Georgia Requests Sermon Transcripts

[Gregory Matthews]

See:

http://atoday.org/state-of-georgia-demands-adventist-lay-pastor-turn-over-sermon-transcripts/

NOTE:  This is in regard to a lay person who is employed by Georgia, and does lay preaching.

[debbym]

 from the Daily signal http://dailysignal.com/2016/10/26/the-reason-this-pastor-isnt-handing-over-his-sermon-transcripts-to-the-government/

Georgia Department of Public Health spokeswoman Nancy Nydam said Walsh’s religious beliefs “had nothing to do with the decision to withdraw the [job] offer.” In an email to The Daily Signal, Nydam wrote:

"During the background check process, DPH learned Dr. Walsh failed to disclose outside employment to his previous public health employer, which also was in violation of California law. Due to violation of both California state law and DPH policy, the offer to Dr. Walsh was rescinded. During his interview, Dr. Walsh disclosed his religious beliefs to DPH staff and indicated that he preached at his church in California. Dr. Walsh’s religious beliefs had nothing to do with the decision to withdraw the offer."

so it does not make sense this is being turned into a conflict over the sermons or the preaching of this man.

[Gregory Matthews]

Debbym:  There seem to be several aspects to this case and  it seems to be   much more complex that it appears to be on the surface.

One aspect, as I understand it, is as you have stated. But, I doubt that such is the only aspect.

Frankly, I have not made up my mind on this case.  It is clearly much more than just sermons and preaching.  The fact that he is a lay preached who is employed by the Georga complicates it.

The direction that I am going is that this is NOT primarily a religious liberty case.   But, I am not fully there yet.

I want to know more as to how his publicly expressed (in his sermons and anywhere else) views on homosexuality have complicated his ability to perform the requirements of his job.

As a VA Chaplain, I was allowed to abide by the requirements of the SDA denomination and my own conscience.  So, when a couple formally complained that I would not marry them, their complaint went away simply by my statement that I had held them to the same standard that I applied to everyone else asking me to perform their marriage.

But, on another occasion, a homosexual male was sitting in my office.  He told me that he was being in the process of being fired from his position.  Then he went on to say that this was the first time in his life that he had ever come to a clergy person for help.  But, he had been told that if he needed help in this aspect of his life, I was the best person to come to.  I investigated and discovered that the problem lay with a clinical medical condition that he had.  I informed management of this aspect and that they were in violation of Federal law to seek to fire him and I would take his case to a Federal Administrative Law judge.  They came back to me and told me that he was eligible for retirement and had never had any disciplinary action against him in the past.  So, if he would pur in for voluntary retirement, they would stop all disciplinary action against him and he could retire with a clean record.  He agreed and was kept on the payroll until his retirement became effective.  NOTE:  IOW, I treated him exactly as I would have treated anyone else.

NOTE:  While the above occurred in a hospital.  Under Federal law management could not access his clinical records.  So, they did not know of his medical condition until I informed them.  As a clinician I had access to his records.  But, I had to obtain  his permission to discuss his condition with management.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[rudywoofs (Pam)]

14 minutes ago, Gregory Matthews said:

a homosexual male was sitting in my office.  He told me that he was being in the process of being fired from his position.  Then he went on to say that this was the first time in his life that he had ever come to a clergy person for help.  But, he had been told that if he needed help in this aspect of his life, I was the best person to come to.  I investigated and discovered that the problem lay with a clinical medical condition that he had.  I informed management of this aspect and that they were in violation of Federal law to seek to fire him and I would take his case to a Federal Administrative Law judge.  They came back to me and told me that he was eligible for retirement and had never had any disciplinary action against him in the past.  So, if he would put in for voluntary retirement, they would stop all disciplinary action against him and he could retire with a clean record.  He agreed and was kept on the payroll until his retirement became effective.  NOTE:  IOW, I treated him exactly as I would have treated anyone else.

Gregory, this is interesting.  Was the man's medical problem causing an issue that led the supervisors to seek his termination?  IOW, was a "hidden" medical condition used as the reason *not* to terminate him?

[Gregory Matthews]

Pam, yes to both of your questions.

The man was going blind.  His changing eyesight affected his position which required excellent eyesight.  Emotionally he was not prepared to accept the fact that he was going blind. 

I alerted management that he was going blind and therefore he was covered by the Americans With Disability Act.

In addition, I had to work with him to accept that he was slowly going blind and therefore it was in his best interests to retire while he still retained some eyesight and could enjoy his retirement.

This solution was a win for everyone.

NOTE:  Following my retirement the hospital Director met with a NAD official and discussed my involvement with her on behalf of employees.  She stated that she had found me to be honest and willing to work for a resolution in which everyone came away a winner.   She spoke with experience as I had often taken the termination cases, which she typically handled herself.