena.

Some doctors would also state that it is a scientific argument. ( not protected I know but just showing it isn't entirely political )

Religious affiliation is protected but that doesn't mean every action taken based on a religious belief is protected. For example, if the individual started wearing the t-shirt the day after a heated religious debate in the office with an individual that identifies as non-binary, that could be perceived as targeted harassment.

> For example, if the individual started wearing the t-shirt the day after a heated religious debate in the office with an individual that identifies as non-binary, that could be perceived as targeted harassment.

But most of these cases are equivalent to someone being fired for wearing whatever t-shirt at home, so that's not really a distinction that gets you out of the problem.

>If said dude had the bible quotation about there being two genders, will that change the statement from being political to being religion, and prevent him from getting fired?

You raise an interesting point, because I feel like they would be fired for that indeed. What makes it interesting is that it becomes a political message wrapped in a religious statement, and I have zero clue as to how courts would approach that.

I think it just could be the case of a simple misconduct that has nothing to do with religious prosecution, because I don't think you would be able to get away with wearing a tshirt with a lot of really explicit and graphic quotes from the old testament at work, despite them having nothing to do with gender or politics (e.g., the example of Ezekiel 23:20 with very explicit content about reproductive anatomy of horses and donkeys comes to mind).

Ok, but as this example demonstrates, a person's political views may stem from his religious views, which are protected.

>Ok, but as this example demonstrates, a person's political views may stem from his religious views, which are protected.

Yes, which makes me believe that you are legally protected from being fired for publicly expressing your affiliation with a religious group. However, you are not protected from being fired for expressing political views, regardless of whether they stem from the religion you are affiliated with or some other source.

This is just an armchair lawyer level of reasoning on my end here, I have no idea if this is how it actually legally works, but that sort of makes sense. So if someone with the actual knowledge can chime in, that would be appreciated.

IANAL either, but the abortion issue is one such, and has been around for decades, and people have been vocal about their opinions, and I don't think they have got fired.

this whole cancel culture I think has taken a turn for the worse in the recent past.

>the abortion issue is one such, and has been around for decades, and people have been vocal about their opinions, and I don't think they have got fired

Well yeah, but they can be, and their employer won't get in any legal trouble. Having controversial political statements on your tshirt doesn't mean that you will get fired or that you deserve to be fired, it means that your employer has a right to fire you for it with zero legal repercussions. And if the employer doesn't want to fire you for your political statement, they won't, it's up to them.

Nothing can prevent the firing but they would most likely have civil rights lawsuit available to them unless the company had less than 15 employees and was in a state without a more restrictive law than the federal Civil Rights Act.

Galatians 3:28?

The analogy isn't really 1:1 in the first place. I see plenty of people wearing cross necklaces every day, which is more equivalent to wearing a shirt with an upside down pentagram on it. If the Satanist started wearing shirts with hateful stuff about other people, fire that person too.

If one can set up a "church of satan" and call it a religious organization with all protections that come with that, someone else can set up a "church of two genders" and also call it a religious organization and then their holy book would be a very protected speech.

No. There are some interesting conundrums one might imagine but not the example you give; that's straightforward.

You can't be fired simply for belonging to a religion.

However, belonging to a religion doesn't legally excuse your other actions such as harassing others based on their religion/sex/whatever.

So, you can belong to the Church of Satan, and even tell people that you belong to it -- that's your business. But you can't harass Christians for being Christian. That's their business.

Similarly, you can believe there are only two genders and those who transgress those boundaries are wrong. That's your business. But you can't harass coworkers based on those beliefs. That's their business.

To add on top of that, isn't gender now a protected class when it comes to employment as well?

If yes, then it would mean that wearing a "there are only 2 genders" tshirt would essentially count as harassing a protected class based on their belonging to that protected class. Which seems like pretty clear grounds for termination, and no "this is just my religion" excuses are going to help here.

Just like wearing a quote from the bible on your tshirt saying that women aren't supposed to hold seniority over men would very certainly get you fired as well, despite that being a part of your religious textbook and you belonging to that protected class.

First wearing either t-shirt is no way to approach these subjects as they are very nuanced.

Dispelling a myth here, the Bible doesn't actually say "women aren't supposed to hold seniority over men". It is true that it has been used in this manner and interpreted by certain organizations as such. Strong lined Complementarianism [0] espouse this belief.

However, the conclusion is not supported by the text and context nor by the rest of the Bible. [1]

To use a verse already quoted here Galatians 3:28. "There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus". This verse has everything to do with equality and nothing to do with the topic it was used for elsewhere in this thread. ( read it in context and you will see ).

I know I may get flamed/down voted for this but it is extremely important.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complementarianism

[1] https://almostheretical.com/episodes/authority-over-a-man

Is there really a point in arguing over the Bible?

In the micro, it certainly isn't. I mean, at least in the context of HN or the workplace.

In the macro, it's relevant to issues of school/workplace speech in the sense that it's good to remember that major religions are awfully large tents and represent a wide plurality of beliefs. Christianity is not necessarily synonymous with any particular belief regarding gender, etc. The same could be said of other major world religions.

I'm an atheist and therefore don't have a horse in this race. But it's one reason why merely identifying as belonging to a religion is fine in the workplace, whereas espousing specific religious beliefs that disparage others is a problem.

I do think it is important to challenge an off the cuff comment which is not backed up by specific knowledge or reference. Especially if that comment perpetuates an idea that leads to disparaging people.

The comment thread was specifically regarding religion so it is entirely applicable and important.

There are plenty of examples on HN where religious documents other than the Bible or the Pentateuch are discussed. [0][1][2]

Religion and/or the lack thereof impacts our culture and politics in outstanding ways. To ignore them or not discuss them leaves us blind to significant reasonings that have built the world we live in today.

[0] https://www.google.com/search?rlz=1C5GCEM_en&q=site:news.yco...

[1] https://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Anews.ycombinator.com+...

[2] https://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Anews.ycombinator.com+...

    Just like wearing a quote from the bible on 
    your tshirt saying that women aren't supposed 
    to hold seniority over men would very certainly
    get you fired as well, despite that being a 
    part of your religious textbook and you belonging 
    to that protected class. 

Do you honestly not see a difference between believing a thing, and emblazoning that thing on a t-shirt that your coworkers have to see?

Speaking as a Satanist, it's kinda hard to draw a line between religion and politics. For example, one of the seven fundamental tenets that my organization of choice espouses is, "the struggle for justice is an ongoing and necessary pursuit that should prevail over laws and institutions."

"Probably because one of those two is a religious statement, while another one is a political statement."

Why would biological facts be considered "political statements"? (assuming gender = biological sex, which is the usual usage from regular talk to identity papers throughout the world).

Judging from the last sentence, it seems like you're aware that the word "gender" as it's used nowadays often doesn't refer to biological sex, especially in the context of gender identity/expression. Setting aside the semantic argument, is there even anyone out there saying "there are more than two genders", and actually mean biological sex? What would they even mean by that? From what I can tell, anyone saying "there are only two genders, it's a biological fact" seems to be deliberately shifting the goalposts for the sole purpose of being inflammatory. Otherwise I'm not really sure I understand. I've never heard of anyone saying they were genderfluid as a result of their chromosomes.

In other words, if you were a judge and we're presented with a range of offenders wearing tshirts with "two genders", "satan church", "flat earth" and "vaccine hoax" logos, you'd selectively label them as political, religious, unscientific and "dangerous disinformation" and issue sentences accordingly? If that's the case, this isn't different from how the inquisition operated long ago, except that they would praise the flat earth and two genders guys, and execute on the spot the satan worshipper. Freedom of speech is about protecting all viewpoints, including the ones you don't like and even the ones you deem offensive.

> if you were a judge and we're presented with a range of offenders wearing tshirts with "two genders", "satan church", "flat earth" and "vaccine hoax" logos, you'd selectively label them as political, religious, unscientific and "dangerous disinformation" and issue sentences accordingly?

No, I would label them all as "political" except the satan church one. Because the satan church tshirt you mentioned doesn't make any kind of a statement aside from signaling belonging to or support of a religious group.

However, if the satan church tshirt made an additional statement (after "satan church") like "abortions should be legal", I would count it as a political statement as well.

"Flat earth" is just as much of a political statement as "Spherical earth" is (science and validity aside). You can get fired for either without much legal repercussions for the employer. Whether you get fired or not for wearing that tshirt is fully up to how your boss feels about it.

To put it simply, "protected class/speech" doesn't mean that you can wrap any statement inside of it and you are protected from getting fired. Especially if that statement you wrapped inside goes directly against another protected class (e.g., if you had a christian church tshirt that said "islam is a fake religion"), then I bet you are gonna get fired extremely fast, and saying "religion is a protected class" won't help you much there.

What about a t-shirt that says ‘the devil told me there are only two genders’?