In any case, Dave would appear to have nailed it; even if you (CIP) are right about the nature of the law (that religious expression trumps all, including the commensense idea that an employer ought to be able to fire employees that harm that employer’s business), there appears to be something of a logical trap there for Gonzales.

There are a couple of problems with your argument. First, denial of tenure is not a decision to fire someone. It is a decision not to hire them for a permanent job. This makes it much harder to win a lawsuit.

Second, the very essence of “Intelligent Design” would seem to defeat any attempt to make a religious discrimination claim. If Gonzalez were to claim that he rejects evolution based on his religious beliefs, but that this doesn’t interfere with his astronomy, then he might be able to claim religious discrimination. But, “Intelligent Design” claims to be a scientific theory, so the tenure decision could be based on his poor scientific judgement in accepting ID. So, in order to make his claim, Gonzalez would have to deny the central fraud behind ID. This seems unlikely.

Are you sure about that? Suppose I work at Bob’s Auto Repair. I put in my hours, then right after I’m off the clock, I stand on the street outside the shop, on public property, and I start handing out flyers that say, “Bob is pro-choice! Boycott Bob’s, or Jesus will see to it that you burn in hell forever!” I am not a lawyer, but it seems to me that Bob ought to be able to fire me.

I suggest you review your understanding of US law. Religious activity is protected speech, and if you aren’t advocating or doing something criminal, the State of Iowa can’t legally take any job action against you for it. This is all spelled out very clearly in Civil Rights case law and the statutes.

He can’t use his classroom to proseletyze, but what he does on his own time, if of a religious character, cannot (legally) be used against him any more than his race, sex or ethnicity could be.

If it is chock full of supernatural assumptions and completely untestable (even in principle), then, yes, his positions is anti-science. And it would be wrong to grant him tenure in a pro-science department.

And completely illegal not to grant him tenure on that basis.

If it is chock full of supernatural assumptions and completely untestable (even in principle), then, yes, his positions is anti-science. And it would be wrong to grant him tenure in a pro-science department.