Christian Journalist Files With EEOC, Fired For Sincerely Held Religious Beliefs on Traditional Marriage

Bob Eschliman

Bob Eschliman

Bob Eschliman was editor-in-chief for the Newton Daily News in Newton, Iowa, and is now taking his complaint against his former employer to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. ... Eschliman's attorney is Liberty Institute-allied lawyer and former federal prosecutor Mat Whitaker, who tells OneNewsNow the journalist was an "exemplary" employee. "He had won many awards as a journalist and by all accounts he had outstanding performance as an employee," says the attorney. Eschliman ran into a problem, though, after he wrote about his personal religious beliefs on his blog and expressed his belief in traditional marriage.
Eschliman's formal complaint to the EEOC includes this response to his firing:

"There is no question that I was fired for holding and talking about my sincerely held religious beliefs on my personal blog during my off-duty time from the comfort of my own home. There is no dispute that it was my personal blog and not connected to the newspaper. ... Shaw Media directly discriminated against me because of my religious beliefs and my identity as an evangelical Christian who believes in Holy Scripture and the Biblical view of marriage. Moreover, Shaw Media announced that not only were they firing me based upon my religious beliefs, but that they would not hire or allow anyone to work at Shaw Media who holds religious beliefs similar to mine, which would include an automatic denial of any accommodation of those who share my sincerely held religious beliefs."

Christian journalist files with EEOC over firing.

What will you hear from the homosexualists? They'll say that Bob Eschliman doesn't have a right to be editor-in-chief. They made the same claim concerning all the other people they've gone after. So-and-so has a right to his or her religious beliefs but not a right to this-or-that job/position.

The problem with that illogic is that it has no end. There is no line between one job or another where the right suddenly starts or stops. Bob Eschliman was editor-in-chief; but by the non-logic of the homosexualists, he could be hired as dog catcher or garbage collector and be fired for the same reason because he doesn't have a right to be dog catcher or garbage collector. Let them attempt to come up with a line that will work in all cases. It can't be done.

Regardless, the homosexualists are banging their heads against the free-exercise clause of the US Constitution. A person can't be free to exercise if he isn't also free to make a living on an equal footing with non-Christians or with homosexuals and their supporters.

The homosexualists will call "bigot," but they need to look in the mirror.

This is public policy versus public policy.

Bob Eschliman didn't write that all homosexuals should be rounded up and put to death. He wrote that he holds with traditional marriage, and he does so because he thinks that, that marriage is what's best for the whole of humanity and should be the only form of marriage.

Unless he has the right to that view, unless he has the right to air it, unless people are free to discuss such things and to hold differing opinions without being fired left and right from whatever positions, be it considered high or low, how is the democracy upon which the US Constitution was founded and is ostensibly designed to further to survive and thrive?

In this case and for secular positions, either you have a litmus test for being pro-homosexual or a litmus test for being Christian or no such litmus test at all. Under my reading of the US Constitution (which reading differs from that of a number of Supreme Court justices), neither the church of homosexuality nor any of its exclusive non-profit auxiliaries (hospitals, schools, orphanages, etc.) must hire or retain traditional-marriage Christians.

None of this is to say that I agree with the US Constitution. Frankly, I think it's pathetic; but most people in positions of power aren't having that argument yet. They will. Until then, I have said above what should hold for Bob Eschliman right now under the current US Constitution.

See also:

J.P.Morgan Chase allegedly asks: "Are you...An ally of the LGBT community"

The slippery slope is very, very real: "Legalize polygamy: Marriage equality for all"


The following should appear at the end of every post:

According to the IRS, "Know the law: Avoid political campaign intervention":

Tax-exempt section 501(c)(3) organizations like churches, universities, and hospitals must follow the law regarding political campaigns. Unfortunately, some don't know the law.

Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are prohibited from participating in any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. The prohibition applies to campaigns at the federal, state and local level.

Violation of this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes. Section 501(c)(3) private foundations are subject to additional restrictions.

Political Campaign Intervention

Political campaign intervention includes any activities that favor or oppose one or more candidates for public office. The prohibition extends beyond candidate endorsements.

Contributions to political campaign funds, public statements of support or opposition (verbal or written) made by or on behalf of an organization, and the distribution of materials prepared by others that support or oppose any candidate for public office all violate the prohibition on political campaign intervention.

Factors in determining whether a communication results in political campaign intervention include the following:

  • Whether the statement identifies one or more candidates for a given public office
  • Whether the statement expresses approval or disapproval of one or more candidates' positions and/or actions
  • Whether the statement is delivered close in time to the election
  • Whether the statement makes reference to voting or an election
  • Whether the issue addressed distinguishes candidates for a given office

Many religious organizations believe, as we do, that the above constitutes a violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

That said, we make the following absolutely clear here:

  • The Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project not only do not endorse any candidate for any secular office, we say that Christianity forbids voting in such elections.
  • Furthermore, when we discuss any public-office holder's position, policy, action or inaction, we definitely are not encouraging anyone to vote for that office holder's position.
  • We are not trying to influence secular elections but rather want people to come out from that entire fallen system.
  • When we analyze or discuss what is termed "public policy," we do it entirely from a theological standpoint with an eye to educating professing Christians and those to whom we are openly always proselytizing to convert to authentic Christianity.
  • It is impossible for us to fully evangelize and proselytize without directly discussing the pros and cons of public policy and the positions of secular-office holders, hence the unconstitutionality of the IRS code on the matter.
  • We are not rich and wouldn't be looking for a fight regardless. What we cannot do is compromise our faith (which seeks to harm nobody, quite the contrary).
  • We render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. We render unto God what is God's.
  • When Caesar says to us that unless we shut up about the unrighteousness of Caesar's policies and practices, we will lose the ability of people who donate to us to declare their donations as deductions on their federal and state income-tax returns, we say to Caesar that we cannot shut up while exercising our religion in a very reasonable way.
  • We consider the IRS code on this matter as deliberate economic duress (a form of coercion) and a direct attempt by the federal government to censor dissenting, free political and religious speech.
  • It's not freedom of religion if they tax it.

And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute? He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers? Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free. (Matthew 17:24-26)

  • Subscribe

  • Tom Usher

    About Tom Usher

    Employment: 2008 – present, website developer and writer. 2015 – present, insurance broker.

    Education: Arizona State University, Bachelor of Science in Political Science. City University of Seattle, graduate studies in Public Administration.

    Volunteerism: 2007 – present, president of the Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project.

    This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.