Christian biologist fired for beliefs, suit says

[Ray Jones]

I could not say for sure that being a (convinced) creationist does not have an effect on any research work regarding cell biology. One might argue that, between the thoughts, ideas, and conclusions of a creationist and a non-creationist, there might be differences, in quality, and quantity.

[MJ-W4]

Here is the brief filed with the courts.

Thanks for that source. I see a possible catch in E. Facts 11 and 16 that may be used by the defendants' lawyers stating 'developmental biology' can only be carried out on a basis of ToE in general. They may also argue that Mr Hahn's institute has 'evolution' in big capital letters written on the front door. Also, the brief only mentions the preliminary hearing of Jan-11-MMVII instead of giving a detailed record of said hearing.

 

Here's the danger I'm concerned about--getting fired for a religious view (or lack thereof).

I absolutely agree. This is an increasing dilemma in the US - religion getting in the way where religion should be of little concern. As we still don't have the record of the first hearing where Mr Abraham's claims were turned down, we can only speculate as to how things got started. It's not past some pressure groups to find someone to further their cause by causing a commotion. <- Speculation, as I said. From my European point of view, Mr Abraham was pretty bl**dy stoopid to rub it in his bosses' face. For a scientist, he shows less brains than the fish he works on. The reason why things usually work out in Europe is that we usually don't feel like missionaries who have to tell everyone what we believe. As the saying goes: si tacuisses... (if you had kept silent)

 

Anyway, since the plaintiff has expressly asked for a jury, this will more than likely end in a battle of lawyers, in a mudfight over beliefs rather than reasons. The outcome of this suit will largely depend on the first hearing by MCAD, which didn't turn down Mr Abraham for no reason. This is what the defendants' attorneys will go for.

 

I could not say for sure that being a (convinced) creationist does not have an effect on any research work regarding cell biology. One might argue that, between the thoughts, ideas, and conclusions of a creationist and a non-creationist, there might be differences, in quality, and quantity.

Many scientists agree on this.

[Web Rider]

You can know about something without actually believing on it, and I have no doubt Abraham is familiar with the theory.

No, not to the level of education that was required for his job description. I'm pretty familiar with evolution, and I can pick up real fast on stuff I don't know, but that hardly makes me qualified for this guy's job. He was going to be doing in depth research on evolution-related concepts. Even if he was going to be working on some other part of the project, evolution, since this is a place designed primarily to study it, would quickly come into play.

 

How can you honestly say you're studying something when you turn away information?

 

As long as he was performing his duties appropriately, he should not have been fired.

which was....to study something related to evolution right? I find it difficult to believe somebody can do that without believing in it. If I don't believe in combustion, it's gonna be a little hard for me to understand an engine right? Because combustion is the primary motivator.

 

A lot of research, even in 'evolutionary research', is so narrowly defined that it doesn't come close to encompassing the entire ToE.

True, but to continue my analogy above, if I were to work on reconstructing an engine, and I didn't believe in combustion, I might throw out the spark-plug, because, since combustion doesn't exist, you don't need spark-plugs.

 

Abraham's work was in programmed cell death in zebrafish. Does that sound like something on which belief in ToE or religion of any kind actually has a significant impact?

Neither you nor I without significant experience in evolution, evolutionary theory, and a lot of biology in general, can claim to even guess the relevance of evolution in this situation. This is exactly what the lawyers are counting on. A bunch of people who dont know jack about what the guy was doing, defending him because it's their opinion that evolution is not involved.

 

 

Here is the brief filed with the courts. His research was very narrowly defined (as most advanced research is) and doesn't specifically _require belief_ in ToE as scientific fact. However, in point 10, Abraham told his employers that he did accept ToE as a _theory_, and in point 20 he was willing to analyze his work utilizing evolutionary concepts if warranted even if he didn't believe that the _theory_ of evolution was scientific _fact_ (an important distinction). In addition, his beliefs on ToE and creationism had no impact on his work on programmed cell death in zebrafish and thus no impact on his work performance. The company did not make belief in ToE a requirement for the job and why would they? It's not relevant to that particular job. You could believe in 4 turtles holding up the earth and it wouldn't have an impact on research on zebrafish cells. He was harassed and fired for his religious views, not for work performance. The Massachusetts court got it wrong.

Since that is the CLAIM filed by his attoreny, you'd have to be an idiot to believe that's the whole truth. Do you know about Zebrafish cells? No? Didn't think so, neither do I, so lets stop claiming evolution has nothing to do with them just because the prosecution said it didn't.

 

Here's the danger I'm concerned about--getting fired for a religious view (or lack thereof). And before the atheists cry foul here, if an atheist is hired by a religious institution (unlikely, but a job's a job sometimes), or, say, a Muslim boss has hired a Christian, atheist, or person of some other faith, and that person is fired for religious views that do not have an impact on their work performance, that's a violation of religious freedoms. This has a much greater implication than a creationism/evolutionism debate in this case.

 

And how many atheists have been elected president? Or to congress? Perhaps I should sue for discrimination against the American people since most of them wouldn't elect an atheist....ONLY because they're an atheist.

[Tommycat]

Having a trust in evolution does not make you a better biologist by default. If Abraham is an expert on the Zebrafish, then he is an expert on it. Unless you can prove that he is not qualified to be an expert with evidence to back up that claim, you are merely speculating. For all you know he has excellent research on cell death in the zebrafish. If you claim he cannot be an expert because he doesn't believe that the ToE is fact, you are merely speculating. He may even believe in adaptation(as some creationists believe) which allows changes without going to the level of new species generation(ie producing a non-fertile offspring like horse/donkey=non-fertile mule). It is not out of the realm of possibility that a biologist would believe that a creature can adapt over time, but not to the point of a new species emerging that cannot produce fertile offspring with the "parent" organism. Even more so with one that specializes in one type of animal. Even more so with one that specializes in one specific animal.

 

Please do not try to characterize me as a creationist. Unless you can somehow explain to me how the Eohippus and entire equine line of fossils somehow shows support for creationism.

[Jae Onasi]

which was....to study something related to evolution right?

Studying apoptosis,, i.e. studying things that leads to the triggering of cell death.

 

 

True, but to continue my analogy above, if I were to work on reconstructing an engine, and I didn't believe in combustion, I might throw out the spark-plug, because, since combustion doesn't exist, you don't need spark-plugs.[/url]My job involves examining the vision system. I don't have to believe in ToE, creationism, ID, or any other origin-related issues to understand the anatomy and physiology of the eye/vision centers of the brain. Sure, I've learned some evolution-based developmental biology of the eye, but no one knows _exactly_ how the eye developed over time, because it's such an incredibly complex organ system. However, it has zero bearing on how I examine eyes, prescribe medications, treat disease, adjust optics in glasses, fit contact lenses, or treat the visually impaired.

 

Neither you nor I without significant experience in evolution, evolutionary theory, and a lot of biology in general, can claim to even guess the relevance of evolution in this situation.

Well, since I've studied cell biology in doctor school, and apoptosis of optic nerve cells is a huge topic in glaucoma right now (chiefly, how to delay it so people can retain sight longer), I have a pretty good idea on how much evolution actually applies to apoptosis research.

 

Since that is the CLAIM filed by his attoreny, you'd have to be an idiot to believe that's the whole truth. Do you know about Zebrafish cells? No? Didn't think so, neither do I, so lets stop claiming evolution has nothing to do with them just because the prosecution said it didn't.

No, I don't know a whole lot about Zebrafish cells. But I do know a whole lot about cells in humans, specifically eyes/vision centers of the brain, which is far more complex. Unless you're specifically addressing evolutionary embryology as part of the original development of those cells, evolution has almost zip to do with actual research in what causes apoptosis. And since he was doing research on things that cause cell death in the here and now, rather than embryonic development, evolution has very little, if anything, to do with that.

 

And how many atheists have been elected president? Or to congress? Perhaps I should sue for discrimination against the American people since most of them wouldn't elect an atheist....ONLY because they're an atheist.

Election has absolutely no relevance to getting fired for religious beliefs.

[Achilles]

If you claim he cannot be an expert because he doesn't believe that the ToE is fact, you are merely speculating.

Hopefully I'll only have to say this one last time: A Theory is not a fact. A Theory is based on facts. Please stop skewing the conversation by randomly throwing about terms in the order that they do not belong.

 

He may even believe in adaptation(as some creationists believe) which allows changes without going to the level of new species generation(ie producing a non-fertile offspring like horse/donkey=non-fertile mule).

Adaptation = evolution.

 

It is not out of the realm of possibility that a biologist would believe that a creature can adapt over time, but not to the point of a new species emerging that cannot produce fertile offspring with the "parent" organism.

Sure. But until they could actually throw some science at the idea, then such an idea doesn't really mean anything. Holding a belief that something might be true is no cause to completely ignore the mountain of evidence that points to something that can be supported.

 

Hence why Abraham can't be trusted in evolutionary research, hence why he was probably fired.

 

And since he was doing research on things that cause cell death in the here and now, rather than embryonic development, evolution has very little, if anything, to do with that.

Unless of course he was supposed to be studying how heredity affected the process or how the process had evolved to affect that species over time.

 

Election has absolutely no relevance to getting fired for religious beliefs.

Correct, but as it has already been pointed out, religious belief has been established as BFOQ for church work. I don't think it's unreasonable to argue that a similar BFOQ should exist within the scientific community for scientific work. I think asking for there to be a double standard simply makes the religious community supporting this look childish and petty. My 2 cents.

[Corinthian]

Uh, yeah. There's a reason why that's in place. Religious leaders who don't believe what they're preaching have no place on the pulpit. Scientists, on the other hand, shouldn't have trouble if they want to be Atheist, Hindu, Buddhist, Christian, Jewish, or Muslim. They're two completely different scenarios.

[Tommycat]

Hopefully I'll only have to say this one last time: A Theory is not a fact. A Theory is based on facts. Please stop skewing the conversation by randomly throwing about terms in the order that they do not belong.

Um, I wasn't the first one to use it this way. Perhaps you should check your own posts...

 

Adaptation = evolution.

Not to a creationist. Take a look at the creationists arguments some more.

 

Sure. But until they could actually throw some science at the idea, then such an idea doesn't really mean anything. Holding a belief that something might be true is no cause to completely ignore the mountain of evidence that points to something that can be supported.

While you are trying to throw up another strawman, the point is that he doesn't need to believe in the entirety of evolution to be able to study those aspects outside the realm of new species evolution.

 

Hence why Abraham can't be trusted in evolutionary research, hence why he was probably fired.

Try explaining how he needed to be trusted in evolutionary research to research the cell death in the zebrafish. How he needed to believe that a new organism would emerge in order to research cell death at all.

 

Correct, but as it has already been pointed out, religious belief has been established as BFOQ for church work. I don't think it's unreasonable to argue that a similar BFOQ should exist within the scientific community for scientific work. I think asking for there to be a double standard simply makes the religious community supporting this look childish and petty. My 2 cents.

Should, but isn't. write your congressman.

 

Oh and religious work is not funded by the government. That whole seperation of church and state thing ya know.

[Jae Onasi]

Unless of course he was supposed to be studying how heredity affected the process or how the process had evolved to affect that species over time.

I believe it was toxicology related.

 

Correct, but as it has already been pointed out, religious belief has been established as BFOQ for church work. I don't think it's unreasonable to argue that a similar BFOQ should exist within the scientific community for scientific work. I think asking for there to be a double standard simply makes the religious community supporting this look childish and petty. My 2 cents.

 

And firing someone for religious beliefs looks just as childish and petty, in addition to a complete violation of basic rights. Religious institutions make clear in their applications (or should) that they want to hire someone of a similar faith background. If the center had noted something along the lines of "applicants must have belief in evolution" (or whatever verbiage that makes lawyers happy), this would never have been an issue. If they felt that strongly about it, then they should have taken more care to address it in the hiring process in the first place.

[Tommycat]

Religious institutions make clear in their applications (or should) that they want to hire someone of a similar faith background.

Not in all cases, but in at least one place I worked they did require faith in a specific religion for specific work. However, I was, even as an athiest, able to work for them in web site design, maintenance, hosting, and administration. I was also allowed to help with biblical quotes, so long as I did not attempt to turn people away from the faith. I was actually pretty good at it. Granted, people would talk about me like I had a third arm growing out of my head, but I was still able to perform religious duties even without believing in God. Of course I wouldn't have been allowed to lead a sermon, but any tasks that didn't require faith, I was able to do.

[Achilles]

Um, I wasn't the first one to use it this way. Perhaps you should check your own posts...

Nice try. You'll need to do better.

 

Not to a creationist. Take a look at the creationists arguments some more.

Since they aren't scientists, I don't see how they could possibly be qualified to determine what is or is not science.

 

While you are trying to throw up another strawman, the point is that he doesn't need to believe in the entirety of evolution to be able to study those aspects outside the realm of new species evolution.

I love it when people use strawmen arguments to accuse me of using strawmen argument. Who mentioned anything about new species (besides you just now)? Evolution is evolution.

 

Try explaining how he needed to be trusted in evolutionary research to research the cell death in the zebrafish.

Here's one: evolution of cell death in zebrafish.

 

How he needed to believe that a new organism would emerge in order to research cell death at all.

Well, if two zebrafish have a baby zebrafish then that baby zebrafish is a new organism. But perhaps you meant new species?

 

Should, but isn't. write your congressman.

I'd prefer to place my faith in the judicial branch, where it belongs on this one.

 

Oh and religious work is not funded by the government. That whole seperation of church and state thing ya know.

I've already addressed the fact that BFOQ is not limited to gov't vs. private. Therefore I'm not sure what your point is.

 

And firing someone for religious beliefs looks just as childish and petty, in addition to a complete violation of basic rights.

I've already provide links and arguments related to BFOQ. Repeating yourself isn't going to improve the strength of your argument. And repeating myself in the hopes that you'll actually pay attention to the actual legal precedent at the heart of the case is getting tiresome.

 

Religious institutions make clear in their applications (or should) that they want to hire someone of a similar faith background. If the center had noted something along the lines of "applicants must have belief in evolution" (or whatever verbiage that makes lawyers happy), this would never have been an issue.

And you're prepared to state unequivocally that this didn't happen? You're positive that a court won't find that either WHOI had sufficient due process that Mr. Abraham is at fault or that it is reasonable for a biologist applying for post-doctorate work at a renowned evolutionary research facility to expect to do evolutionary work?

 

It sure seems as though you're assuming that the facts of the case are going to support your argument. Perhaps it would be more fruitful to actually argue the legal precedents that are going to affect this case?

 

If they felt that strongly about it, then they should have taken more care to address it in the hiring process in the first place.

Do you have a link to transcript of the interview? Or perhaps Mr. Abraham's application? On what are you basing your assumption that they didn't?

[MJ-W4]

I still think one important aspect is that Mr Abraham asked not to work on evolutionary aspects of research. To me, Mr Abraham's claim has the taint of creationists trying yet again to mess with science. I haven't found the record of the preliminary hearing by MCAD on 01/11/2007 yet but I'll keep looking. As long as we only have one party's statements in this lawsuit, we cannot hope to see the heart of the matter.

[Tommycat]

Since they aren't scientists, I don't see how they could possibly be qualified to determine what is or is not science.

Irrelevant to the topic at hand. Abraham is a creationist. He can believe in adaptation without believing in ToE. Therefore, what creationists think is at the very heart of the matter. What scientists conclude, and more specifically what you think is not relevant to whether he can do his job.

 

I love it when people use strawmen arguments to accuse me of using strawmen argument. Who mentioned anything about new species (besides you just now)? Evolution is evolution.

So sayeth YOU. (and another strawman) A creationist can believe in the evolution of the internal combustion engine, that does not mean that he has to believe in the ToE. I'm pointing out that creatioists CAN accept some evolution(also called microevolution by creationists) but not the entirety of evolution(including new species generation dubbed macroevolution by creationists) which is fundamentally the point in whether he is able to do his job.

 

Here's one: evolution of cell death in zebrafish.

Ok so what if he believes in microevolution(very common amongst evolution deniers)?

 

Well, if two zebrafish have a baby zebrafish then that baby zebrafish is a new organism. But perhaps you meant new species?

Splitting hairs much?

 

I'd prefer to place my faith in the judicial branch, where it belongs on this one.

Unless they disagree with you. Then you'll be up in arms.

 

I've already addressed the fact that BFOQ is not limited to gov't vs. private. Therefore I'm not sure what your point is.

You never addressed this. You said "to the best of my knowledge..." which is a handy way of not really addressing it. I'm pointing out that you are wrong. Religious institutions are not governed by EEOC as stringently as federally funded institutions. They are allowed more in the way of BFOQ than a federally funded research firm. You might want to read up on that rather than assuming that because nobody called you on "To the best of my knowledge..." that it's fact.

 

At any rate, I believe I have made myself clear enough on this. Whether he is able to do his job is key, not whether he believes in the ToE. If he is able to show the court that he could have done his job without believing in the entirety of ToE, he will end up winning his case. You won't win by trying to convince me that evolution is the best explanation for the origin of the species, because I already know that. I've been on countless CvsE threads, and pounded the creationists over the head with the mountain of evidence.

[mimartin]

I still think one important aspect is that Mr Abraham asked not to work on evolutionary aspects of research.

We cannot, nay we shall not allow little logical ideals like this to enter into our debate. No, firing someone for refusing to do the work they were originally hired to do is far too simple. Even when an independent third-party government agency, an agency whose entire existence is to prevent discrimination and protect our rights, dismisses the case determining that he refused to do the job he was hired to do, still it is imperative that we ignore those findings.

 

I would like to point out that the article was not completely correct, Woods Hole Ocean Oceanographic Institution (it should read), a federally funded and privately funded nonprofit research center on Cape Cod. A graph showing their 2006 Research Funding Statistics can be seen on this page. They will soon have $100.00 more in their coffers as this thread has convinced me to do my part, plus I love that magazine as a child.

[Web Rider]

That whole seperation of church and state thing ya know.

 

People, please read the Constitution, or even your local laws sometime. You'll learn that "separation of church and state" is outlined in the Federalist Papers written by Thomas Jefferson. They have no legal backing unless a court says so. And the government funds a number of religious things, ex: the Red Cross.

 

Also, there are a menagerie of "God based" laws on the book, such as those related to being elected for a political position, serving as juror, or 9/10 Texas laws.

 

Separation of church and state only exists as far as we want our government to take it, and more often than not, that's not very far.

[MJ-W4]

We cannot, nay we shall not allow little logical ideals like this to enter into our debate. No, firing someone for refusing to do the work they were originally hired to do is far too simple.

You're being satirical, I take it. Thanks for sharing a little humour in this dry subject.

[Achilles]

Irrelevant to the topic at hand.

I don't think that's up to you to decide. If it weren't relevant then why did you broach the matter? Scientist should have to roll over and apply creationist interpretation of scientific terms when a creationist feels like making one?

 

Abraham is a creationist. He can believe in adaptation without believing in ToE.

Except that adaptation is evolution. I don't see how Abraham's failure to grasp that should be a constraint for the rest of us.

 

Therefore, what creationists think is at the very heart of the matter. What scientists conclude, and more specifically what you think is not relevant to whether he can do his job.

Quite the opposite: what is science is the matter at hand. Abraham was fired for refusing to do science. He was fired for putting his religious views over science in a research lab. At least that's how the legal court will look at it. What the court of public opinion wants to do with it is completely up to them, but also quite irrelevant.

 

So sayeth YOU. (and another strawman)

I really think you should look up the term before using it again.

 

A creationist can believe in the evolution of the internal combustion engine, that does not mean that he has to believe in the ToE.

Internal combustion engines do not have any self-replicating chemical bases. Neither do they mate. Random mutations do not appear each generation. There is no means for natural selection.

 

I'm not sure I follow the example.

 

I'm pointing out that creatioists CAN accept some evolution(also called microevolution by creationists) but not the entirety of evolution(including new species generation dubbed macroevolution by creationists) which is fundamentally the point in whether he is able to do his job.

Again, we're down to a creationist in evolutionary research lab, paid to do scientific research in accordance with commonly accepted scientific principles, trying to pick and choose his own definitions.

 

Ok so what if he believes in microevolution(very common amongst evolution deniers)?

What if he does? I don't understand the significance of the question.

 

Splitting hairs much?

Makes it difficult to understand your argument when you misuse terms. But no organism vs. species isn't splitting hairs by any stretch of the imagination...unless of course you're comfortable with me referring to you as "the human race" from now on.

 

You never addressed this. You said "to the best of my knowledge..." which is a handy way of not really addressing it. I'm pointing out that you are wrong.

Then what is your point? Please either show that BFOQ does not apply or accept that it does. Thanks.

 

Religious institutions are not governed by EEOC as stringently as federally funded institutions.

BFOQ is a legal principle, not an exclusive tool of the EEOC. Also, EEOC doesn't "govern" any institutions. They are a branch of government responsible for investigations.

 

They are allowed more in the way of BFOQ than a federally funded research firm.

Please support this argument with evidence.

 

You might want to read up on that rather than assuming that because nobody called you on "To the best of my knowledge..." that it's fact.

Feel free to further my education at any time.

 

At any rate, I believe I have made myself clear enough on this. Whether he is able to do his job is key, not whether he believes in the ToE.

Unless of course acceptance of ToE is key to his job, as his former employer claims. Really now...

 

If he is able to show the court that he could have done his job without believing in the entirety of ToE, he will end up winning his case.

Indeed he might. And if WHOI is able to establish that he couldn't then he will lose it.

 

You won't win by trying to convince me that evolution is the best explanation for the origin of the species, because I already know that. I've been on countless CvsE threads, and pounded the creationists over the head with the mountain of evidence.

I didn't realize that convincing you was the point of the thread. I thought we were discussing a legal case.

[Web Rider]

Except that adaptation is evolution. I don't see how Abraham's failure to grasp that should be a constraint for the rest of us.

I'd be a little worried about hiring a guy to do any kind of biology research who can't see this.

[Tommycat]

We cannot, nay we shall not allow little logical ideals like this to enter into our debate. No, firing someone for refusing to do the work they were originally hired to do is far too simple. Even when an independent third-party government agency, an agency whose entire existence is to prevent discrimination and protect our rights, dismisses the case determining that he refused to do the job he was hired to do, still it is imperative that we ignore those findings.

Actually, I saw it, however WE do not know why he REQUESTED to work in an area outside evolution research. He may have faced a great deal of hostility in that area. I mean honestly imagine several people badgering you about your beliefs. Condemning you. He may have been fed up with the number of hostile attacks on his religious beliefs and requested a reassignment.

 

I don't think that's up to you to decide. If it weren't relevant then why did you broach the matter? Scientist should have to roll over and apply creationist interpretation of scientific terms when a creationist feels like making one?

Ah I see quoting out of context is also another of your bad tactics. It is irrelevant to the topic at hand what the scientific community feels is or is not evolution. What is relevant to the topic at hand is whether Abraham can allow for adaptation, or as many creationists call it microevolution and still do his job. .

 

Except that adaptation is evolution. I don't see how Abraham's failure to grasp that should be a constraint for the rest of us.

Because he could still do his job if he believed in adaptation, even if he refused to believe in ToE. How can YOU not grasp that?

 

I think at this point it would be best for me to just quit this. It is obvious you cannot accept when you are wrong. You quote out of context, then place another argument in place that is easier to attack(aka STRAWMAN). You are honestly not worth debating anymore.

 

Good day.

 

Tommy the Cat

[Jae Onasi]

Abraham told his boss he would conduct his research in line with evolutionary concepts (per the brief). That tells me he was willing to do the job the way the facility would have expected from any other scientist.

[mimartin]

Abraham told his boss he would conduct his research in line with evolutionary concepts (per the brief). That tells me he was willing to do the job the way the facility would have expected from any other scientist.

Per the brief prepared by his lawyer presenting Abraham side of the dispute?

 

If he did what was outlined in his brief and was indeed doing the job correctly despite his beliefs then I would be inclined to agree with you that there was no cause to fire him. If on the other hand, the independent third party investigation is correct and he requested not to do the job he was hired to do then the company was correct in firing him.

 

Right now, without the companies side of what happened I am more inclined to believe The Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination for no other reason then they investigated the claim and do not stand to profit in this matter (have no reason to lie IMO). I will be interested to see the case come to fruition because if I was conspiracy minded this case sounds like a set up.

[Achilles]

[Jae Onasi]

Right now, without the companies side of what happened I am more inclined to believe The Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination for no other reason then they investigated the claim and do not stand to profit in this matter (have no reason to lie IMO). I will be interested to see the case come to fruition because if I was conspiracy minded this case sounds like a set up.

 

Sure, we need the company's side of things, but I doubt they'll post anything since they don't want to get into legal hot water.

 

I don't trust the MCAD as an unbiased agency. This is a politically very liberal state, and I'm unsure where these people are on the matter of religion in the workplace. If the company brings a lot of money into the state via grant/tax money, then the state has a vested interest in ruling for that company.

[Achilles]

I don't trust the MCAD as an unbiased agency. This is a politically very liberal state, and I'm unsure where these people are on the matter of religion in the workplace. If the company brings a lot of money into the state via grant/tax money, then the state has a vested interest in ruling for that company.

So their motivation should automatically be suspect, but his should not? Maybe just a tad bit of bias at work here?

[Jae Onasi]

So their motivation should automatically be suspect, but his should not? Maybe just a tad bit of bias at work here?

We're all biased here. It's pretty obvious from the posts. However, I don't assume that Abraham's motivations are 100% pure just because he's religious, either, if that makes you feel any better.