Funeral Services Issues

The occupation of funeral service has many facets, including but not limited to caregiving, understanding, tolerance, and most importantly providing a service as a pillar of the community. As such, it is the responsibility of the funeral director to strive to exhibit these characteristics not only in the process of their work, but in their everyday lives. Like most things that require strong mental fortitude however, that task is easier said than done – especially when the imperfections of the American justice system interfere in the decision making process. A perfect example of this, of a funeral director failing to meet his duty and the justice system failing to right that wrong, can be seen in the story of Aimee Stephens, a transgender woman
That being said both parties do have solid ground to stand on, so in order to discern whether the final ruling was right or wrong, careful analyzation of the facts which resulted in the ruling must be made. First to be analyzed is the argument of the defense and why the ruling may be in the right; Thomas Rost and R.G. & G.R. Funeral Homes Inc.’s claim of religious liberty infringement. The basis of Rost’s defense hinged on the association representing him, the Alliance Defending Freedom (Moyer, 2016) (the organization’s webpage describes the group as “advocates for the right for all people to freely live out their faith”) and their utilization of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. The purpose of this act is to ensure the protection of individuals who truly believe that they are behaving as their religion requires. Essentially, Rost contested that Ms. Stephen’s continued employment would not only violate what he held to be the norm, but also that her termination would be required in order for him to live up to the obligations imposed by his faith. In addition to this admittedly strong defense, Rost and his representation also had the benefit of a technicality present in the argument put forth by the plaintiff: The Equal Employment Opportunity Act does not cover transgender individuals under its purview. This singular factor made it very hard for Rost to lose this case considering the federal court would have had to either make a historical change or simply follow the rule as it was