Ruling restricts shunning practices

by nelly136 14 Replies latest jw friends

  • nelly136
    nelly136

    maybe the tide is turning.

    http://www.kentucky.com/mld/heraldleader/news/14403177.htm

    Ruling restricts shunning practices

    HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION

    Ruling restricts shunning practices

    Amish store ordered to serve ex-Amish

    By Bruce Schreiner
    ASSOCIATED PRESS

    LOUISVILLE - Kentucky's Commission on Human Rights ruled yesterday in favor of an ex-Amish woman who claimed she was discriminated against by an Amish thrift store owner who refused to serve her.

    Erma Troyer, the store owner in an Amish enclave at Cub Run in south-central Kentucky, was ordered to serve Ruth Irene Garrett or others who left the Amish way of life and are shunned by those in the faith.

    "It feels like a vindication, because I just don't see how it's right or how it's fair that they can do this," Garrett said by telephone.

    Meeting in Versailles, the commission also ordered Troyer to pay $100 to Garrett for embarrassment caused by the confrontation. Garrett, an author who lives near Glasgow, said she would donate the money to the Salvation Army.

    Troyer declined comment yesterday and referred questions to her attorney, who could not be reached last night. Troyer can appeal the commission's order to circuit court.

    Troyer used a religious freedom defense, arguing that her church's doctrine prevented her from taking money from those shunned by the Amish.

    Garrett, who has written about Amish life, contended that the refusal to serve her was a violation of Kentucky's Civil Rights Act for denial of service in a public place for religious reasons.

    "It was never about the money," Garrett said yesterday. "To me, I've won what I wanted to win. Now it's actually proved that she has to serve everyone, no matter what kind of religion you are."

    The case stemmed from an Oct. 15, 2003, confrontation at Troyer's Rocky Top Salvage store. Garrett attempted to purchase some groceries, but Troyer refused to ring up the items.

    She recognized Garrett from one of the books Garrett wrote about the Amish life she left. Garrett claimed that Troyer embarrassed her in front of other customers and took her complaint to the Human Rights Commission.

    Troyer had said she felt she did nothing wrong. She said that based on her church's doctrine, she risked being thrown out of the Amish faith and damned to an eternity in hell if she took money from the shunned. Troyer had said previously that she even offered to give Garrett the groceries for free.

    Garrett said yesterday that she expected to shop at Troyer's store.

    Although she left the Amish faith, she still cooks Amish-style and likes to shop at Amish stores to buy ingredients she can't find elsewhere.

    Emily Riggs Hartlage, a Human Rights Commission staff attorney, said the order could have a ripple effect for any others who were excommunicated from the Amish faith and are denied service at Amish shops.

    "I hope it empowers other shunned Amish people to assert their rights," she said in an interview.

  • Severus
    Severus

    Critical point:

    Garrett, who has written about Amish life, contended that the refusal to serve her was a violation of Kentucky's Civil Rights Act for denial of service in a public place for religious reasons.

    WT disfellowshipping procedure allows JWs to conduct necessary business with shunned members:

    Watchtower 1981 9/15 p. 24 par. 20 Disfellowshiping—How to View It

    Other problems arise in connection with business or employment. What if you were employed by a man who now was expelled by the congregation, or you employed a person to whom that happened? What then? If you were contractually or financially obliged to continue the business relationship for the present, you certainly would now have a different attitude toward the disfellowshiped individual. Discussion of business matters with him or contact on the job might be necessary, but spiritual discussions and social fellowship would be things of the past. In that way you could demonstrate your obedience to God and have a protective barrier for yourself. Also, this might impress on him how much his sin has cost him in various ways.—2 Cor. 6:14, 17.
  • nelly136
    nelly136

    ya i know what they say but sometimes theyre a little picky about what they practise.

    i'm wondering how many df'd pepes have lost business or money when jw's have ceased trading with them.

    its a tiny case but one day a little loophole may apear that could set a new precendent.

  • nelly136
    nelly136

    i think the borg is pretty well covered on the legal front, it might be that another religious organisation loses a case and opens a new door for some sort of victim compensation, it prolly wont be this one lol, but the armish prolly didnt expect to see their shunning policy messed with, as its part of their religious grounds.

  • greendawn
    greendawn

    I don't know how the Amish compare to the JWs but they seem to be very similar on the extreme shunning policy, I know they have some strange ideas like playing musical instruments and owning cars is a sin.

  • A Paduan
    A Paduan

    The borg 'll be fine - they'll have no problem bending or new lighting a rule if there's money involved

  • gumby
    gumby


    For some reason with me......many dubs continue to call me to do floor covering work when there are many others they could call. When we had our home built....I traded work with 2 different brothers....a painter and a roofer. How dubs shun depends on the dub, the dfed persons additude, the congregation/area they are in ( some are conservative and some are more liberal). This is the REASON we hear of different actions by them from others. The "unity" they claim to have have often times.... isn't unity.

    Gumunified

  • Stephanus
    Stephanus

    Whatever happened to the rights of business owners. Hasn't anyone ever seen those "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone" signs?

  • Konrad West
    Konrad West

    Stephanus, the problem with giving business owners absolute choice regarding who they serve is that it opens up the door to lots of discrimination. Should your local grocery store be able to refuse to serve blacks, or asians, or latinos? What about based on sexual preference? Or morals, such as refusing to serve people who live to together but aren't married?
    It's like freedom of speech; you can say anything you want, but you can't say "Fire!" in a crowded theatre. There are limits for good reasons.

  • gumby
    gumby
    Whatever happened to the rights of business owners. Hasn't anyone ever seen those "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone" signs?

    That's a good point Stephenus I think however this is a legal sign for an owner to use against unruly, non-paying, former stealers, and basically people who are pains in the arses. If it was done on racial or religious grounds, and if the offended wanted to take the trouble, they I imagine could fight it and win. Gumguessin

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit