A New Hypothetical

[Robert Justin Lipkin]

I am interested in the example of the prison workers who read the Bible
during diversity training class. (I'm not sure whether it was mentioned on
this list or the conlaw list.) To help me understand this example I want to
first change it.  Suppose a diversity counselor in a public high school is
hired specifically to give classes explaining the importance of tolerating
racial minorities, women, gays and lesbians.  Suppose further that after
she's worked for two years, she converts to a religion condemning
homosexuality as evil. (So there's no question that her subsequent behavior
is based on conscientious reasons.) In this hypothetical the counselor then
replaces the part of her lesson plan that discusses tolerating gays and
lesbians and instead is silent, or just moves on to another topic, or reads
the biblical passages condemning homosexuality to her students. Do the free
exercise or free speech clauses protect her from being disciplined or fired
for not executing her job description?  Does it (should it) matter that she
knew in advance that the job was designed in part to explain tolerance of
homosexuals--that homosexuality is merely an alternative life style say?  Is
this hypothetical relevantly different from the prison workers case? There
are probably pretty easy answers to these questions, so I'd be happy to take
the response off-list.  Thanks in advance.

Bobby

Robert Justin Lipkin
Professor of Law and H. Albert Young Fellow
in Constitutional Law, Widener, Delaware
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/private/religionlaw/attachments/20010610/351a1d7e/attachment.htm