I’m so glad to see another hypothetical. This one is particularly interesting to me as I worked as a service advisor at several car dealerships and was fired from one dealership because the new service manager said he “would not have a woman in his service drive.” Lucky for me he said this in front of witnesses so I took him to the EEOC, and the dealership had to pay me some money and (the best part) had their hiring practices audited annually for the next five years.
So, of course I think Samuel is wrong in what he does, hiring-wise. However, if I were Shannon I would not testify against him. No one said I had to be consistent.
You wrote, “…but when she made an advance she rebuffed it as inappropirate.” I assume you meant he rebuffed it.
Shannon should not tell the lawyer about the letter, agree to testify or help the lawsuit in any way unless she’s subpoenaed (in which case she should scrupulously tell the truth when she’s under oath). Samuel was a big help to her when she needed it most, and she owes him at least this much. His discrimination against non-Pentecostals is wrong but she should leave it to others to fight that battle.
I would not hesitate to testify. In fact, I’d probably have a smouldering suspicion that everything he’d ever done for me was done with the hope of getting me to church somehow. I think, whatever our past, I would have ended my friendship with him when he refused to promote me; quit; and tried to find a sales job on my own. Then I would have paid him back the money he’d spent on the hospital, and if he refused to accept it, I would have sent it to a Jewish or secular charity in his name (maybe 1/2 to Mazon, and 1/2 to Planned Parenthood-- I’m sure he’d relish the thank you cards).
On the other hand, he’s perfectly willing to risk life and life helping complete strangers who are being violently assaulted, pay that stranger’s medical bill, give that no-longer stranger a place to live and help her becoming independent, assist her in becoming sober, and decline any payment, sexual or otherwise. Which should count for something.
I’m not arguing that Samuel’s heroism and generosity should protect him from the law. Hopefully he’ll lose the lawsuit and be forced to hire non-Xtoams. But I don’t think that Shannon should pay a role in it. He’s been too good to her . Personal loyalty should trump social obligation.
How are you going to repay him for rescuing her from murder, or at least a violent assault?
The OP makes no mention of Samuel ever trying to pressure Shannon into going to his or any other church. His only witnessing is by example. He believes Christians should help others even at danger and expense to themselves and not expect repayment or try to exploit the gratitude of those they have helped’ he shows he believes this by doing it.
Why do you think Shannon was ENTITLED to a sales job? She had no experience in the field; all the training she had gotten was the result of Samuel’s generoisity. Snd, frankly, inb Samuel’s case I would have hesitated to hire her for that position too. Not because of the difference of religion, but because as her friend-not working -someone concerned about her well-being on a personal level–I would think she would be better off getting pushed out of the nest. She’s already made a pass at him; she may well have beenin love with him, or thought herself in love with him, wjat with the dramatic entrance, monetary gift, shelter, employment, and tutelage. He clearly wasn’t trying to get her pants off; he clearly didn’t make her religion a condition of overall employment, just a condition of employment for the sales job. He didn’t make religion an issue about social engagements. She still considers him a friend. I just can’t see betraying his friendship. And I write that as someone who once lost a job because of my agnosticism.
I’m faintly impresed that you picked up on the fact that Samuel only hires (or tries to only hire) Pentecostal Christians. And probably only those devout enough to mention their church on their social media pages, as presumably he doesn’t ask the forbidden questions during job interviews (if he did, the lawyer wouldn’t have had to seek out someone who left his employ almost a decade earlier and still considers him a friend).
Generally with these Skald hypotheticals I find myself walking the path of legalistic righteousness, but in this case I had no problem making the call that I would not testify or divulge the letter.
Then, when I replaced religion with race, I find myself much more uncomfortable. But I still didn’t mentally testify.
Shannon should testify, assuming she believes Samuel is wrong to do as he does.
I am not a Christian, nor even religious, but I was raised as such, and I’m pretty familiar with the way the moral framework works.
Under this framework, one does not do the “right thing” in the expectation of repayment, or reciprocation - that makes one a mercenary, not a good person. One most certainly does not do the right thing in the expectation that the beneficiary will forever thereafter be loyal to you. One does the right thing because it’s the right thing and that’s what one does, period, full stop. And one has a responsibility to continue to holding oneself to the highest ethical and moral standards, no matter what good one has done in the past.
Shannon would be insulting Samuel by assuming that his good deeds came with an expectation that she ignore what I view to be unethical behavior on his behalf. I genuinely believe he would be disappointed in Shannon if she violated her own moral code in an effort to repay his Christian charity, freely given.
All of this changes if Shannon herself does not believe that Samuel is morally or ethically wrong to do as he does, in which case she should not testify. But the best way to honor and respect Samuel’s charity is to assume it came without conditions.
I’m sure the point of the letter is to establish a pattern. If Shannon were suing Samuel it would be more relevant, but the letter and her testimony show that Samuel makes at least some hiring decisions based on religion.
I’m not a Christian either, and I’m reflexively suspicious of the Penteostal variety. But in Shannon’s place I would not testify unless forced, and I’d never give anybody that letter. which would have been burned as soon as I got home that night My choice would have nothing to do with Samuel’s morals; it would be because of my ethics. I value loyalty to my friends. That’s not absolute; if Samuel were accused of a criminal act that I had witnessed, I would testify. But this is does not reach that lev
Speaking more generally, there are pragmatic reasons for Shannon to resist testifying. Someone upthread said that loyalty is not a moral virtue. I think that is bullshit, but even if I’m wrong about that, loyalty is certain a PRACTICAL one. If you’re not loyal to anyone, no one will be loyal to you. If you’re disloyal to someone who has done you a major solid, people who know about it are unlikely to trust you. Retail auto sales in a city the size of Nashville is a small community; assuming Samuel lives in Nashville, he is probably fairly well known. Shannon’s bosses and their competitors will be following this case. If she testifies (and in the course of that testimony, her history may well come out), she’ll get a reputation as being ungrateful and untrustworthy. She’s not going to get promoted past new car sales manager (read: to general sales manager or general manager) n that city. And her employees are not going to trust her much either.
Sy
He saved her life (or at least rescued her from a brutal assault) sevem years ago, which is a mite shy of forever. At any rate, saving her life (your description, not mine) is a huge thing. How much is YOUR life worth? You don’t think seven additional years of breathing oxygen (not to mention the monetary gift, keeping her from being homeless, and giving her a job when he had every reason to think she would be unreliable) is worth more than her obligation to help an unknown person win a lawsuit?
Please don’t take this as insulting; I don’t mean it to be–but you’re reminding me of some of the people in an old thread of mine, about how nog a reward they’d give a person who sav ed their lives in a snowstorm and was in dire need of help, who said, “Nothing, I didn’t ask the person for help.”
The people who say they’re loyal seem to be missing the fact that you’re leaving him exposed to extreme temptation to commit a mortal sin. I feel that I must turn the letter in to stop him from committing a terrible violation of his religion’s dictates. If there’s no hard evidence, he’s going to go on the stand and have an extreme temptation to lie under oath about his a pentacostal-only hiring policy, and swearing a false oath is a major sin. It’s only right that I help save him from making a major mistake of violating one of the tenants of his religion. Bricker may feel sure that he won’t succumb to temptation, but there are too many religious people who’s convictions go right out the window the moment they’re put to the test, and I don’t want him to have to live with that.
I don’t see it as helping some unknown person over the guy that did this nice thing for me. I see it as a moral obligation to help my community. Which, as I said before, far outweighs my obligations to him.
ETA: Also, does it matter what form Samuel’s discrimination took? Often persons making such distinctions as he did will never advertise job openings in a general fashion, but say, recruit in a friendly environment. If Samuel is a member of a mega-church, he could easily recruit new salespersons by putting out feelers in a chruch bulletin, so that the vast, vast majority of applicants would be of that faith. That is not the same, it seems to me, as advertising on Craigslist or the newspaper or other such general interest publication.
I was not entirely sure how I felt, until I saw this line.
I disagree entirely. Personal loyalty trumping social obligation is how conspiracies start. That’s how crimes are covered up. That’s why police are willing to lie for each other to cover up cases of abuse.
In this case, you have extreme personal loyalty, and what is perceived to be fairly weak social harm, so I can see the temptation to just let it go. And I would not fault those who did. I don’t even know that I would testify against him were I to find myself in that situation.
But in the end, she should testify and give up the letter. What if this person who is suing was harmed greatly by the discrimination. What if there have been numerous people harmed by the discrimination. I assume that if he only has evangelical christian sales people, then evangelical christian consumers get a better deal on cars, even if that is not his policy, adding a whole new level of discrimination.
No, discrimination is illegal for a good reason. It causes real harm to people and the community. I can see feeling obligated to cover for him, but it would not be the right thing to do.
K9BFRIENDER, when I say personal loyalty trumps social obligations, I’m not talking about covering up crimes or engaging in criminal conspiracies. I mean that I care more about people I have a personal connection to than I do about strangers. If I have to choose between giving money to a friend in need and giving the same sumto St. Jude’s Children Research Hospital, my friend gets it. If I’ve promised to pick a friend up from the airport, but my baby sister needs my help in a way that conflicts, I help my sister (though not without giving the friend needing a ride a head’s up).
If the case against Samuel has merit, it can likely proceed without Shannon. She wasn’t harmed by her association with him’ she profited enormously, not least of which because she didn’t bleed to death in an alley. I’m not suggesting that Shannon assist Samuel in his discriminatory behavior. I’m saying she should not assist in hurting him because of his enormous service to her.
And to repeat a question I asked upthread which no one seems to ha have responded to: if Shannon is publicly disloyal to a man who was as good to her as Samuel was, whu will anyone else ever be loyal to or trusting of her in the future?
In this case, you are talking about covering up crimes (discrimination is a crime), and engaging in criminal conspiracies (he only hires evangelical Christians as sales people, unless they never speak about how great it is that there aren’t any heathens representing their establishment, and make sure everyone gets a great deal on their used car, even if they are Satan worshiping scum.)
These may not seem like really big crimes, but they certainly break the law. And those laws were put there for a good reason.
I care more about people with whom I have a personal connection to as well than I do to strangers, but there is a difference between helping your friends at your own cost, and helping your friends at the cost of someone else.
You say “if the case has merit”, I thought the entire point of the hypothetical was that it did in fact have merit, it was just difficult to prove, and whether or not she decided to participate would largely be the deciding factor in whether or not it went forward.
As far as whether or not others would expect loyalty or trust in the future, they have nothing to fear if they aren’t breaking laws and acting in an unethical fashion. Human nature being what it is, I am sure many would hold it against her even though it would not be rational to do so, so she would have to weigh her interests there.
Like I said, I would understand if she didn’t testify. I might have a hard time making that choice myself. Your question in the OP though (albeit in the text, the title has a different question), was should she testify, and to that I say, absolutely, yes.