General Motors has an 'Affinity Group' program in which employees can organize for the sake of hosting events and having access to corporate offices to express their concerns. There just a few groups: disabled employees, women, veterans, and so forth. Someone was denied a chance to create one for Christians because groups aren't allowed to advocate religious positions and he sued.

The Mercury News reports that the 7th Circuit Court ruled against John Moranski, a born-again Christian:

Judge David Hamilton dismissed the suit, holding that Moranski had failed to state a claim for the court to consider. The appeals court agreed. “The allegations in Moranski’s complaint make clear that General Motors would have taken the same action had he possessed a different religious position,” Judge Ann Claire Williams wrote in the opinion. ... “Simply stated, General Motors’s Affinity Group policy treats all religious alike - it excludes them all from serving as the basis of a company-recognized Affinity Group,” Williams wrote.

I wonder to what extent Christian Right groups supported Moranski’s lawsuit. It would have been hypocritical of them to do so because they also supported the ability of the Boy Scouts to discriminate against particular religious positions. If the Boy Scouts can discriminate against atheists because atheists are immoral, why can’t General Motors refuse to recognize any religious groups simply as a matter of general policy?

The GM policy might be wise or unwise, but it doesn’t appear be illegal. They aren’t creating anything like a “limited public forum” where content-based discrimination is illegal (though, as a private entity such categories wouldn’t really apply). They aren’t favoring any religious beliefs over others or disfavoring people of one religion.

The Affinity Groups appear to have been created first for the purpose of increasing workplace diversity (not an issue for Christianity, since Christians aren’t underrepresented anywhere) and second to help the corporate bosses make better decisions when those decisions impact particular groups of employees. It’s legitimate (even if not correct, perhaps) for the company to conclude that groups based upon religion have nothing to add. It’s probably even more legitimate for them to conclude that they don’t want to officially sponsor any religious messages, something which could lead to division rather than diversity. I doubt that they would allow groups based upon liberalism, conservatism, or communism either.

 

Read More:

• Separation of Church and State 101
• Church and State News
• Secularism 101