Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
Liberty Counsel, Jerry Falwell's third rate legal group, has dredged up yet another case of feigned persecution. They've filed an EEOC complaint on behalf of a woman who refused to answer the phones at her job by saying "Happy Holidays" because it was against her religion to contribute to the secularization of Christmas. She ended up being fired over it.
In late November, all company employees were told to answer the phones by saying, "Happy Holidays from Counts Oakes Resort Properties. How may I assist you?" Thomas objected to her supervisor and offered to say either "Merry Christmas" or to continue greeting callers the same way they are greeted throughout the year. She explained that her religious beliefs prevented her from contributing to the secularization of Christmas, and asked for an accommodation of her beliefs. On December 10, when the company president, Andy Phillips, came to see her, she politely reiterated her concern. Phillips then fired her for "insubordination" because she refused to say "Happy Holidays."
The law requires that businesses make "reasonable accommodations" for the religious beliefs of employees. But is this is a reasonable accommodation? Maybe. I don't see that it would be any sort of burden on the business to allow her to answer the phones the way she'd been instructed to do all year long. It's not as though saying "happy holidays" does anything to really help the business.
At the same time, her request is clearly absurd. You work for a company answering phones, you answer them the way they want them answered. If her religion required that she greet every person by saying "greetings in the name of Jesus, the one true messiah who came to save mankind from their sins" that would hardly be reasonable. The mere fact that one asserts a religion reason not to want to do something should not require that they be given a pass from following the same rules everyone else has to follow.
If one applies the undue burden standard, the business probably loses because they can't show why it would be an undue burden on them to have her answer the phone with the normal, non-holiday greeting. But must we really require businesses to accommodate the irrational views of its employees? I confess to being of two minds on this. After all, who gets to decide which views are irrational and therefore need not be accommodated? I'm not happy with either answer on this. But it irritates me to think that we have to go out of our way to cater to stupidity.
Politics
Comments
Obviously the business believed there would be a business advantage to wishing their callers "Happy Holidays." The loss of that opportunity to gain good will from their customers by letting her stick to the regular script is a burden, albeit a small and hard-to-measure one.
Allowing her to substitute "Merry Christmas" would likely be a greater burden, depending on how many of their customers would be offended by the more sectarian greeting.
I'm glad I'm not the judge who has to decide "undue" in this case, though.
Posted by: BobApril | December 30, 2008 9:43 AM
Based on this report, she undoubtedly could be fired for preaching on company time - and the other employees are probably celebrating that they won't have to listen to anymore sanctimonious sermons. I'm surprised Bill O The Clown hasn't had his head explode over this.
Posted by: J-Dog | December 30, 2008 9:44 AM
My take on this is to say that no religious accomodation is necessary here.
She says that it was against her religion to contribute to the secularization of Christmas, but she was not asked to secularize Christmas. No one asked her to deny that Christmas is a religious observance or to secularize that holiday, but merely to recognize that more than just Christmas occurs at that time of year.
She was asked to recognize the plain, non-religious fact that there are at least 5 holidays in the December/January time frame (Christmas, Hannakah, Kwanzaa, New Years Day and January 8 -- Elvismas -- the birthday of the King).
Posted by: Woody Tanaka | December 30, 2008 9:59 AM
Re Woody Tanaka
Not to mention the birthday of Issac Newton born on December 25 (Julian calender).
Posted by: SLC | December 30, 2008 10:09 AM
As an employer who has had hiring and policy responsibility for receptionists I am in no way sympathetic to the employee's position in this case. I also sense a problem employee who probably should have been dealt with earlier (I've read some other articles on this incident).
Receptionists have a disproportionate influence on stakeholders' perception of the company (disproportionate relative to what they are paid). They are often the first impression for a given communication transaction and also the person who guides the caller or visitor through a byzantine organization when merely leaving a message just won't do. Greeting callers with a "Happy Holidays" brings a light touch and a note of humanity into a situation when most business people would much prefer focusing on plans for the upcoming holidays or being off during the holidays rather than business as usual. It also sends a signal that the company is aware of the season and the changed priorities that come with the season (e.g., the importance of getting a shipment out, the need for a more personal touch from the receptionist given the increased difficulty of reaching people). These are core business concerns that have nothing to do with religion.
Just because Bill O'Reilly thinks "Happy Holidays" unfairly narrows religious freedom rights does not make it so, especially in the context of the employer's far greater right to decide what to communicate for clearly secular purposes directly related to their business's core operational objectives.
What I think would be more interesting is the court's take on whether "holiday" used in this context can be construed as a secular greeting given its dictionary term. Would an atheist receptionist have the superior right to refuse to use the greeting "Happy Holidays" over her employers orders to use such a greeting? I would argue again for the employer given its clear secular business purpose. Undue burden my ass, on both counts.
Posted by: Michael Heath | December 30, 2008 10:18 AM
Allowing her to substitute "Merry Christmas" would likely be a greater burden, depending on how many of their customers would be offended by the more sectarian greeting.
This is something that just absolutely puzzles me - the assumption that wishing somebody Merry Christmas would offend them if they don't celebrate it. First of all, the VAST majority of Americans celebrate Christmas, so the odds are pretty good that if you say "Merry Christmas" to somebody, you are saying it to somebody who actually celebrates it. Secondly, I could not imagine being "offended" if somebody wished me "Happy Hannukah", even though I don't celebrate it. Why do lefties make such a big deal out of minor things like this? The people that get offended by this stuff are the ones with the issues, and I don't see why society must bend over backwards to accommodate their absurd touchiness. Seriously, if you are somebody that does not celebrate Christmas and you get offended when somebody wishes you well with a "Merry Christmas", YOU are the one with the issues. Get over it.
Posted by: mroberts | December 30, 2008 10:20 AM
But Woody Tanka, I think, hits the crux of the whole "Happy Holidays" bullsh*t from the culture vultures. There's more than their damn holiday being celebrated during the now-two-month long holiday season (as Halloween more and more marks the beginning of the shopping season). The business is simply recognizing this fact.
They are also recognizing that not every person who celebrates Christmas is celebrating a religious holiday. There was a thread over at Pam's House Blend last week about favorite and I named the Rankin-Bass stop-motion animation classics, but particularly "Year Without a Santa Claus" (Heat Miser/Snow Miser). It occurred to me then about how all those classic Christmas specials, except maybe for Charlie Brown, that everybody loves present a largely secular mythology of the holiday. Even a beloved holiday film like "A Christmas Story" or "It's a Wonderful Life" has very little to do with religious faith or certainly a celebration of the birth of the rabbi Jesus of Nazareth.
The fundies may not like that there are millions of us for whom Christmas is a special time (and more than just the 25th) because it is about getting together with family and friends, reflecting on the past year and giving gifts - not because of materialism but as a way of expressing appreciation for the important people in your life. That is the real cultural holiday that even some Jews and Muslims celebrate, and the business has every reason to want to reach out to those types of customers as well.
Posted by: CPT_Doom | December 30, 2008 10:26 AM
Odd though it may seem, there ARE people who don't like to be wished "Merry Christmas". I have friends who actually objected to me sending them Christmas cards with anything that might smack of a Christian message or symbolism, because of their own religion. (They're Neo-Pagans of some sort.) Given that there are such people out there, why on Earth shouldn't a business do its best not to alienate their potential customers?
As an atheist, I don't give a toss either way but I'm quite happy to accomodate my friends' preferences, silly though I think they are.
Posted by: SimonG | December 30, 2008 10:29 AM
Perhaps mroberts would be more offended if he was wished "Happy Hannukah" every day by dozens of people for weeks on end. Perhaps if he heard Hebrew religious carols as the soundtrack to every Hannukah commercial; perhaps if everywhere he looked he saw menorahs and dreidels, in every public space, on every sign, on everyone's lapel pins, he might begin to understand the "touchiness."
Posted by: lauram | December 30, 2008 10:31 AM
mroberts, I'm not sure if you've noticed but "lefties" aren't the ones making this an issue. Case in point is this very article! The company thought it would be best for the business to say Happy Holidays. The one who had a problem with it was this woman. I'm an athiest and have said Merry Christmas and had it said back to me. It doesn't bother me. In fact, I have yet to hear of one who is bothered by it. The people mainly saying Happy Holidays is businesses who are trying to accomodate a larger customer base and make them feel welcome. It doesn't mean they think someone who celebrates Hanukkah is necessarily offended by "Merry Christmas" but they want to show that they welcome people of different faiths. It's just a good business stance.
Posted by: llDayo | December 30, 2008 10:33 AM
mroberts wrote:
I absolutely agree that anyone who is offended by being told Merry Christmas is just being a hyper-sensitive drama queen. They're wishing you happiness, for crying out loud; accept it with a smile and return the favor. But do you actually know anyone who is offended by it? I don't. Nor does anyone that I know. Nor have I seen any prominent voice in this country complaining about it. On the contrary, some businesses prefer to use Happy Holidays instead because they know that their customer base may be celebrating holidays other than Christmas around the same time - a perfectly reasonable position - and it is the religious right that is truly playing the drama queen here. It's the Bill O'Reillys of the world, as well as the AFA, Matt Staver and Liberty Counsel and other groups that keep the money flowing in by keeping their followers perpetually outraged and fearful of Them who are making a big deal out of a minor thing. In 2007, the AFA made half a million dollars selling "war on Christmas" buttons; Liberty Counsel made about $300,000. They've turned this feigned outrage at the entirely non-existent "war on Christmas" into a cash cow and a primary example of the equally non-existent "persecution" of Christians. Your premise is correct, but you're casting the blame in the entirely wrong direction.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | December 30, 2008 10:40 AM
mroberts:
So people greeting strangers with something other than "Merry Christmas" to you is perfectly okay in your opinion?
If Happy Hannukah isn't offensive, then certainly Happy Holidays isn't offensive either.
So why do all the ignorant righties make such a big deal out of minor things like this alleged "War on Christmas"?
I don't see why society must bend over backwards to accommodate the absurd demand to say "Merry Christmas" to everyone, including non-Christians.
Seriously, if you are somebody who celebrates Christmas and you get offended when somebody wishes you well with a "Happy Holidays", YOU are the one with the issues. Get over it.
(In other words, mroberts, you practically made the point yourself how innanely stupid the meme of the alleged "War on Christmas" actually is!)
Posted by: doctorgoo | December 30, 2008 10:47 AM
"She was asked to recognize the plain, non-religious fact that there are at least 5 holidays in the December/January time frame (Christmas, Hannakah, Kwanzaa, New Years Day and January 8 -- Elvismas -- the birthday of the King)."
Not to mention the ORIGINAL holiday, the Winter Solstice itself, when the gods graciously allowed the seasons to turn, assuring that the world would warm and the crops could be raised to feed people for another year. As most of you probably know, while the internal evidence suggests that Jesus was born in the spring (as a rule, lambs are NOT born during winter), the early Christians elected to celebrate it during a time when everybody else was celebrating (they wanted a piece of the action).
So I guess the "War on Christmas" could be seen as a counter-strike...
Posted by: CGM3 | December 30, 2008 10:49 AM
It appears that mrroberts has bought into the whole "war on Christmas." Care to provide evidence of "lefties" getting offended about being wished a "Merry Christmas?" I'll wager for each incident you find, assuming you actually manage to find one, we "lefties" can produce five or even ten cases where a conservative freaked out over someone saying "Happy Holidays."
Prior to the winter break (Christmas break if it makes you feel better), I saw more than a dozen students with a "We say Merry Christmas" or "It's okay to say Merry Christmas" buttons or slogans on their shirts. The problem is, for them, you, and Bill 'o the clown, no one said it wasn't okay.
Quit projecting the histrionics on those "lefties," most of whom happen to be Christian in the first place.
Posted by: dogmeatib | December 30, 2008 10:52 AM
On the phone with your employer's customers is not the appropriate venue to express religious beliefs. If your religious beliefs prevent you from doing your job, then you have the wrong job and you SHOULD be fired. If you're Hindu, you shouldn't be working at a stockyard in the first place. Whether or not anyone is offended by "Merry Christmas" is not at all relevant.
Posted by: Dan L. | December 30, 2008 10:57 AM
lauram,
I can't speak for mroberts but it wouldn't bother me a bit. In fact, I,d be quite happy with the change.
However, you exaggerate--it is actually rare (thankfully) to hear a Christian religious carol, the words anyway, as the soundtrack to Christmas commercials. More often than not it's Jingle Bells and Santa Claus is coming to town. And you don't see Christian religious symbols everywhere--mostly you see secular symbols: Christmas trees and Santas. And "every public space, on every sign, on everyone's lapel pins?" I don't think so.
At any rate, the point stands. It wouldn't bother me at all. I have the power to ignore. So no, I don't understand the touchiness.
Posted by: heddle | December 30, 2008 10:58 AM
Actually Mrroberts, my neighbour is a Jehovah's Witness
[but we don't hold it against her ;) ].
She told me that she's looking forward to "going on holidays with people like me so I don't have to explain everything all the time". I wholeheartedly agreed with her.
Imagine you're a Holy Joe and people keep giving you gifts, cards, keep saying to "happy Christmas", and you have to politely thank them and explain you don't celebrate Christmas and why. What a complete drag that would be! If it were me I'd be pretty shitty too.
Perhaps walking in 'someone else's shoes' occasionally is a good idea, for all of us*. -DJ
*"To Kill a Mockingbird" on TV, hence the homily. :)
Posted by: DingoJack | December 30, 2008 11:07 AM
Re mroberts
As usual, Mr. mroberts hijacks the thread by bringing up an irrelevant issue. The issue here is that this womans' employers wanted her, in her capacity as a receptionist, to answer the telephone in a certain way. The reason why they wanted her to do this is of no relevance. It would seem that such a request is entirely in order and within an employers rights. If Mr. mroberts doesn't like the instruction given by this employer to this employee, he is perfectly within his rights to take his business elsewhere, as is anyone else who objects to being wished a happy holidays.
Posted by: SLC | December 30, 2008 11:33 AM
Considering how much research and analysis typically goes into corporate branding decisions, I'm rather surprised at how little the impact of the two greetings has been studied. I've seen a couple of smallish ones. But that's it.
What I have seen has indicated that, at least in the retail market, there is a measurable benefit to saying "Merry Christmas" over "Happy Holidays." They found that shoppers who do no celebrate Christmas had a tendency not to object to "Merry Christmas" and showed only a slight uptick when wished "Happy Holidays." However, for those that did celebrate Christmas, saying anything but "Merry Christmas" had significant chance of negatively impacting sales.
Now these studies were relatively small and narrowly focused on a single shopping season. So there may be a long-term benefit to saying "Happy Holidays." If it builds customer loyalty ('stickiness' in marketing lingo) then it might make strategic sense. Or if retailers can shift public perception to where Christmas celebrators accept general greetings there is the potential retain Christmas sales while also snagging that non-Christmas uptick. Perhaps they can even build Hanukkah, Kwanzaa, etc. into bigger gift-giving holidays. Though it looks too me like Christmas shoppers are far too demanding of special recognition to share the season any time soon.
To quote mroberts:
Not for the first time, I agree with him.
Posted by: Abby Normal | December 30, 2008 11:53 AM
Not only that, doesn't "Happy Holidays" actually mean Happy HOLY DAYS? And that Christmas day would be among those holy days? So, in other words, this woman isn't really concerned about the secularization of the season, she really wants exclusivity on the season for her Holy day.
Typical.
Posted by: Mark Boggs | December 30, 2008 11:54 AM
By saying "Merry Christmas" for a strictly commercial operation, that individual is herself trying to secularize Christmas. If she really did not want to secularize it, she would not be using it in a commercial setting.
Posted by: jay | December 30, 2008 12:02 PM
The trouble with the suit is that the employers -- a resort firm apparently, or a Real Estate Office -- is unlikely to defend it -- and may be trying to settle it. (Unless, of course, no one has discussed this, they have a large
Jewish or South Asian clintele.)
Businesses, particularly ones so dependent on direct customer contact, don't like to defend suits like that which could make them vulnerable to beding portrayed as 'anti-religious' or 'anti-Christian' as nonsensical as the claim might be. (And, of course, the current economic environment and it's impact on 'luxury suppliers' makes it even less likely he'll defend against it.)
It's a shame, really, and I can only wish that one of these 'Christmas Warriors' decides to sue a business owner who is also a strong believer in secularism and civil liberties and who is willing to 'take the hit' for fighting the suit.
Sure, most judges would throw it out, but I'd like to see a defendant who was willing and eager to let it go to trial. Because a strong defense could knock it and similar absurdities out of the court rolls. Were I the owner, I'd direct my lawyers to:
Challenge her statement that 'her religious beliefs prevented her from contributing to the secularization of Christmas' -- with an army of theologians from all parts of the Christian spectrum showing the various views of Christianity towards Christmas;
(After all, if I claim that my religion requires me to smoke marijuana daily, I'd have to prove both that a religion did in fact hold this, and that I was -- and had been -- a member of that religion. Even then it'd probably not work.)
Show through testimony by at least one customer that for some people "Merry Christmas" IS insulting;
Show that it would have 'worked no hardship' for her to have been transferred to other work during the Holidays -- or to show that such a transfer would work hardship on the company;
And, finally, establish the principle that an employee's religious freedom does not give that employee a right to hold a job if the employee's religious beliefs prohibit them from fulfilling gthe requirements of the job.
(Two easy examples. I can easily imagine a sect that riffed on the 'scarlet woman' passage of the bible and came up with the idea that women may not wear red in public. Fine, let them believe it, but if a member applies, say, for a job in a fast food restaurant which dresses them in crimson, she has no right to say 'give me the job anyway, but I won't wear the uniform.' -- Maybe more on point would be if she converted to such a religion after being hired, and THEN refused to wear the uniform.
(But to make the point even more graphically, there is no question that an Islamic woman has every right to wear the hijab and nihab -- as sad as I might think it, I would support her in doing so. But if she applied for a job at Hooters, or converted after she was hired, and insisted on working in them and was not hired or fired that ain't discrimination.)
If such a principle could be established by an agressive defense of such a suit, it wouldn't just touch on this, but the whole Bush 'religious exemption' nonsense.
Posted by: Prup (aka Jim Benton) | December 30, 2008 12:11 PM
Abby,
Given that it is a Florida resort, they might have a significant Jewish client base. I grew up in an area where one out of every 5 kids was Jewish, it is completely natural for me to say "happy holidays" because my friends as a kid didn't celebrate Christmas. I don't know if this is the case, just presenting a hypothetical response to the market survey, but they could have a rather specialized market and found that "happy holidays" worked better. [shrug]
Posted by: dogmeatib | December 30, 2008 12:18 PM
A couple of comments on Holidays. First, you left out two, Beethoven's Birthday and Human Rights Day -- both Dec. 15th.
Personally, btw, I enjoy celebrating Christmas, and mostly because it IS secular. Because of cats and other factors, it is impossible, but I remember the way my mothers used to decorate the house for the holidays -- a week-long job with snow, holly, pine, and a front window and table display that was a true 'Winter Wonderland' and I dream of seeing that again or recreating it. (In fact, irrelevant but maybe interesting, a few years ago Christmas, Hanukah and Kwanzaa all fell -- or started -- on Dec 25-26th, and a Muslim friend of mine and I tried to make a card celebrating all three at once, featuring a black Santa wearing a yarmulke.)
Posted by: Prup (aka Jim Benton) | December 30, 2008 12:21 PM
So O'Reillyism is a religion now?
Posted by: Nemo | December 30, 2008 12:30 PM
So how does one go about defining what constitutes "reasonable accommodation" for what is inherently unreasonable, and where any oddball thing that a believer imagines can be defined as a religious belief? I expect we'll see a lot more of this kind of thing.
Posted by: Russell | December 30, 2008 12:33 PM
"Not to mention the ORIGINAL holiday, the Winter Solstice itself, when the gods graciously allowed the seasons to turn, assuring that the world would warm and the crops could be raised to feed people for another year."
Yes, well, they don't just do that "graciously." Did you bang a drum, have a bonfire or shoot off fireworks on the Solstice? No hmmm?
Well its lucky that I did so that the Gods were appeased and made the days get longer. I would like to take some credit, thank you...
Posted by: Kevin | December 30, 2008 1:07 PM
Kevin,
Glad you are watching out for us. Did you sacrifice a virgin to the sun god too? No wait, that happens on summer solstice. Carry on.
Posted by: Mike | December 30, 2008 1:12 PM
The simplest solution would be for Christians who abhor what Christmas has become to ignore December 25th entirely and move the religious celebration to January 6, Epiphany (or "Old Christmas" as natives call it here in the Appalachians). It's a fine old holiday that is being forgotten in lots of US denominations.
This would solve the problem because the phrase, "The war on Epiphany" is just too stupid to contemplate.
Posted by: kehrsam | December 30, 2008 1:13 PM
It's always been crystal clear to me just what we celebrate at Winter Solstice--my birthday :^)
One of the ironies of situations like this is that, had the mouth-frothing faction of religious devotees not made such a big noise about what is actually a ridiculous non-issue, many businesses wouldn't be spending time trying to decide exactly what they want people to say as they greet people on the phone or at the entry to their business. They'd just let them say whatever they were moved to say at this time of the year. It's very probable that a much larger percentage of such businesses have made the "holidays" policy precisely because O'Reilly and company have made such a stink about the "Christmas" thing. By making a big noise over a non-issue, they've actually increased the exacerbation of their oh-so-delicate sensibilities.
Lynn
Posted by: Lynn | December 30, 2008 1:14 PM
I'm going to jump in and pile on mroberts, too.
I agree with almost everything in this quote. The problem is, lefties aren't the ones complaining about what words are used at Christmas. It's the righties who are complaining that it's offensive to say "Happy Holidays."According to mroberts, then, they "are the ones with the issues," so I'd like to know "why society must bend over backwards to accomodate their touchiness."
mroberts? Why? Why?
Posted by: James Hanley | December 30, 2008 1:24 PM
I'd love to have this woman explain exactly where in the Bible it says that she can't say "Happy Holidays"
This isn't a religious case at all... no church holds any such dogma, unless Bill O'Reilly has registered the "Church of Pig-fucking Ignorance".....
Posted by: Graculus | December 30, 2008 1:36 PM
Why did no-one suggest the logical compromise?
"Merry Holidays"
Neatly compounds both. Problem solved.
Posted by: Metro | December 30, 2008 1:38 PM
mroberts - I'm disinclined to believe she was fired for the Happy H/Merry C reason she claims.
What is far more likely is that she was fired for being the sort of professional victim who makes a point of taking offense at every freaking thing that comes up--not exactly a quality you want in a receptionist.
It's certainly more to her advantage to pretend that this is about some timeless, unchanging, eternal religious verity (miraculously pulled out of Bill O'Reilly's ass when he was going over the Dead Sea Scrolls) than to admit that she was canned for being a a monumentally self-absorbed whiner who probably annoyed the entire office.
Posted by: Molly, NYC | December 30, 2008 1:41 PM
Actually Beethoven's birthday isn't known for certain, but it's usually given as the 16th, which, according to Wikipedia, was the date his own family celebrated.
Posted by: noncarborundum | December 30, 2008 1:47 PM
If we are to accommodate only rational religious views, we are going to have a big problem.
I would argue that nearly ALL religious views are inherently irrational. After all, they ultimately are derived through belief in the supernatural authority of god.
Either accommodate it all or accommodate none of it. I vote for the latter - religion seems patently absurd to me.
Posted by: Gingerbaker | December 30, 2008 2:00 PM
Kurt, that's a brilliant idea except that it would require the whiners to change when they clearly want everyone else to change for them. (I'm going to remember that "war on Epiphany" line, though.)
Posted by: The Christian Cynic | December 30, 2008 2:17 PM
"This would solve the problem because the phrase, "The war on Epiphany" is just too stupid to contemplate."
You say that like it's a problem. Stupid is what fundies run on.
I'd love for there to be some law requiring businesses to accommodate all religious objections of their employees. I'd abandon atheism in a heartbeat, convert to Hinduism and apply to every restaurant with beef on the menu. Then I can cause a huge stink and lecture everyone who orders a beef sandwich, and refuse their orders. Proper religious behavior right there.
Too bad I've never heard of actual hindus being that silly. Maybe they understand the concept of getting another job if your current one is against your religious (or any other) principles?
Posted by: Coriolis | December 30, 2008 2:43 PM
"Actually Beethoven's birthday isn't known for certain, but it's usually given as the 16th"
Schroeder in Peanuts said it was the 16th.
Posted by: Bill in NC | December 30, 2008 3:23 PM
Coriolis,
I agree that people shouldn't take jobs that are by their very nature against their beliefs, like a vegetarian working at McDonalds or a pacifist working in a munitions factory. But the woman in this case was working for a real estate company and the issue in question had nothing to do with the actual function of the business. Her offer to use a year round nonholiday greeting seemed fair and reasonable. After all, everyone doesn't use holiday greetings. Would it have been any different if a Jew or an atheist was fired for refusing to say "Merry Christmas?"
Posted by: Bill in NC | December 30, 2008 3:33 PM
I'm with kersham. Half of the so-called "War on Christmas" complaints seem to be disagreements over exactly how Christmas should be commercialized.
Also, in the spirit of the season, I have to say that I agree with mroberts. All the greetings are good. They're all "wishing people well".
Posted by: Taz | December 30, 2008 3:40 PM
At the risk of being accused of 'piling on', I'd like to suggest that mrroberts is nothing but a concern trolling sock puppet.
My mom is, as it happens, really quite religious -- she was often appalled at the secularization of Christmas indicated by the use of the phrase "Merry Christmas". To her, "merry" implied "jolly through drink" (aka drunk!) Not very religious (unless your god is bacchus!) Her preferred greeting was always "Happy Christmas"
So I think this employee is being somewhat less than honest in her objection - she is obviously pushing for a mor3e secular, more alcoholic version of christmas.
Happy Holidays, y'all!
Posted by: tony | December 30, 2008 3:44 PM
really, all the woman needs to do is produce her priest, bishop, pope, witchdoctor, shaman, vodoun, witch, or whatever and have him/her aver that, yes, saying "Happy holidays" is specifically against the teachings and dogma of her religion, and then show scriptural back-up
but something tells me it's her own *personal* belief, and not a formal teaching of any actual religion. any takers for that bet?
Posted by: skyotter | December 30, 2008 4:31 PM
When I was a little kid, my mom would buy those packages of 24 (or whatever) Christmas cards, the kind you had to fold yourself and stuff in the envelopes. (That was my job.)
One third of them in each box said "Merry Christmas," one third said "Happy Holidays," and one third said "Season's Greetings." And that was fifty years ago ! If that was all it took to destroy Xinanity, why hasn't it happened yet?
Posted by: Lurkbot | December 30, 2008 5:35 PM
I gave the Salvation Army bucket some money. The old bell-ringer turned to me and said [approximately], with a twinkle and a wry look (and I swear, without drawing a breath):
"MerryChristmasHappyHannukahHappySolsticeHappyRamadan
HappyNewYearHappyHolidaysHappyBuddha'sBirthday!"
I just smiled and said, "Thanks." LOL, after all that, I didn't have the heart to tell him that I'm an atheist!
Posted by: Kristine | December 30, 2008 5:36 PM
Most of the people on the thread seem to be assuming that the reason she gives for being fired is the actual, legitimate reason she was fired. In the interview with her former boss, he insists that this isn't the case but that she was instead fired for "gross misconduct," and "defiance." Defiance could mean just about anything, odds are good, judging from the interview, that means she pissed him off, the gross misconduct he wouldn't comment on but instead said evidence would be provided if it went to court.
Also, a heads up. One of the news sites for this story nailed me with a pretty good spyware/popup, it got through my firewall and virus software. Took me a little time to track down and kill the *&%$@$#(@ thing.
Posted by: dogmeatib | December 30, 2008 6:37 PM
So, Mr. Roberts, you would have no problem with someone wishing you a "Happy Holidays" then either, right?
So this woman, by making a big stink out of having to say Happy Holidays rather that Merry Christmas is being calm and rational against the hysterical attempt by the business to conduct its business as it sees fit? So she is being the reasonable one in the attempt by the business to greet all of its customers equally and not treat any of them as more special than the others are bigots? And so the decision of the company to unload a resource that is not performing as required is being alarmist leftist pinko commies, right?
Or maybe it is the religious person that has blown this all out of reasonable proportion.
To you, sir, I say "Happy Holidays!" If you are offended, that is your issue, not mine.
John B. Sandlin
Posted by: John B. Sandlin | December 30, 2008 9:15 PM
Soooo, saying "Merry Christmas" in order to enhance your company's position with prospective customers does *not* contribute to the secularization of Christmas.
Yeah, I got it. It's how Jesus would have answered the phone.
Posted by: itchy | December 30, 2008 10:09 PM
The religious right whines a lot more when people say to them "Happy Holidays" than lefties whine when peope say to them"Merry Christmas."
Posted by: daniel rotter | December 30, 2008 11:22 PM
I'm of two minds about this too. Normally I would support workers' rights vis-a-vis employers. And it has to be admitted that the hardship to the business of letting the woman use the greeting that the business itself finds appropriate 50 weeks out of the year is vanishingly small.
The argument against letting her say, Merry Christmas, is stronger, although the hardship to the business is still minuscule. Using no holiday greeting isn't going to have any negative effect on the business. Nobody is going to be offended at not hearing any seasonal greeting. Well, I take that back - godbots who imagine that there is a War on Christmas would take offence.
On the other hand, saying, Merry Christmas to customers could have a (modest) negative effect - annoying a segment of the business's customer base.
However it has to be admitted that people who don't like being wished Merry Christmas are so used hearing it anyway that they aren't likely to hold it against a business that is guilty of it. You can't boycott all businesses which allow or require their employees to say, Merry Christmas.
It also has to be admitted that we routinely accept and even demand accommodations that actually do impose a significant and measurable cost on an employer: special equipment for a disabled employee, time off for religious holidays (still an inconvenience for the employer, even if the time off is unpaid).
Perhaps there is a difference between accommodations that affect how a business presents itself to the public and those that don't, with a lesser degree of accommodation expected for the former. So there would be a difference between an employee whose religion required wearing particular clothing which violated a business's dress code vs. an employee wanting to wear religiously required clothing instead of or in addition to a company uniform.
On the other foot (I've run out of hands), this woman does indeed sound like an idiot and a troublemaker. And yes, she dreamed up this religious objection entirely on her own. It But I don't think we can refuse to accommodate her on the grounds that this belief is purely personal, and not official doctrine of whatever church she might belong to. I've heard the claim made that wearing a kirpan (by men) is not actually required by Sikhism (subtext: so there's no obligation to accommodate it). But ultimately, don't we have to accept that someone's religious beliefs are whatever they believe, not what some institution they might have some affiliation with thinks they ought to believe?
A final consideration (using my last foot), perhaps the extent to which the religious issue impinges on the nature of the job should be a factor in the balance. That would explain why we have no sympathy for a Hindu who wants to be accommodated at a job at a slaughterhouse or McDonald's. You can't accommodate someone who doesn't want to deal with dead cows at a slaughterhouse; it's impossible without fundamentally changing the nature of the job.
It isn't as clearcut, but it is arguable that answering the phone (in whatever way a business wants you to) is fundamental to the job of receptionist. And this woman should have known that when she applied for the job.
It does seem likely that the business will settle with this woman. They would undoubtedly get far more bad PR than good PR from fighting it.
Posted by: plum grenville | December 31, 2008 12:55 AM
It seems like the employer has a very easy out here.
If she claims it is part of her religious belief, ask her to back it up with the bible.
Simple, straightforward. She might have some luck if she combs through the catholic dogma, but I bet she's not catholic.....
Posted by: FastLane | December 31, 2008 1:24 AM
Dateline Orlando, FL: Jerry Falwell's Liberty Counsel, a nonprofit litigation, education and policy organization dedicated to advancing religious freedom, the sanctity of human life and the traditional family, has issued a scalding statement condemning the recent court victory by the ACLU involving a Muslim woman's right to wear a burka while performing as a stripper in a prominent exotic dance strip club. The ACLU won for the woman and now all Muslim strippers are free to wear the burka in performances. The Liberty Counsel decried the ACLU for "stripping a company's right to require their employees to do what they pay their employees to do; said a spokesperson for The LC "sweet Jesus, she accepted the job as an exotic stripper according to company policy, why should the company bend, what is capitalism anyway? this is just more liberal social engineering - again a poor and sad decision rendered!"
In a non-related case The LC issued a press release stating their intention to sue a company that refused to accommodate a receptionist who refused to greet callers as they the company specified; the LC has taken up the case claiming the company violated the receptionist's religious principles. The LC went on to defend their support by saying "although the greeting required was standard and not otherwise offensive, and although no major religion has prescribed authoritative proscriptions against the generic greeting, the woman must be accommodated because the woman has a personal relationship with Jesus and that fits the necessary model for religious necessities."
(end satire)
Posted by: ConcernedJoe | December 31, 2008 6:30 AM
"You have reached Counts Oakes Resort Properties. Your business is very important to us. Press 1 to be welcomed by 'Merry Christmas', 2 for 'Happy Hanukkah', 3 for 'Joyous Kwanzaa', 4 for 'Mirthful Solstice', or stay on the line for 'Happy Holidays' "
Posted by: Ex-drone | December 31, 2008 8:24 AM
[Musak version of 'Walking in a Winter Wonderland' cuts out suddenly. Clicks and thunks]
"Merry Me-mass, my name is Jesus how may I direct your call?..."
Now that's how Jesus would answer the phone, if he worked at Counts Oaks Resorts Propetries. :) -DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | December 31, 2008 9:10 AM
It always seems to be those _not_ in the minority who don't understand the problem. Am I, as a Jew, OFFENDED when I hear Merry Christmas? No, but only because I don't have time to be offended every moment of every day from Thanksgiving-January. It's just one more snub, one more "your celebration doesn't count", one more moment of thoughtlessness. This company realized it would be thoughtless, and took steps to amend it.
No one is "secularizing" Christmas. That woman is absolutely full of it. What she means is that her religion _does_ require her to push it on others every chance she gets, and she doesn't want to pass one up.
Oh--and as a kid, I used to cry because no one said Happy Chanukah, and because there were no Chanukah decorations. So, weigh that. Weigh if it's worth making children cry.
Posted by: Abby Spice | December 31, 2008 9:12 AM
What always amazes me is how someone can make a phrase to someone else all about himself or herself. It seems to me that it is equivalent to being offended when complete strangers don't wish me a happy birthday on my birthday. Its like a little sign clearly labeling them as self absorbed. I try to figure out which holiday someone celebrates before I wish him or her well, but on that same token I understand that is a bit unreasonable in a retail or otherwise customer focused setting to do so. So to me, happy holidays is the easy way to wish someone well while admitting that I don't have time or circumstance to get to know them better. It's not a bad thing, but its certainly not personal, if they respond with the holiday which they do celebrate, well then great I know a little more about that person and will re state my good wishes with a more personalized version.
Posted by: phiend | December 31, 2008 9:23 AM
I won't get over it. Christmas is against my religion, pure and simple. I preferably ignore people who offend me, and I usually boycott businesses that offend me. I absolutely do not care if you get it or do not get it.
Go screw yourself. If I were to make a public spectacle about my feelings here like Bill O, then yes, that makes sense.If they want to wish me a nice day, that would do the job too. But that's not what they wish on me, now is it? Sorry, they are wishing upon me something I want absolutely no part of.I once was standing in front of my synagogue mid-afternoon one December 25 many years ago. I look fully rabbinical with the oversized beard and all, and I live in a city where Jews are quite common. Along comes some bozo, the only other person out on the street at the time, who can't bother to notice where I was standing or what I look like. He wishes me a Merry Christmas as he passes. I completely ignore him. He continues to walk, and about two houses down, turns around and shouts back at me "Merry Christmas to me too!"
Now who was offended and who was the offended hyper-sensitive drama queen? What it boils down to is he really didn't care about my well-being. He was fishing for my joining him in his little merriment.
Of course not. You and your acquaitances are just so 100% part of the Christian/Christmas culture, and have internalized so much of it that you take it as normal and normative.As an example, you once posted about a Shabbos elevator request and rejection in an apartment building. Your headline called it bizarre. Where I come from, Shabbos elevators are thought of as normal and normative.
Posted by: william e emba | December 31, 2008 10:45 AM
phiend almost hit on the point I had in mind, but not quite, so I'm gonna say it.
When you wish someone "Merry Christmas", you are doing just that. If they celebrate Christmas, then you're saying "enjoy your holiday!" If they don't, then you're saying "enjoy MY holiday." It is, indeed, akin to a birthday greeting in that "happy birthday" is said to the celebrant, not by him to everyone else.
"Happy Holidays," though, is a catch-all phrase that says, "whatever you celebrate, even if it's just a couple of paid days off from work, I hope you enjoy it." It also isn't an announcement to customers that you value patrons of one particular stripe above all others - it's all about the money. Pointedly ignoring the feelings of people who celebrate every other commercialized holiday as you're about to go into the black is just stupid.
If you choose to work in a business that is about accommodating customers, you need to be prepared to compromise. As an employee, you don't get to call the shots. Someone with multiple tattoos and facial piercings and gauges in his ears will have a hard time suing a broadcast company for not hiring him as a TV newscaster. No judge would rule that a person whose religious garb was voluminous and drapey was wronged by a company that wouldn't let him work around dangerous moving machinery in those clothes. An actor who decided to do his own shtick in the middle of a performance would not be on stage for the next. The decisions about what's best for a business are made by the people who run it, not the people they hire.
I'm all for anti-discrimination in hiring, but when you agree to take a job, you have to do the job you're paid for, the way you're told to do it. If you're going to put conditions on it, right then and there you're giving the employer the option to either agree or find someone else to do your job. You weren't hired for your own benefit, but the company's. When you cease to benefit the company, there are few excuses why they should be forced to keep you on. "They won't let me say 'Merry Christmas'" isn't one of them.
Posted by: Alison | January 1, 2009 12:25 PM