Is this discrimination?
By Sean Aqui | Related entries in Health Care, In The News, Law, News, Race, ReligionWhat do you think of this?.
SPRING VALLEY, N.Y. � The village chapter of the NAACP has filed a complaint accusing the Ben Gilman Medical and Dental Clinic of religious discrimination for closing on Saturdays.
The complaint, filed Sept. 6 with the state’s Division of Human Rights, alleges that the clinic’s practice of remaining closed Saturdays in observance of operators’ Jewish Sabbath, unlawfully imposes their religious beliefs on others.
Complainants say the practice is an unlawful violation of people’s civil rights, particularly since the clinic’s operator, Monsey-based Community Medical and Dental Care Inc., has received millions of dollars in federal funding.
In addition to the Gilman clinic, Community Medical and Dental Care operates Monsey Medical and Dental Center.
If you read to the bottom of the link, you’ll see that this appears to be an outgrowth of an ongoing battle between the clinic and the NAACP. But let’s ignore that and focus on the case at hand.
The NAACP has this exactly backward. Religious discrimination would be forcing a Jewish-run clinic to close on Sunday because all the Christian-run clinics are closed that day. Someone deciding to shut their business to observe their personal holy day is an example of religious freedom, not discrimination.
The federal funding makes the argument a little more interesting, but not compellingly so. For one thing, does the NAACP think their constituents would be better off if the clinic simply shut down rather than accept federal funding with such strings attached? And I’ll bet federal funds are used by plenty of Christian-run clinics that aren’t open on Sunday.
Each clinic has the right to limit its business by limiting the hours it is open. In response, another clinic is free to set up shop to cater to those who wish to have Saturday hours.
There is a legitimate practical concern here in the context of public health: if these clinics constitute the only practical health-care option for the region, then being closed on Saturday represents a gap in coverage. But I doubt this is the case. Spring Valley isn’t in the middle of nowhere; there are undoubtedly hospitals and other care providers within a reasonable distance. And even if it were the case, trying to legally compel a business owner to violate their religious beliefs is not the way to go.
This entry was posted on Thursday, October 5th, 2006 and is filed under Health Care, In The News, Law, News, Race, Religion. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
October 5th, 2006 at 12:21 pm
Sean – This is discriminatory. Why should an aethist have to pay their tax dollars to support a clinic that shuts down at an arbitrary time because of their invisible Man beliefs when a non-believer may very well need the clinics services that day. Religious freedom is the freedom to not take federal money and be hampered by the wall of seperation between the state and your invisible man. Religious freedom does not mean the right to run your federally funded clinic according to the dictates of your religion. Alas, at least if the government yanks the funding they won’t be able to get a lawyer because…you know…no lawyer is going to take a religious discrimination case with being “entitled” to their attorney’s fees.
October 5th, 2006 at 12:45 pm
Religious freedom does not mean the right to run your federally funded clinic according to the dictates of your religion.
It depends. The federal funds are there to help the clinic provide certain health services. As long as the clinic meets the terms of the funding, there’s no conflict.
Or should all clinics that receive such funding be required to be open 24/7? After all, if we’re not going to let them close down for the Sabbath, we shouldn’t let them close down for the night or the weekend, either. There are second- and third-shift workers who might need care at 2 a.m. Why should their tax dollars be used to support a clinic that they can’t access?
October 5th, 2006 at 1:09 pm
I agree, Sean. Surely, there are other clinics in the country which accept federal funding yet shut down at “arbitrary” times.
October 5th, 2006 at 1:36 pm
Since when did the “we ain’t the only ones” become a valid constitutional defense.
I thought the terms of the funding are the issue.
Because most people are asleep at 2:00 am and there is no “Seperation of Sleep and State”.
October 5th, 2006 at 2:24 pm
Well…if you take federal money then you’re playing by a whole new set of rules. So I have to say that they’re most likely violating the rules and this isn’t discrimination.
October 5th, 2006 at 3:00 pm
Well…if you take federal money then you’re playing by a whole new set of rules.
Agreed. But if those rules don’t require you to be open on Saturdays, then there’s no problem. And as you note, this isn’t discrimination in any case. They shouldn’t be taking this up with the state human rights division; if they believe the funding rules were violated, they should be taking it up with the appropriate federal agency.
October 5th, 2006 at 3:43 pm
It may seem that way, but I’ll defer to the lawyers on this one. I’m out of my league.
October 5th, 2006 at 3:56 pm
Clearly the separation of church and state has never been interpreted as denying people the right to take a day off (even for religious reasons) when federal money is involved. The only real question is whether, by taking a day off, the clinic is in violation of the funding agreement. This MIGHT just be a legal thing as Justin posits, but it looks more like a PR thing. It’s much more powerful to accuse someone of being discriminatory than it is to accuse them of violoating a funding agreement. Violating a funding agreement doesn’t get headlines. Religious discrimination, however, gets all of us talking.
October 5th, 2006 at 4:25 pm
Here we have the government supporting an enterprise which provides services to the public 86% of the time. The other roughly 14% of the time the government is SOLELY supporting JUDIASM. Are we going allow courts to use 14% of their walls to display religious icons, 14% of public property to be littered with nativities, crucifixes, exc., 14% of the time in public school to be spent in prayer. Give me a break. It is outrageous – pull the plug on this deal.
BTW, has anyone watched “Friday Night Lights” re: highschool football in Texas — those students pray a lot…a lot. If that is an accurate depiction of reality (which I bet it is) I say, pull the plug on high school football in Texas, too.
October 5th, 2006 at 6:11 pm
“This is discriminatory. Why should an aethist have to pay their tax dollars to support a clinic that shuts down at an arbitrary time because of their invisible Man beliefs when a non-believer may very well need the clinics services that day.”
My question to all is this. If the operator of a business, no matter what his beliefs, is required to work at the dictated time of those around him is he free or enslaved? Would it provide less hardship for a service to be closed on a Wednesday, a Tuesday, or a Sunday? Or should people with federal grants be mantaded to be available 24/7 as the people who payed for the grant money may need them. I think the whole sabbath thing is a red herring – free market means if you aren’t getting what you want one place you are free to go somewhere else.
October 5th, 2006 at 10:12 pm
What is “free market” about a federal grant?
October 6th, 2006 at 3:03 pm
DP, it’s morons like you who make the rest of us libs look so bad.
If it wasn’t for the “invisible Man beliefs” of the Jews and Christians, we wouldn’t have the weekend as we know it. Think about that the next time you crack open a cool one after bustin’ your arse 40+ hours for the Man.
Unless the clinic in question is an emergency clinic, they have no obligation to be open at all hours. Heck, if they so chose, they could keep Sunday hours. Still convenient for people who work Mon-Fri work weeks.
Being closed on particular day is not imposing one’s beliefs on another. Imposing would be preaching their views while they have the patient in the chair with the drill in their mouth.
And for your own safety, *never* come to Texas and say they should get rid of high school football. You will be on the business end of the result of legal conceal-carry.
October 6th, 2006 at 3:15 pm
Since when was this a constitutional issue? It’s a contractual issue between the government and the clinic. If there are other clinics which accept funding and are not open 24/7, then that’s a factor in this clinic’s favor indicating that it’s not breaking the terms of the contract.
October 6th, 2006 at 4:45 pm
Silver – You know not the depths of my moron-ness.
Brian, I misread NAACP as ACLU, my bad. You’re right, this isn’t being brought as an Establishment Clause case, but a probably Title 7.
Wouldn’t it be in the best interest of the NAACP to dispel the whole black/Jew grudge thing?
October 6th, 2006 at 4:51 pm
Inbreds. Note to self: The scariest place on the planet has to be a Walmart in Texas.
October 7th, 2006 at 12:23 am
Too many years ago to contemplate I was struck by what I considered to be the injustice of the Blue Laws. In civics class they provided as an example some Jewish shop owners who challenged a Blue Law because it forced them to close on the Christian Sabbath as well as on their Sabbath. They lost. I was just astounded. I didn’t believe that any reasonable person could think that forcing people to close their business on the Christian Sabbath could not be an Establishment issue.