The Founders and Slavery

[Michael McConnell]

Paul Finkelman and David Cruz have read into my comment about
religion and the Red Sox a criticism of the law that I do not make. I
have long supported the Title VII protection against religious
discrimination, and have criticized the Supreme Court for its anemic
interpretation of the law in such cases as Hardison and Philbrook
(while also believing that there should be narrowly-drawn exemptions
for small businesses with a genuinely religious character, even if
they are not "religious organizations").  I agree that much religious
discrimination, like that mentioned by Paul, is invidious, and is
analogous to racism.  Rereading my post, I can understand how
they might have interpreted as saying something else. But my point
was *not* that religious discrimination in the workplace should not
be prohibited, but just that it *is* prohibited, unlike allegiance to
the Red Sox. The Doughtery post to which I was responding seemed to
say that associational freedom with respect to religion is more
protected than association freedom with respect to such things as Red
Sox fannery, which is not true.
-- Michael McConnell (U of Utah)